The Ring (2002), Rings (2005), The Ring Two (2005)

The Ring (2002)
Director: Gore Verbinski
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger
Starring: Naomi Watts, Martin Henderson, Daveigh Chase, David Dorfman, Brian Cox, Amber Tamblyn

One-sentence summary: Rachel Keller investigates a rumor about a cursed videotape that kills you in a week after you watch it.

Rings (2005)
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger and Jonathan Liebesman
Starring: Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp, Alex Breckenridge, Josh Wise, Justin Allen

One-sentence summary: An underground subculture has formed that uses Samara's cursed tape in a twisted game of chicken.

The Ring Two (2005)
Director: Hideo Nakata
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger
Starring: Naomi Watts, David Dorfman, Simon Baker, Elizabeth Perkins, Sissy Spacek, Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp

One-sentence summary: Rachel and Aidan have started a new life in the small town of Astoria, Oregon but their peace is short-lived when Samara finds them.











Review: Stories are never set in stone. What makes a new interpretation fresh is how it takes the source material and alters it for whatever reason, and then we see how the changes affect the overall feeling. Sometimes they work beautifully. Other times they don't.

For all the vitriol diehard fans of the original give the remake, you have to hand it to The Ring for ushering in a wave of remakes of Asian horror films. They obviously did something right, and only the most reluctant fans would refuse to allow The Ring the chance to impact them as Ring did. Yes, The Ring is a louder film than Ring. Yes, it sort of holds the viewer's hand by trying to come up with explanations for most everything in the film. But to compare it endlessly to Ring would be unfair to The Ring because, frankly, The Ring is still quite good. The big changes they made--allowing Samara to appear like an innocent victim at first, having Anna kill Samara instead of the father figure like in Ring--add new layers to a familiar story that, yes, makes it fresh and exciting. While it becomes pretty obvious after awhile that Samara is the main antagonist, it's still brilliant to have her line, "But I do. And I'm sorry, it won't stop" have a double meaning. If there was anything I took away from the remake, it would be that line. I loved it on my first viewing and I still love it nine years later.

If there's one big complaint I have about The Ring, it would be the needless haunting. The Ring is sort of tailored towards an audience raised on Hollywood films where things can't stay static for too long, but I feel like the excessive haunting makes it a little too obvious that Samara is the true antagonist. She's a child, and children like to play with their toys. Rachel's theory that Anna is the progenitor of the curse is a nice (if obviously mistaken) change from Ring but the audience isn't going to fall for that, not when the victims have been messed around with for so much up to that point in the movie. However, Anna's unexpected role as Samara's murderer ends up being expanded upon wonderfully in the sequel, if unintentionally (and I have a low enough opinion of Ehren Kruger that I do believe he stumbled upon this plot thread by accident).

The main theme of The Ring Two is motherhood. Samara, for some unexplained reason, begins to identify Rachel as her mother. The issue I have with The Ring Two is that it doesn't hone in on this plot quickly enough. The unrated cut of the movie adds an extra 20 minutes, something that the movie just doesn't need. I wish the other characters cast suspicion on Rachel as an abusive mother (which she certainly isn't) earlier. I still get uncomfortable when I watch Rachel try to drown Aidan in an effort to make Samara leave his body. You can tell that she thinks she's crazy for even trying it, but she does it anyway because she feels like she has no other choice. She's even taking advice from a crazy lady! I also loved the suggestion that this hasn't been the first time Samara has haunted a woman and her child in an effort to find a new mother figure. The Ring Two has a lot of great ideas going for it, but it's executed rather haphazardly, and I'm pretty sure I can blame both Nakata and Kruger equally.

But speaking of great ideas, Rings is something completely unique in the entire franchise, both Japanese and American. It's easier to pull off in the American version, of course, because of the heightened emphasis on the haunting. The idea that there are people out there who will use the hallucinations from the cursed tape as a way to get high? It's brilliant, simply brilliant. I honestly wish they had never come up with this idea until recently so we could see it put into action in The Ring 3D (which may or may not be coming, I'm not sure anymore). As it stands, Rings is a great bite-sized companion to The Ring and The Ring Two, but I'm certain that with a bit of work, it could easily be expanded into a full-length feature. Alas, we're past that point now, so I'm only speaking out loud.

I'd also like to make a quick note about the score by Hans Zimmer. He made some fantastic themes for the films, and they certainly rank amongst my most memorable scores.

The Hollywood version of the cursed tape story isn't perfect, but then again neither is the original. (Ever notice how both Rachel and Reiko are still being haunted through day 7 even though they've both made a copy well before then?) I have to hand it to Hollywood for putting their own spin on the tale and going in a completely different direction than the source material. In the end, we got some great ideas that may never have been seen otherwise because there's simply no place for them in the Japanese films.

