|
Post by Michael West on Aug 5, 2006 18:51:06 GMT -5
Directed by: Neil Marshall Written by: Neil Marshall Starring: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, MyAnna Buring, and Nora-Jane Noone "Don't believe the hype." That's what I keep telling myself. But when you hear people talk about how great something is over and over again, it's hard not to build it up in your mind. All too often, I've gone into a theater psyched, ready to see the greatest film in the history of cinema, only to leave my seat in a disappointed funk when the closing credits finally rolled. So last year, when I first heard people from England filling message boards with gushy praise for a little horror film called The Descent, I was more than a bit skeptical. I mean, the movie couldn't possibly be that good...could it? After more than a year, I've had a chance to see the film myself, and I have to tell you...it was well worth the wait. I must urge you to avoid any and all spoilers. The movie is best experienced as an uncharted cavern, never knowing what new twist or turn lurks just around the next bend. Without giving too much away, here are the basics: Ego-centric Juno (Natalie Mendoza), looking for a thrill, convinces five friends to join her on a spelunking mission in the Appalachian mountains. Disaster soon strikes, however, leaving the women trapped without hope of rescue, surrounded on all sides by darkness...and blind, albino, bat-faced killing machines. Writer/Director Neil Marshall and his crew have crafted a thriller in the truest sense of the word. The film takes its time getting started, beginning on the surface--introducing us to the women, letting us get to know their characters. Then, as they climb deeper and deeper into the earth, the shots get tighter and tighter, creating a palpable sense of claustrophobia. Editing then adds a feeling of disorientation to the mix, giving us quick flashes of light and movement (this proves especially effective for a chilling scene involving a pick-ax). And by filming his humanoid creatures moving in ways normal human beings can't, Marshall makes them all the more frightening and unpredictable. In this dark and musty era, where every horror movie that makes its way to the multiplex seems to be either an unnecessary remake of an American classic or an English language version of a far superior Japanese movie, The Descent is a welcomed blast of fresh air. Lionsgate, the studio that released Hostel and the Saw films, deserves major kudos for finally bringing Marshall's frightfest to the United States. That said, I have a bone to pick with them on the decision to alter the film's original ending. One minute was trimmed, and an alternate shot inserted, giving us Yanks an ending that is supposedly less bleak than the original. What we are left with is a final note that seems cheap when compared to the uncompromising film that precedes it. Now we have to wait until a U.S. DVD release to watch the terrifying finale the rest of the world has already seen. Let's just hope it doesn't take another year. 4.5 out of 5 stars.
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 6, 2006 5:01:16 GMT -5
I must urge you to avoid any and all spoilers. . . Disaster soon strikes, however, leaving the women trapped without hope of rescue, surrounded on all sides by darkness... I think that what follows the word "darkness" in your review, and your third posted picture, qualify as spoilers. Quick, Mike, before anybody reads this! Expunge them! ExPUNGE themmmm! (read aloud with rasp in the voice) I saw this movie while sitting next to Mike, and I have a different perspective on it. CAVEAT 1: Now anyone who has read my posts knows that I am no horror apologist, not even a horror fan, really. I love movies, good ones, and when horror movies are good movies, I like them, but I'm not part of any horror culture. I don't psyche myself up for the next great shockfilm. I don't quail at the shackles of the PG-13 imposition. Splatter isn't scary anymore, and it hasn't been for years, so I would rather applaud those willing and able to make a genuinely scary film without the obligatory viscera. It's common, almost pedestrian by now, and even comical at times. That rose lost its blush long ago. Most of horror's roses have for me, frankly. So know that about me if you go on, and that I won't spoil enything. CAVEAT 2: I missed an entire subpoint to the movie, one which factored into what some of the characters do with each other. See, I run the theater where we saw the movie, and I took a few trips out to get the sound right. This film should be immersive, and I wanted it to seem that way for everyone, which means it can't sound like the TV at your mom's house, which you can hear only if you pay direct attention to it. It needs to be loud - not to shock with stingers, but to immerse, to