Final word: The Ring is a great, if slightly flawed, horror film that's sure to please anyone who isn't spending the entire runtime comparing it to the Japanese original. Rings is a brilliant short film that's a glimpse into what could have been had they expanded the short into a full-length feature. The Ring Two is perhaps thirty minutes too long if you're watching the unrated cut but it explores some fantastic ideas otherwise.

In Time (2011)

In Time (2011)
Director: Andrew Niccol
Screenplay: Andrew Niccol
Starring: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Vincent Kartheiser, Alex Pettyfer, Matt Bomer, Olivia Wilde

One-sentence summary: In a world where time is currency, Will Salas is given a century's worth of time and soon discovers the sinister truth behind the "economic" inequality between his life in the ghetto and those at the top who have accumulated millennia, making them virtually immortal.

Review: I find that I'm attracted most to science fiction that is able to use some kind of concept to shine a light on society. Dollhouse is an excellent example (though it's a TV series and not a movie, but it's an excellent TV series nonetheless). Sometimes it's really easy to let the concept overrun the point the story is trying to make, and I'm happy to say that In Time is not one of those films.

The basic concept of the universe In Time is set in is that everyone stops physically aging at the age of 25 and then a biological clock is switched on that lets them know how much time they have left before they die. Time is currency in the film; you work for it, you spend it. Those at the top of the "economic" ladder have hundreds, if not thousands of years. Those who live in the ghetto live day to day, constantly in danger of timing out. It costs time to travel between "time zones," ensuring that it's difficult for the average layperson to move up economically.

I'm sure by now you realize how socially relevant the movie is right now. Three words: Occupy Wall Street.

It's pretty crazy how perfectly timed (no pun intended) the movie's release was. A happy accident, I'm sure. I'm curious to see how many people pick up on the movie's idea that everyone deserves a chance to live the "American dream" and that those at the top are unfairly keeping all their time to themselves. It's insane to see Phillippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) have over nine millennia on him when Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) was lucky to even have 24 hours. Of course, this leads into the movie's Robin Hood-like plot when Will and Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) decide to steal time to distribute to everyone in the ghetto.

If there was maybe one criticism I had to say about the movie, it's that it's so packed full of scenes and ideas that it feels much longer than its 109 minutes. Really, I think it's worth it. If you're the thinking type, you're going to leave the theater with a fresh perspective on current events.

Okay, and maybe the movie's concept was an excuse to cast all pretty people, but overlook that!

Final word: In Time is a smart, relevant take on economic inequality that perhaps surprisingly turns out to be a futuristic spin on Robin Hood.

Red State (2011)

Red State (2011)
Director: Kevin Smith
Screenplay: Kevin Smith
Starring: John Goodman, Melissa Leo, Michael Parks, Kerry Bishé, Kyle Gallner

One-sentence summary: Pastor Abin Cooper is the head of the Five Points Church, an ultra-conservative church that gives the Westboro Baptist Church a run for their money not only in ideology but also in sheer firepower.

Review: Let's make this clear: I didn't enjoy Red State very much.

Don't get me wrong, as a gay man, I can get riled up over anti-gay rhetoric. And Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) says a lot of it over the course of the film, and I found myself becoming increasingly agitated with every hateful word he spewed out. You would think that that helps invest you in the movie, but to be honest, it felt a little... cheap. And until it was made clear that in the movie's universe the Five Points Church co-exists with the Westboro Baptist Church, I was certain that Kevin Smith was merely exaggerating the "danger" that Westboro poses. Nope, Five Points is just batshit insane. Branch Davidian insane. Waco siege insane.

And then we come to the issue of what exactly the movie was trying to say.

Just what was it saying?

By the end of the film, I sat there in stunned silence trying to process what I had just seen. Kevin Smith managed to fuse together the ideology of Westboro with the trigger-happy Branch Davidians, and what resulted was not a particularly cheerful movie. I'm all for depressing movies, I just want them to say something. Red State feels like a misguided attempt at warning us about the dangerous combination of religious fervor and guns.

I'm uneasy in labeling Red State a horror movie even though that's what Kevin Smith calls it. I can see where he's getting that from but by no means is Red State a conventional horror film. The movie does a good job of making you feel uneasy (almost similar to maybe something you'd see in Saw or Hostel, but to a lesser degree) but it's not really something I think you'd pull out on Halloween. More than anything, Red State tries to make you uncomfortable and make you think, but it fails simply because the movies seems designed to shock rather than give you food for thought.

Final word: Red State is a strange film that has some good ideas contained within, but poor execution and a lack of emotional connection with the audience leaves you wondering why you're watching a movie that re-enacts the Branch Davidian Waco siege in a shorter span of time.

[REC] (2007), [REC]² (2009)

[REC] (2007)
Directors: Jaume Belagueró and Paco Plaza
Screenplay: Jaume Belagueró, Luis A. Berdejo and Paco Plaza
Starring: Manuela Velasco, Pablo Rosso, Ferrán Terraza, Jorge-Yaman Serrano

One-sentence summary: A reporter and her cameraman end up quarantined in an apartment building where a deadly infection similar to rabies has begun to spread.

[REC]² (2009)
Directors: Jaume Belagueró and Paco Plaza
Screenplay: Jaume Belagueró, Manu Díaz and Paco Plaza
Starring: Jonathan Mellor, Pablo Rosso, Óscar Sanchez Zafra, Ariel Casas, Alejandro Casaseca, Àlex Batllori, Pau Poch, Andrea Ros, Manuela Velasco

One-sentence summary: An official from the Ministry of Health is escorted into the quarantined apartment building to retrieve a blood sample from the Medeiros girl, but the situation soon becomes more complex than anyone had imagined.








Review: It's difficult to reinvent zombies, particularly when you consider that what now passes for the "modern zombie" was started by George A. Romero through his use of zombies as social commentary. When you think about zombies like that, they become pretty boring. The whole rising-from-the-dead and flesh-eating bits are common staples, and more often than not we see some sort of virus as an explanation for the creation of zombies. When you see a zombie movie, you usually know what you're going to get.

[REC] and [REC]² are not your typical zombie movies.

Adopting the cinéma vérité style and applying it to a horror film about zombies wasn't quite that original when [REC] came along (Romero's Diary of the Dead predates [REC] by about a year or so) but that doesn't diminish the experience of watching [REC]. The acting doesn't feel like acting, due in part to Belagueró and Plaza not being completely up-front with the actors about what was going on the day of the shoot. It's loose and reactionary, and that was the key element in making [REC] stand out. It feels authentic.

Boy, does it feel authentic.

I've said before how I hate jump scares. They're cheap if not done well. [REC] and [REC]² don't have any sort of score to speak of, and that makes the jump scares genuinely thrilling. You don't have crescendoing violins letting you know when you should be scared; it's exactly like what would happen in real life if someone creeped up on you. [REC] is likely the only film I've seen where I actually screamed. You're on edge for most of the films because there's no score to let you know when to be scared, and you're never quite sure what might be around the corner when the camera turns. It's brilliant.

[REC] only hints at what might be the cause of the viral outbreak. [REC]² explores it more, and to be honest, it's probably the only reason why [REC]² exists. I won't spoil it because it's pretty original, in my opinion, and leads to a fantastic final act in [REC]² that had me genuinely excited for what Belagueró and Plaza have in store for [REC]³ Genesis and [REC]⁴ Apocalypse. (And hopefully we can avoid stupid characters like the teenagers in [REC]². If there were any stereotypical horror film archetypes in either movie, it would be those kids.)

I'd like to mention one last thing: the zombies in [REC]²? They're the infected cast members from the first movie. If that's not an example of treating the audience like they're smart, I don't know what is. Bravo, directors. Bravo.

Final word: [REC] is a genuinely brilliant horror film sure to give you plenty of scares. [REC]² is a little less off-the-cuff and a little less unique than its predecessor, but it opens up the "mythology" very well and has a damn awesome final act.

The Social Network (2010)

The Social Network (2010)
Director: David Fincher
Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, Josh Pence, Max Minghella, Justin Timberlake, Brenda Song, Rooney Mara, Rashida Jones

One-sentence summary: This is the story of how Mark Zuckerberg came to create Facebook.

Review: "Every creation myth needs a devil."

That line is spoken by Marilyn Delpy (Rashida Jones) in the final scene of the movie. If The Social Network is the creation myth of Facebook, then who is the devil? The obvious answer is Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), of course, but I don't think it's so cut and dry.

And that is why I love The Social Network.

Facebook is a MacGuffin when it comes to the film. The real story is not the intricacies of Facebook or how it grew into the site that it is today. What the movie focuses on are the people surrounding Facebook, and how creating a site ostensibly about social networking and staying in contact destroyed a friendship. It's a tragedy, but no one dies. It's Shakespearean, but no one is reciting lines of poetry. (Though they are saying the brilliantly-written lines from Aaron Sorkin. "Winklevi" is genius.) To call it "that Facebook movie" does it a disservice.