surround. It's a cave movie, after all. So I missed a few pivotal lines of dialogue, which would have made some of the events in the movie easier to swallow, and the original inswallowability had an overall impact on my reactions in general. So yeah. Oh, and I hated the final shot too, which I would have lumped in with this issue as one problem, but that shot isn't the original ending, so I dismiss it. First what's right about the film. 1 - It's basic. John Carpenter's Halloween's simplicity, in just being about a masked guy with a knife, chasing girls, makes it sort of pure and classic. The opening bits with little Michael and his sister don't really answer any questions someone might ask so much as prevent us from needing to ask them, so we'll just accept what's going on without this little voice in our brains nagging, "No, really, what's this guy got against Laurie? I mean, he really seems to want her dead."** He's just evil. All we need. The same kind of thing happens here. It's a bunch of ladies trapped in a cave with some danger, and we get to see that play out. No "What makes this cave special?" or "Why wouldn't wall X have crumbled in before?" - it's a CAVE! That's all we need. Good move. 2 - The characters. They're fine. I suppose you could sort them out by expected type if you deliberately thought about it - the brash one, the quiet one, the edgy one - but you'd really have to do that on purpose. The film doesn't have characters who are just those things, or call such standard types to mind. Even if the script started with them in this form, it was clearly developed, and the performances were nuanced enough to build them into something other than living type standees. 3. CINEMATOGRAPHY - by which I mainly mean shot composition. In addition to being generally pretty nice, it also occurred to me early that in Cinemascope (1:2.35) height is pretty hard to convey, and a sense of height even harder. I wondered if they would be able to do it, and they did, quite well. You'll see it when they initially drop down. I learned something about shooting while watching this. WHAT'S MY BEEF? Action. There are active moments in this picture, and most of them were screwed up by what has become a commonplace Directorial Choice, and one that needs to go, except in those rare instances where the director knows what he's doing, and plans it well. I'll call it the BB phenomenon, for Batman Begins, which was somewhat notorious for it. Last year's Batman was as solid as anyone paying attention should expect Chris Nolan's movies to be... except when there was a fight. Anytime man to man combat occurred, the camera was suddenly liberated from its perch atop tripod or crane, and handed off to some off-balance 8 year old or clown* standing on a Sit N' Spin, who couldn't keep the camera stable, or the actionlet of a given shot in the viewfinder, who deliberately jerked the image around. Said youth or party entertainer appeared to be in cahoots with the editor, who deliberately cut out any connecting actions or shots with useful information when seen at any speed. In short, once a fight began in Batman Begins, you had to wait until the scene was over to find out what happened, because all you were going to get was a mess (and I do mean mess - in every way) of punch sounds and messy shots. It was as if we were the observers of the fight, but our heads were flipping around like the demons' in Jacob's Ladder. I would say that the editing resembles that early 90's MTV Edit Dance, style where people who couldn't actually dance were shot doing one move at a time (usually a jump with a twist at the hip before landing), and then those shots were cut into whole numbers - but the thing is, those at least felt like actual dances. They were cut to the music. Conversely, the BB effect rendered the fight scenes in Batman completely unintelligible. They didn't have any build, any sense of progress, or even any "feel". I might as well have just watched 30 seconds of a kaleidoscope. Now has this ever worked? Sure. The goal of this technique is to convey chaos and confusion, and actually IN Batman Begins it worked in one scene where he attacked some guys on a dock - it was from their perspective, and played spooky. It worked in Saving Private Ryan, but not in Pearl Harbor (which was trying to do the exact same thing), because every image had information in it, rather than avoiding the information. It worked in Moulin Rouge, in the very few times it was used, because it was intelligibly set to music. When hasn't it worked? The many inserts in the grand battle scenes in Braveheart, and similar (though fewer) inserts in the Lord of the Rings movies, ...apparently in all of The Bourne Supremacy (I haven't seen it, but I have heard this from many people). 