For a good part of the movie, Mark Zuckerberg is an asshole genius. The movie does a good job of explaining why, though: Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) is one reason. Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) is another. Erica is The Girl Who Got Away, the one Mark lost because he couldn't understand that he didn't have to act like an asshole to get people to respect him. Eduardo is the guy Mark wishes he could be, so to "destroy" him he slowly starts cutting Eduardo out of more and more of the decision-making when it comes to Facebook to the point where Eduardo's shares in Facebook get diluted to less than 1%. Mark betrays Eduardo in the truest sense, and all because the devil slipped in in the form of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). Sean comes around with his silver tongue and flashy know-how of the ins and outs of Silicon Valley and pushes Mark to betray Eduardo. Mark knows he made a mistake when Sean gets caught up in legal trouble, but by then it's too late. You can't un-betray someone.

Those involved with the movie--and those with first-hand knowledge of what really happened during Facebook's inception--say that the film isn't 100% accurate, and I think it's okay that it's not what really happened. As succinctly summarized in the quote above, The Social Network is a creation myth, it's a larger-than-life retelling. And it's the one everyone will know because it makes for good entertainment. So everything isn't true, that's okay, the core of it is. Mark Zuckerberg probably did step on more toes than he should've when he created Facebook. He's now one of the world's youngest billionaires, and that's an awesome achievement. But then the final frame of the movie leads you to wonder: was it worth it?

It's up to you to decide what lessons this creation myth contains. It is, in true Facebook fashion, generated by the userviewer.

Final word: The Social Network is a brilliantly-crafted film in the vein of a classical tragedy that is less about Facebook's creation and more about how human relationships are broken in the quest for the top of the dogpile.

Thor (2011)

Thor (2011)
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Screenplay: Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz and Don Payne
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Stellan Skarsgård, Kat Dennings, Ray Stevenston, Tadanobu Asano, Josh Dallas, Jaimie Alexander, Colm Feore, Clark Gregg, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson

One-sentence summary: Thor is exiled to Earth by his father after a misguided attempt to single-handedly defeat the Frost Giants, but unbeknownst to either of them, Thor's brother, Loki, plans to use Thor's absence to his advantage.

Review: I had a geek out when I found out that Kenneth Branagh was going to direct Thor. I love Shakespeare and I especially loved Branagh's adaptation of Hamlet, so clearly there had to be something special in Thor for Branagh to sign on, right? And then I began to have misgivings. Why Thor? Admittedly, Thor is one of the Marvel comics I didn't have much interest in, so I had no idea how they were going to translate Thor from the comic books to the big screen without making the origin story something extremely hokey. I had the same concerns with Iron Man, but they did a brilliant job with it, so there was no way they'd let Thor be subpar, right? But has Branagh ever had this much money go into a film?! I made sure to keep my expectations low.

I'm happy to report that Thor is, quite surprisingly, very deep. The filmmakers really reached in and made sure to emphasize that while this was an action-packed summer movie filled with explosions and fights, at its core it was a human drama. You care a lot more about Thor's relationship with the people around him than the big fight with the Destroyer (which, unsurprisingly, ties in quite well with Thor's transformation from arrogant hot-headed jerk to something far more compassionate). I love that Loki (Tom Hiddleston) isn't, at his core, a bad person... he's just more ruthless than most at getting what he wants, and he ended up doing more harm than good.

But the thing I think I love most about the movie is Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). Okay, so maybe the way her relationship with Thor develops is a bit too fast, but she sells it so well that I had no trouble accepting it. They really reinvented Jane for the movie, and I've got to say I like this new version way more than the original comic book version. In fact, the new way they interpret the series' mythology is quite awesome, and making Jane an astrophysicist (and introducing the concept of advanced technology as seeming like magic) just ties in so well that it's a no-brainer.

Thor feels very... Shakespearean. This shouldn't come at any surprise given that it was helmed by Branagh. The existing films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe were already great, but Thor elevates it to another level by grounding the human element of the story and making it every bit as exciting to watch as the special effects-laden setpieces. They have their work cut out for them on Thor 2.

I think I should mention a couple more things. Darcy (Kat Dennings) tends to steal every scene she's in, so be on the lookout for that. Also be on the lookout for references to other films in the MCU. And I highly recommend watching Thor before seeing The Avengers if you haven't seen it by then because it's going to make The Avengers that much more resonant (Loki is the antagonist!).

Final word: Thor is a fantastic film groomed to be a summer blockbuster that exceeds your expectations and delivers a surprisingly grounded story that emphasizes human drama over explosions.

Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)

Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)
Director: Glenn Ficarra and John Requa
Screenplay: Dan Fogelman
Starring: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore, Emma Stone, Marisa Tomei, Kevin Bacon, Liza Lapira, Josh Groban

One-sentence summary: Cal Weaver decides to reinvent himself with the help of Jacob Palmer after his marriage crumbles.