97% of the times it is used, this technique is worthless. It's a bad choice generally, because it doesn't actually do what it's intended to do - put us in the characters' shoes. The theory is that if one was in a fight, or being attacked, it would be confusing, so shoot it confusing, because confusing the audience will connect them with a confused in the moment character. One reason it doesn't work is that if your technique almost forces a viewer out of the film, to stop "being in the movie", and think about the film AS a film, then you're disconnecting us while trying to do the opposite. Also, in an actual fight, we'll get a rush of both adrenalyn and awareness. Our sense and senses are sharpened, not dampened. You want to shoot the initial punch this way? Go ahead, but if you want to follow through with the fight, once that punch has been struck, you don't get to do this anymore. After that both fighters are sharp and focused. Now the reason it's such a bad choice in Batman is that that film was about a very human Bruce Wayne. Unlikie the more stylized films, in this one, I kind of wondered how he would handle taking his first real punches. What happens in the fights is important beyond the mere fact that they happened, but the BB effect leaves us with nothing other than the mere fact of a fight. We can't follow it, in effect we can't even feel it. It loses even that intuitive sense that some impressionistic filmmaking can give us. You just kind of have to sit and wait for the moment to end, so you can see what happened once the camera pops back into Nolan's hands. Descent has the same issue. There are action moments in this movie, and they're given the BB treatment. An excuse could be that it's dark in the cave - well then shoot it that way. Film it so that we can't see exactly what's happening becuse it's dark, not because your camera just got happy feet. That might actually be scary! Other times these women see things in this cave, we see them - we see what they see, and it's spooky because we got to see what spooked them, not because the camera whipped around and made some gimicky shockmoves to convey generic scaryness. I feel that this has become one technique of the many in a director's bag of tricks, and that it has become a lazy one. You don't have to stage a fight if you do it this way. It's known that a viewing audience will tolerate it, and there's a visceral appeal to image flashing, so they'll trick themselves into thinking they saw the event, even if they didn't. Hell, it worked in Psycho, right? Well, I'm over it. It's a cop out. That choice now has to be earned. Spielberg earned it, used it to enhance, rather than gloss over, the events surrounding Tom Hanks in the D-Day attack. Mr. Marshall didn't. Because of this choice, his movie ultimately bored me. I'm glad Mike liked it. At least he seemed to. Mike did just a little of the jumping that I did 20 years and 3 weeks ago when we saw ALIENS, sitting in the same configuration. I jumped over 40 times. I battered Mike. Inadvertantly, I mean, I wasn't punishing him for the experience. (In fact, it's the very last time I remember driving home from a film, chatting incessantly like excited children about what we'd just seen.) I'm glad most people like it, and odds are, if you're int'rested enough in this movie to read Mike's review, and then this, you're going to like it too. I'm not one of those who needs people to like what I like, and dislike what I don't respect. I'm pleased for people enjoy who country music, even though I'm certain that I never will. My loss. The more you like, the happier you are. My only regret is that the pervasive good reviews will reward this technique, and it will become more prevalent, because, I'm telling you, it has to be easy to do these scenes this way. So hopefully you'll see it, knowing this, and when it happens it won't be nearly as bad for you as I'm making it out to be, and you'll like the movie. Or maybe you'll be like a friend who argued that all of the fights in Batman Begins worked, but after he and I debated, he went back, and dissapointingly agreed that only in that one dock scene was it really effective, and otherwise it was just so much muddlement, hance he liked the film less. If that kind of thing happens, then this has not done its job. Go have fun. * Clowns are evil. They secretly have bitter frowns behind those painted smiles, and they apparently drive around on the moons of Saturn when off duty, in groups. It probably was the clowns. A child would try harder to do a good job. ** This is one of the reasons why Halloween II seems to cheapen the first one, in some folks' eyes. It exists to create an answer to a question we're either not asking, or are satisfied to ponder ourselves. This same phenomenon exists with Poltergeist. First one? Ghosts. Why? "Who knows, they're ghosts! Ever try and reason with one? Whadaya mean 'why' ?" Then #2 gives us a backstory for the ghosts, like that'll make them more int'resting... ayahhhh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 7, 2006 7:32:35 GMT -5
Nice write-up, Dave. ;D I'm sorry you did not enjoy the film as much as Stace and I did. The only time the quick editing bothered me was when someone was hanging from the ceiling. The camera began to pan and I thought we would get one, continuous shot. Other than that, I was fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 8, 2006 1:33:11 GMT -5
Nice write-up, Dave. semicolon d Thanks, man. I'm sorry you did not enjoy the film as much as Stace and I did. Me too. Always happier to enjoy stuff. The only time the quick editing bothered me was when someone was hanging from the ceiling. The camera began to pan and I thought we would get one, continuous shot. Other than that, I was fine with it. semicolon close parenthesis I remember that moment as well. It wasn't due to hyper-rapid shooting/editing, but rather a slightly confusing, moving camera angle cut to another slightly confusing, moving camera angle - same problem though, ultimately. I might have liked it if I could have seen it all. You're still spoiling some things, I think! is greater than close bracket
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 11, 2006 2:33:20 GMT -5
having been the 3rd part of the equation, on this one, i am going to strongly agree with mike. i loved this movie...i do so unreservedly...so much that i ctually bought a region free dvd player this week, and the fiorst dvd i bought (tonight...giddy w/anticipation!) was the british version of the descent.
i will do a bit of reviewing, but since timid and our beloved host have pretty thoroughly covered their opinions, i should like to offer advice for those who havent seen it, who are wondering whether to and look to this site for some type of recommendatioln....you have two reviews posted here, but if you are a horror fan (and if you are frequenting a horror site lie this, you prob do) you will almost certaily like this movie, if not more. honestly, i think timid would have to admit (and kind of did in his review) that horror fans will most likely like this.
now, timid and i have been friends for 25 years. much of our lives we have agreed on movies, and our initial friendship was based on love of the same movies (raiders, star wars, ce3k, gremlins). most of the time, even if i disagree, i can usually see his point. he loves movies, and has pretty demanding taste, but it is good taste...there have been a coupoe times, however, he watched a film and described it to me, and when i saw it, i was astounded, as the film i saw had no resemblance to what he described to me. that happened here. it almost seems like it would take ophysical labor to get yourself bored in this film.
so this is one where we are going to strongly diverge. to be honest, i think, for him, a 30 sec to minute long sequence hit a nerve and he was pulled from it and stayed there, and unless you have a completely visceral reaction to a visual style, like he did, then you will most likely leave the theatre scratching your head at what film he saw. i certainly did. mike and i left the theatre raving, only to find timid, who had left the theatre for some time (most liklely to go to the booth, so he most likely saw it...but i cant verify that...although i dont thionk a projection booth is the best plac e to really enjoy a movie. timid was talking to an employee about something being terrible, and i was a ctually confused when i heard the film he weas referring to was the descent. he then just dropped a completely stunning 'i was bored...', and again, i was shocked. several times the crowd members audibly jumped and yelled (and it was not the children that the family across from us decided to bring...i guess any movie shown in the afternoon is appropriate for children). a grown man, during one scene, had to get up and leave, kt was so intense...it moves fast, has some genuine sledgehammer shocks ( i see every horror film that comes ut. you cant scare or surprise me, but it did both...and several times i gasped and yelled...i dont do that, folks, so maybe it looked different friom the booth. and we sat further back than i wanted. i like sitting close, so the film envelopes me...we sat in the back 3rd, which allows you to be a little more easily distracted by your surroundings...does for me, anyway)
so, i guess what i am saying is that i really think his review is almost based on a completely personal reaction to something he doesnt like...and thats fair. he is a better judge of film than nearly everyone i know, and his opinion is certainoy valid. jhoweverf, like everyone, therfe are times when something in a film just hits us the wrong way, and i think this happened with him. so, it probably wont jibe with most opinions.