Review: Anyone who knows me will understand that it's been a tough year for me relationship-wise. Several months ago I had to end my relationship with a guy who I thought, in all seriousness, was my soulmate. We connected on a level I had never experienced with anyone else, but then he made several big mistakes and it wasn't possible for me to stay with him any longer. I remember one of the last things I said to him was that I was disappointed in how he didn't want to fight for me, and I deserved someone who would.

What Crazy, Stupid, Love. basically boils down to is fighting for the person you love, even when they aren't exactly receptive to your advances (which, in the case of Cal's son, makes you look a little bit like a stalker). I think in reality an adult wouldn't go to nearly as much trouble as Robbie does trying to get with Jessica, but we shouldn't disregard the sentiment behind his actions. Too often we see a womanizer like Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling) and we almost revere them; in fact, the movie does a really good job of making you think that maybe the best thing to do is to become Jacob Palmer and sleep with anything that moves. (And of course it helps that Ryan Gosling could probably charm anyone into his bed.) It works for Jacob, so why shouldn't it work for us regular people?

Except Jacob, without realizing it, finds Hannah (Emma Stone) and falls in love with her. Their first night together, they don't even sleep together; they just talk. And that, combined with Cal's sudden inability/unwillingness to get more women into his bed, is when the movie shifts back from glorifying one-night stands to the infinitely more long-lasting concept of soulmates. Like most trajectories of people who sleep around, I think they slowly begin to realize what an empty life it is to hop from bed to bed. It's lonely, and the little we see of Jacob's house exemplifies that perfectly. It's a beautiful (and likely ridiculously expensive) house, but he buys things he wants and doesn't really need, and he never finds any use for them. Wonderful metaphor for what the movie is trying to say: anonymous sex is great but having someone to come home to is even better.

Oh, and I would like to point out something else. There's a conversation between Hannah and Liz (Liza Lapira) where Hannah seems pretty okay with settling for Richard (Josh Groban) and Liz turns up her nose in disgust. "Look at you," she says. "If you end up with that, what hope do I have?" (And I think most of us will agree that we'd rather choose Ryan Gosling over Josh Groban.) None of the characters in the movie really settle, and I think that's the best possible message the movie sends. Maybe it's a bit unrealistic to expect some fitness model to come barging into your life to sweep you off your feet, but if you know you can do better, why settle? We all deserve to find our soulmate, and that includes the person you're settling for.

Final word: Crazy, Stupid Love. is a charming, hilarious, and poignant look at love, and I'll be buying it on Blu-ray as soon as I can spare the money.

Horrible Bosses (2011)

Horrible Bosses (2011)
Director: Seth Gordon
Screenplay: Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein
Starring: Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell, Kevin Spacey, Jamie Foxx, Julie Bowen, Ioan Gruffudd

One-sentence summary: Nick, Dale and Kurt are three friends whose irritation with the titular horrible bosses has gotten to the point where they plot to kill each other's bosses.

Review: In my opinion, comedy is the toughest genre to get right. Actors whose careers are built primarily on dramatic roles aren't always funny, but comedic actors usually kill when it comes to doing dramatic roles. And yet we revere dramatic roles and relegate comedy to an afterthought. There's a lot that goes into comedy that doesn't always go into drama. It's easy to force yourself to cry and elicit some form of sympathy/empathy from the audience, but it's far more difficult to make them laugh. Everyone's comedic sensibilities are different! I can agree with you that the monologue from the mother in Precious is incredibly sad, but I'm not going to agree with you when you say that The Hangover is one of the funniest movies ever.

Horrible Bosses had it made with the cast. How you can put all of these actors together, even bit parts by Julie Bowen and Ioan Gruffudd, and make a mediocre movie seems impossible. And yet... something felt off about Horrible Bosses when things started getting out of hand. The characters, particularly Dale (Charlie Day), were more annoying than funny (though Jason Bateman played the straight man to a T, as he always does; see Arrested Development). I suddenly felt like I didn't care whether they were going to escape from the situation unscathed, I just wanted the movie to end. This was a complete reversal from the beginning when you see exactly how bad their bosses are; I felt a growing sense of irritation, akin to how I felt when we started seeing exactly how terrible Umbridge is in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It's not hard to identify with characters whose bosses make their jobs completely miserable.

And yet...

To be honest, I think what I find funny in a comedy movie is when you can find the humor in the ordinary, and you don't have to raise the stakes and end up having three characters engage in a car chase with a man trying to kill them. Horrible Bosses is one of those kinds of comedy movies, and it got to the point where it was simply too much for me.

What I did like about the movie was the writing--or rather, the ad-libbing. The cast plays off each other beautifully, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that over half of the dialogue was unscripted. It just sounds off-the-cuff, and that makes it all the more entertaining. There aren't any quotes from the movie that'll end up in the public lexicon of funny movie lines, but it's still entertaining nonetheless to see Nick, Dale and Kurt trying to figure out Strangers on a Train.