i cant blame him. the same thing happens with me in kevin smith movies. i want to like him. i think he's a funny guy when i hear him interviewed. he has an audience, and a point of view, and it is better that he is doing what he is doing than not....but i cant dit through his stuff w/o pulling my hir out. perhaps it is because i want to make movies, and there is so much in his films that are below standards for even student films, in termns of structure, or visual style. or even acting, although i think he has gotten better...so, while i cant see how ther people can like his stuff, i have to admit that most do, so they are prob better off ignoring my opinion and having the fun time that they want to..more power to them...and then theres chicago...(the less i say about that, the better)
basically, i am saying that you should probably not weight his review, in this instance, as strongky as most you will hear...
but then again, my advice would be to know as little as you can going in. i did, and was thrilled almost from the first minute. it uses everything at its diisposal...the cave, the cast, etc, to full advantage, and hits with shocks and jolts a lot like aliens...if that appeals to you, then turn off your computer and go see it...OR, if you DO decide to wait until the video release, do everything you can to shelter yourself. you wiill be doing yourself a huge favour, and its not everyday that perseverance like that is rewarded...if you like scares, even a little bit, youll leave happy...neil marshall is a name to watch.
now, timid's beef...when i heard him describing why he didnt like the particular erffect that removed him from the film, his words seemed to be describing exactl;y what you would see and what would work in that settkng. if you were in a cavem, with light only from your hats, and something came from the darkness, you would see only flashes and bits and not know what was going on and the film uses that technique to establish a visceral connection with the audience...basically, they use that shutter technigue that brought that sense of almost superhuman clarity to the beach sequence in saving private ryan. i had absolutely no problem with confsion or following the action. you are very able to know what is happening. you just get the nformation in a faster, moe visceral form than most films. hearing timid describe what he didnt like, it almost sounds like he is describing not only what the filmmakers were probably going for, but al;so the best technique for them to use and the best posible result from that...it all comes down to a personal dislike for a technique. its akin to disliking hand held cameras, say...and hey, thats valid. one of the biggest complaints i heard abouit 'blair witch' was the camera work. when you try an unusual visual style, not everyone is going to dig it. but having heard timid's complaints, and then read them, i cannot discern a misstep on the part of the director at all, and the very things he didnt like are things you might cvery well want your audience to feel. if batman begns didnt bother you, you probably didnt notice it there, and if you notice it here, its because it is such an effec tive and visceral choice.
this is certainly not an attempt to discount timid's opinion, but i really think, in this case, its going to affect a marginal group. and he admits he doesnt like horror. if you do, then maybe the opinion of a person who dislikes horror isnt going to fall in line w/your likes. but you know this. horror movies almost always get a certain percanteage of bad reviews just for being horror movies. some 'serious' critics just write off rthe genre and assume nothing good can ever be said. i can rcall, for instance, exorc ist 3 getting an 'F' from entertainment weekly...clearly, this was a review of the genre, ro the concept, and not one of that rather elegant and frightening film.,
that said, as i write this, descent has an 82% fresh rating on rotten tomatoes. that, for a horror movie, is almost unheard of.
this one is special. dont read about it. dont check reviews. dont even watch trailers. avoid seeing a nyhthing and do yourself the favor of getting every single shock and surpise they toss on the fire. and see it in the theatre if you can, at all...this one s worth the 9 - 12$ you pay for movies, depoending on where you live (for our international friends, sorry, i dint know the currency rate, but i promise its worth every pound, franc, farthing, yen or dragma)
9 out of 10
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 11, 2006 9:55:14 GMT -5
Timid and Obliv, I've also learned that there was quite a bit of gore trimmed from the film. Perhaps the cutting of these offending shots/sequences accounted for some of the quickness of the edits during these fight scenes. I also have discovered what the original ending was. (BIG TIME SPOILERS!!!! But, if you've seen the film, go here: p082.ezboard.com/fshocklinesforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=36443.topic ) I will be interested to see an unrated DVD with the European version. Lionsgate will no doubt give us one around Halloween.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 11, 2006 15:05:20 GMT -5
Timid and Obliv, I've also learned that there was quite a bit of gore trimmed from the film. Perhaps the cutting of these offending shots/sequences accounted for some of the quickness of the edits during these fight scenes. I also have discovered what the original ending was. (BIG TIME SPOILERS!!!! But, if you've seen the film, go here: p082.ezboard.com/fshocklinesforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=36443.topic ) I will be interested to see an unrated DVD with the European version. Lionsgate will no doubt give us one around Halloween. hey mike i should have one in a couple weeks. ill let you know. and i am looking forward to seeing it!
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 11, 2006 17:28:08 GMT -5
WHY am I always orange! ....you have two reviews posted here, but if you are a horror fan (and if you are frequenting a horror site lie this, you prob do) you will almost certaily like this movie, if not more. honestly, i think timid would have to admit (and kind of did in his review) that horror fans will most likely like this. He's quite right about that. I also think I said that (I'm not going to check), and that the film did a number of things quite well. i think, for him, a 30 sec to minute long sequence hit a nerve and he was pulled from it and stayed there, No, not really. The first time it happened, it only kind of didn't work for me, because it was an initial attack, and those carry the element of surprise. It still tossed me out of the film so I could think about the director's choice, instead of the ladies on screen, but it was tolerably used. It just kept happening - it became the chosen style, and it's one I find inappropriate for such scenes. Mind you, I only become aware of that thought because of how the technique works, or more to the point doesn't. I didn't go in with a cinematic checklist, rather I went in with you and Mike hoping to emulate some of your horror-joy while watching a movie that most film critics, a group known for dismissing this genre, like quite a bit (it was at 90% the day we saw it). I'm ready to immerse. It's not my technical preferences preceeding the film's effect, but the film's effect not working, leading me to consider why it didn't. mike and i left the theatre raving, only to find timid, who had left the theatre for some time Not really, again. I had once. I left early at least twice to get the presentation together (and, as I mentioned, uncannily missed an entire subplot), and then again for about 3 (pivotal) minutes to get a drink. This was right as the camerawork started to annoy even Mike, the lady on the ceiling shot. I was bloody thirsty, and had been for a while, and it appeard to me that we were in for a long cinematic flash-fest, so it seemed like my best time to get relief. I came back and saw the movie finish (to my apparent misfortune, as it appears we in the U.S. don't really get to do that). I left again for the credits. I'll keep getting to see those over and over, as I work there. i guess what i am saying is that i really think his review is almost based on a completely personal reaction to something he doesnt like...and thats fair. it probably wont jibe with most opinions. Sure, it is fair, and I appreciate your saying so. I bother to mention it on a horror website because of how common the reactions were to mine on Batman Begins. It's not a technique that only I dislike, but in fact it seems that quite a few do. And don't get me wrong, this picture is not nearly as eggregious with this as was Batman, but the thing is that these moments are so important to Descent. I post my review as a warning, so that those who may be distracted by this kind of cinema can pre-emptively settle with it, and so enjoy the rest the film has to offer, or even the whole thing, to make it a little more dismissable for others. basically, i am saying that you should probably not weight his review, in this instance, as strongky as most you will hear...if batman begns didnt bother you, you probably didnt notice it there Yes. Yes, yes. Most certainly let this be a litmus test. If Batman didn't bug you a whit, then may I present The Descent, a Very Good Scary Film. its going to affect a marginal group. and he admits he doesnt like horror. Not so. Or .., well, kind of not so. I don't Like Horror in the sense that I don't work on myself to make a horror film work, play along, if you will. I don't like horror culture, I suppose. I deny, for instance, that Jaws is not a horror film. I do like horror in the sense that I don't dislike films because they are horror films. I just lent a guy John Carpenter's The Thing. He said, "So this is a good horror film?" I replied, "No. It's just a great film, on any scale." I would put Halloween, The Shining, Poltergeist, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Jaws and many other movies in that camp. Evil Dead 2. There are plenty. I just don't overlook internal subversions and hack filmmaking. Those happen to be prevalent in contemporary horror films, probably because studio heads don't respect the audiences enough to make sure of... even decent writing. It just doesn't matter, financially speaking, which is all that matters. but then again, my advice would be to know as little as you can going in. Again I have to agree. And Obliv is the one to heed when giving this particular piece of advice. Of course, by now you've seen all of this discussion, and Mike's last photo, so you're pretty much screwed, but yes, Obliv's right. I've also learned that there was quite a bit of gore trimmed from the film. Perhaps the cutting of these offending shots/sequences accounted for some of the quickness of the edits during these fight scenes. Well, it very much could have. In fact, how could it not? That being the case, I shall have to watch a European cut of this film, and finally see 1) the adultery subplot, 2) these action moments perhaps properly salvaged and 3) an ending that doesn't drive the nail in the coffin for me. Sounds like I basically saw, half the film's fault and half mine, a hack job. I like how the reason the film got cut is actually, only half-jokingly, tied to George W. Bush. Man, he is just responsible for everything bad!