I'm actually curious to see how people react to the sexual harrassment Dale's boss inflicts on him; will a majority of men who see it think it's really hot that Jennifer Aniston plays a nymphomaniac dentist? (I think they will.) What would it have been like if the sexes were reversed? Would it be as funny? And perhaps more importantly, what does it say about the social standards in our society when sexual harrassment is played for laughs and it would likely be approved by a majority of the male audience? The movie lampshades this when Nick and Kurt downplay Dale's troubles, which comforts me to a degree that the writers recognized this issue. If nothing else, at least Horrible Bosses brings up an interesting thought experiment for those who happen to find it.

Final word: Horrible Bosses will likely be found hilarious by those who share its brand of humor, but unfortunately, I'm not one of those people.

Green Lantern (2011)

Green Lantern (2011)
Director: Martin Campbell
Screenplay: Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Mark Strong, Angela Bassett, Tim Robbins

One-sentence summary: Hal Jordan finds himself as the newest member of the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force tasked with keeping the universe safe.

Review: It's become something of a trend in recent history that we get massive summer tentpole films adapted from comics books. Sometimes they're runaway hits (Iron Man), sometimes they fall flat (Jonah Hex). Green Lantern was poised to become the former. How could you go wrong with Ryan Reynolds? The guy's comedic timing is genius.

You always forget about the writing.

A movie may have a massive special effects budget, but all the CGI in the world can't cover up mediocre writing. Green Lantern had a lot going for it--interesting concept, Ryan Reynolds, big budget--but somewhere along the line, the writers forgot to put heart into the script. This doesn't mean Green Lantern is a bad film. I don't think it's nearly as bad as some critics were making it out to be, but I'm singling out the writing because Green Lantern could have easily become that massive summer tentpole had they spent maybe an extra year retooling the script and trying to find the heart in the story (a la Pixar).

"But David," you say, "what about Hal's struggle with overcoming his fears and the death of his father?"

Green Lantern is sort of convenient in that the emotional spectrum literally corresponds to different emotions, but that's a poor excuse for having Hal's primary conflict be overcoming his fears (which just happens to be perfectly represented by Parallax as the antagonist; not surprisingly, Hal overcomes his fears and beats Parallax, the two practically being the same thing). Hal just isn't that compelling of a character, at least not as written in the film. Ryan Reynolds is entertaining to watch (as usual) but Hal is a little too one-note for my liking.

I've got to admit that Blake Lively didn't sell me on Carol Ferris. She was probably the weak link of the cast, and Marvel didn't do her any favors by putting out Thor the very same summer (which you may recall had Natalie Portman as the infinitely more interesting Jane Foster). However, the writers did something right and gave Carol the best scene I've ever witnessed in a superhero film.

Right after Hal saves Carol, he visits her (as Green Lantern) at her office to check on her, and Carol actually recognizes Hal underneath the mask. Hal tries to play it off at first but Carol berates him, saying, "What, did you think I wouldn't recognize you just because I can't see your cheekbones?" For all the suspension of disbelief required of us when we watch superhero films, I've still thought it ridiculous that no one ever see through the disguise, at least not in the straightforward manner Carol does. I couldn't stop laughing!

That aside, I actually do hope to see a sequel. They set it up beautifully with Sinestro putting on the yellow ring, and it's my belief that there's a better story to be told coming out of that than in the strangely hollow origin story they gave Hal. Studios should never rest on their laurels when it comes to movies that are guaranteed to make money at the box office; story should always come first because that's what will keep audiences coming back.

Final word: Green Lantern is a decent superhero film marred only by the autopilot writing.

Ring (1998), Spiral (1998), Ring 2 (1999), Ring 0~Birthday~ (2000)

Ring (1998)
Director: Nakata Hideo
Screenplay: Takahashi Hiroshi
Starring: Matsushima Nanako, Sanada Hiroyuki, Ootaka Rikiya, Nakatani Miki, Takeuchi Yuuko

One-sentence summary: Asakawa Reiko investigates rumors of a cursed tape that kills anyone who watches it in a week.

Spiral (1998)
Director: Iida Jouji
Screenplay: Iida Jouji
Starring: Satou Kouichi, Nakatani Miki, Sanada Hiroyuki


One-sentence summary: Andou Mitsuo must solve the mystery behind his friend's death, seemingly caused by a cursed video tape... or was it?

Ring 2 (1999)
Director: Nakata Hideo
Screenplay: Takahashi Hiroshi
Starring: Nakatani Miki, Yanagi Yuurei, Ootaka Rikiya, Matsushima Nanako, Sanada Hiroyuki, Fukada Kyoko, Sato Hitomi

One-sentence summary: Takano Mai sets out to discover what exactly Takayama Ryuji was researching the week before his death.