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 11, 2006 17:54:24 GMT -5
No, not really. The first time it happened, it only kind of didn't work for me, because it was an initial attack, and those carry the element of surprise. It still tossed me out of the film so I could think about the director's choice, instead of the ladies on screen, but it was tolerably used. It just kept happening - it became the chosen style, and it's one I find inappropriate for such scenes. Mind you, I only become aware of that thought because of how the technique works, or more to the point doesn't. I didn't go in with a cinematic checklist, rather I went in with you and Mike hoping to emulate some of your horror-joy while watching a movie that most film critics, a group known for dismissing this genre, like quite a bit (it was at 90% the day we saw it). I'm ready to immerse. It's not my technical preferences preceeding the film's effect, but the film's effect not working, leading me to consider why it didn't. . well, of course not...i don't think you hasd a checklist, or even went in not wanting to dislike it, but it does seem like that technique is your biggest complaint, so i think its fair to say that SOMETHING jolted you from the immersion that many of us were having, and it seems like it was that editing style...and being a filmmaker, you are probabl going to be more aware of that than mst who go to see it...my review was really an attempt to sort of square things for people who might have come across the two reviews and wondered whether they canelled each other out, and for most people, they probably wont Not really, again. I had once. I left early at least twice to get the presentation together (and, as I mentioned, uncannily missed an entire subplot), and then again for about 3 (pivotal) minutes to get a drink. This was right as the camerawork started to annoy even Mike, the lady on the ceiling shot. I was bloody thirsty, and had been for a while, and it appeard to me that we were in for a long cinematic flash-fest, so it seemed like my best time to get relief. I came back and saw the movie finish (to my apparent misfortune, as it appears we in the U.S. don't really get to do that). I left again for the credits. I'll keep getting to see those over and over, as I work there. i kept looking over to see you and not seeing you. i wasnt paying attention to your whereabouts completely, as i was absorbed in the movie, but i managed to loom over 4 or 5 times over what must have been an hour, and didnt see you....and put circumstancial evidence together and guessed you might have been in the booth or whatnot...you disliked it enough that you diid leave for awhile, no? i saw on other guy leave, and that was b/c it was getting to him...anyway, yeah, i could be completely wrong about that, but it did seem like you were gone for awhile. Sure, it is fair, and I appreciate your saying so. I bother to mention it on a horror website because of how common the reactions were to mine on Batman Begins. It's not a technique that only I dislike, but in fact it seems that quite a few do. And don't get me wrong, this picture is not nearly as eggregious with this as was Batman, but the thing is that these moments are so important to Descent. I post my review as a warning, so that those who may be distracted by this kind of cinema can pre-emptively settle with it, and so enjoy the rest the film has to offer, or even the whole thing, to make it a little more dismissable for others. sure, and that's okay...again, i dont think most people are as aware of this kind of stuff as you are...and as far as batman begins, the issue i had was that you really could not tell what was happening. in the descent. you could...the shots, fast as they were, did show you who was winning and who was losing, etc... Yes. Yes, yes. Most certainly let this be a litmus test. If Batman didn't bug you a whit, then may I present The Descent, a Very Good Scary Film. Not so. Or .., well, kind of not so. I don't Like Horror in the sense that I don't work on myself to make a horror film work, play along, if you will. I don't like horror culture, I suppose. I deny, for instance, that Jaws is not a horror film. I do like horror in the sense that I don't dislike films because they are