Ring 0~Birthday~ (2000)
Director: Tsuruta Norio
Screenplay: Takahashi Hiroshi
Starring: Nakama Yukie, Tanabe Seiichi, Aso Kumiko, Okunuki Kaoru, Ban Daisuke

One-sentence summary: Yamamura Sadako is a fragile, quiet girl just trying to live on her own in Tokyo, but her past catches up to her.

Review: Fear is necessary. Fear stems from self-preservation; if something scares you, you shouldn't pursue it for the sake of staying safe. We fear what we don't know or understand because there's a chance that it could be detrimental to our health or way of life or what-have-you, and perhaps in some cases we might even take action to conquer that which keeps us up at night for the sake of ensuring a safer future.

Melodramatic introduction? Perhaps slightly. But it's key to understanding where I stand on the Ring franchise all these years later. I don't watch these movies anymore and get scared; I know them too well. Does completely understanding the franchise take away from its entertainment value? I don't think so. The core concept--a cursed videotape will kill you in seven days--was, and in some ways continues to be, a novel one that doesn't lose much of its storytelling potential over the years. Kadokawa wouldn't be revisiting the franchise with a new installment, tentatively titled "Sadako 3D," if that wasn't true, particularly with all of the changes in multimedia consumption since 1998 (ostensibly when we can assume the first movie took place).

But let's not look at the future right now and instead focus on what has already been. Ring is a slow burn horror movie in the truest sense. I've seen plenty of horror movies since I first saw Ring, and I have a better understanding of when a horror movie is trying to pull a cheap scare on me. Imagine my surprise when I discover that, as quiet as the movie is, there were still some moments where Nakata did the tried-and-true method of trying to induce dread in the viewer by presenting a scene with a loud burst of music. I had held a higher opinion of the movie, but I suppose nostalgia got in the way. By no means does that mean Ring is a terrible horror film, it's just simply not perfect--but then again, few movies are. Setting aside cheap tricks, Ring still holds up well. I dare you to find a horror movie moment in recent history more iconic than Sadako climbing out of the TV.

Ring 2, on the other hand, doesn't age as well. It very much feels like they made a "proper" sequel (more on that in a bit) for the sake of making more money off a runaway hit. You can certainly tell it has a bigger budget than Ring, and Nakata uses that to great effect, creating setpieces we would've never seen in the first film. Ring 2 tries to be bigger, and it fails more than it succeeds. Simply put, there's a lot of "I'm doing this just because" sentiment on the part of most, if not all, the characters. As much as I understood that Mai went with Yoichi to Oshima to try to understand how Sadako's curse came to be, it was largely unnecessary because we had already treaded the same ground in the first film. Granted, Reiko didn't exactly tell Mai everything, but that's a poor excuse to get us back to Oshima for an anticlimactic ending. You think you're trying to escape from Sadako, but no, she just wants to have a friendly chat before dropping back down into the well. The one subplot I enjoyed was the one with Okazaki and Kanae, but you probably couldn't create an entire film out of it.

Spiral is unusual in that it was released at the same time as Ring, and the studio hoped that interest in Ring would cause viewers to go see Spiral and vice versa. Ring's success overshadowed Spiral, and for good reason. Spiral is quite the poorly-made movie with plot holes galore. I'm not sure a proper adaptation of the novel would have worked at all, and I love the book. I say that because Ring the novel and Ring the movie are two very different beasts, and Spiral's story works because of the "rules" Ring the novel sets up. Ring the novel isn't really much of a horror novel, to be honest with you, and so it's easier to accept that the cursed videotape actually infects the viewer with a virus that kills its host within seven days. Spiral the movie tries to become this horror/medical thriller hybrid, and it fails because it removes the unknown out of Ring. After seeing all of the supernatural stuff in Ring, the last thing you want to hear is that the cursed tape kills people with a virus. You want it, and Sadako, to remain this unknowable thing. You want it to remain in the realm of the supernatural for the sake of keeping it entertaining. Kadokawa quickly pretended Spiral never happened and went on to make the "real" sequel, Ring 2.

Ring 0 does something I think few really ever expected: it humanizes Sadako. She was never this crazy ghost woman trying to kill humanity one videotape viewer at a time. It turned out that she was actually this tragic young woman with abilities beyond her comprehension that ended up being her undoing. In that vein, Ring 0 steps away from the realm of horror and instead becomes a straightforward drama. You honestly feel very bad for Sadako by the time she's thrown into the well, and while it's actually quite brilliant to humanize her, it also makes it tough to reconcile the Sadako we've seen in Ring and Ring 2 with this tragic figure you root for in Ring 0. Okay, sure, her soul is pretty much taken over by her evil half, but still! You see the good half even after the evil half takes over! Where's the good half 30 years later?! Ring 0 is easily my second favorite film of the franchise, but it's the little missteps that mar an otherwise great film.

Eventually, the scares a horror movie provides fade away as you become familiar with the material. The true test of a horror movie's quality lies not in its scares but in its storytelling; it's what will keep you coming back. The Ring franchise succeeds with its core concept, I believe, and the possibilities that lie within it are exciting to witness when executed wonderfully.

Final word: Ring stands and will continue to stand the test of time. Spiral is a laughably pathetic excuse for a movie that you should try to avoid. Ring 2 is a decent sequel but not even its elevated production value manages to save a half-assed concept. Ring 0 is a fascinating look at the franchise's antagonist but the shift from horror to drama may irk viewers just looking to be scared.

Weekend (2011)

Weekend (2011)
Director: Andrew Haigh
Screenplay: Andrew Haigh
Starring: Tom Cullen, Chris New

One-sentence summary: Two men have a one night stand that eventually grows into more over the course of a weekend.

Review: Let me tell you a story.

Back in June, I met a guy off Grindr; we'll call him Jason. I was getting over a very bad breakup and I wasn't even sure how Jason and I would regard each other. Sure, we only wanted to be friends (and Jason needed them because he had just moved to the area), but what if feelings developed? This wouldn't be good for either of us because he was planning to leave for Japan at the beginning of October, and he would be gone for at least a year. I think it was that deadline that kept him from wanting to make really close friends with anyone while he was here.

Fast forward a couple more months. By this point, Jason had met the rest of my friends and he got along very, very well with everyone. It was almost like he had always been friends with us. Jason even met a guy he fell head over heels for! But now he had to make his final decision: stay with the people whom he began to regard as family, or leave for Japan in pursuit of his studies?

I won't tell you what decision he made. That would spoil the movie.

This story is relevant because as I watched Weekend, I realized that I was watching a version of Jason's main dilemma, with Glen (Chris New) serving as the representation of Jason. Glen thinks he's got his life all figured out until one night with Russell (Tom Cullen) makes him seriously reconsider, albeit in his own brash way, if he should just stay in England and give life there another shot. The film's protagonist is clearly Russell, so it takes a bit of extra work to figure out exactly who Glen is. I suppose that's one criticism I have of the film, though it's sort of a minor one in the long run because, as I said, Russell is the central character. If we're seeing the movie through his eyes, it only makes sense that Glen is something of an enigma.

You usually see this sort of plot play out in a fairly clichéd and predictable way in romantic comedies, so it was refreshing to see Weekend try to put a realistic spin on it. They spend a lot of time together over the weekend, and we end up learning quite a bit about each man through their conversations with each other. By the time the movie is almost over, it's not hard to believe that they both feel a very strong connection to each other. The road there isn't rainbows and puppy dogs; Russell and Glen discuss a lot of topics and get particularly serious near the end, which doesn't make for a fun watch because you're not getting any of the cute romantic comedy-type laughs that were present in small doses early on.

Weekend doesn't pull any punches when it comes to depicting sex. There weren't any flesh-colored socks on set, it seems. It would be fair to say that the movie doesn't cross the line into hardcore porn but the sex scenes are definitely more intense than you would normally see in comparison to a studio-backed picture, so be prepared to see (and hear) things that they didn't even let Brokeback Mountain depict.

The cinematography is beautiful. It switches back and forth from a cinéma vérité/mockumentary type style to static scenes where the camera sits there and we watch Russell and Glen converse for minutes at a time. I almost think Haigh went a little too far in making the movie beautiful because there are "transition" shots that, while pretty to look at, could cause a viewer to think they were unnecessary. There's virtually no score present in the film, and I applaud Haigh for making that decision because there's no reason for a score anyhow. It creates a quiet atmosphere perfect for the feel of the movie.

I actually wouldn't be surprised to learn that Tom and Chris adlibbed or improvised the occasional line.  The dialogue comes so naturally and nothing felt forced. They have fantastic chemistry together. (For the record, Tom is straight and Chris is gay.) Even the rather self-referential lines concerning creative endeavors involving gay themes, which I'm positive Haigh put in as an in-joke, fit well.

Above all, I think Weekend does something quite well: it's believable. You can believe that these two people met, and in a short span of time, formed a connection that will impact them for the rest of their lives. I've known Jason for only four months, but I know--I feel--that he will remain one of my closest friends for the rest of my life. Sometimes you meet people and they affect you in such a way that they become a part of you no matter how little you know them. That's when you know it's right.

Final word: I'd buy it on DVD/Blu-ray but it might be a film I revisit sparingly only because it's not really a fun watch.