horror films. I just lent a guy John Carpenter's The Thing. He said, "So this is a good horror film?" I replied, "No. It's just a great film, on any scale." I would put Halloween, The Shining, Poltergeist, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Jaws and many other movies in that camp. Evil Dead 2. There are plenty. I just don't overlook internal subversions and hack filmmaking. Those happen to be prevalent in contemporary horror films, probably because studio heads don't respect the audiences enough to make sure of... even decent writing. It just doesn't matter, financially speaking, which is all that matters. well, i dont necessarily think i prepare myself to forgive weaknesses or anything. perhaps it is just that i like the parts that work enough to let weaknesses slide. the weaknesses just diont botheer me, i guess, when there is enough strong stuff around it. i think other audiences are MUCH more forgiving than horror movie audiences...comedies are spactacularly famous for being terrible movies, filled with good funny bits...austin powers being a prime example...or, well, just name them...anchorman, tal;adega nights, 40 year old virgin, wedding crashers...do the plots of these really work at all? not for me...they were just a buunch of skits strung together w/a thread. i daresay horror movies work on a higher level than that. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 11, 2006 19:54:26 GMT -5
having looked at the original ending, it makes absolutely no sense to have done it the way they have...
arent you, whoever you are, sick of the assumptio that, as americans, we are just too thick headed to accept anything that doesnt fit into a little happy hollywood box? that is why i have a real issue w/people who say things like "i work hard all the time, the last thing i want to do when i go to a movie is to have to do any thinking..." or something alomgh those lines....they use this to avoid everything from foreign films to anything that isnt all happy and whatnot.
ridiculous.
one more thing, if i may...i loved the descent so much, i went out and rented the cave today...and i have seen the cave!
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 12, 2006 3:13:05 GMT -5
i think other audiences are MUCH more forgiving than horror movie audiences...comedies are spactacularly famous for being terrible movies... I agree with you that many genres cut cinematic corners. I don't want to make it seem like I think that only horror movies do that. I don't care for it no matter who does. And in anticipation of just your suggestion, I haven't bothered to see any of the comedies you mention above. No time for things I expect to leave me cold. I am looking forward to The Prestige.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 13, 2006 3:41:36 GMT -5
yeah...that comment wasnt really aimed at you, per se...mostly it was sort of aimed at the whole phenomenon of critics who will come down hard on a horror movie for certain things (flat characters, pat situations, etc) but will let a comedy breeze through.
i wouldnt even stop at recommending many of those films (comedies) i mentioned to you, btw, so its not that i think its even a mistake to engage in that knd of selective criticism...i jus think horror gets unfairly treated by it
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 17, 2006 0:32:38 GMT -5
so, i saw descent again today, and paid special attention to the fight seuences that timid had such a problem with. i came up with a couple things...
the shots were not moving. the camera, gen erally, is stationary.
the editng is extremely fast
and it uses the shutter/flicker technique. this was used in private ryan on the beach, and gave it that hyperreaL look.
it does convey a sense of confusion, but there was never a moment when i didnt know wehat was happening. unlike batman negins, where you have no idea who is wining the fight, in descent, they never go more than a couple seconds w/o showing what exactly is happening...a person being bitten, for example, or a crawler getting its head caved in.
and anther thing...the crawlers are PRICKS! its easy to hate them! they attack the girls, and the minute they get stabbed "SKRREEEEEEEE!!!!"
pricks.
anyway, its still fin and great after a second time.
|
|