The Lounge Version 2.0

Welcome to the new, updated (hopefully better) version of The Lounge blog! Now more appropriately called "The Film Lounge", this incarnation of the blog will a bit more ambitious effort. I have finally gotten around to breaking away just a bit from the cookie-cutter template look and added a thematic banner. Who knows what might also be added as we move along - hopefully some cool stuff.

To start, I have transferred all previous reviews over from the old site so nothing is lost. With that complete, the old blog will be deleted sometime within the next week or so since everything can be found right here. Bear with me as I play around some different arrangements for the blog over the next few days. Also, this version of the blog will feature other regular contributors who shall be introduced as they begin to post, so it won't be just me as we move forward.

Stop by regularly and see what I and others are reading and watching and what recommendations we are making. And as always, leave your comments and suggestions.

Again, WELCOME!

Kingdom Come Reviewed

Lately I have been expanding my comic horizons. Since my interest in comics really began about five years ago I've found my niche to be mostly in non-superhero and non-traditional superhero stories. The big exception to this is Marvel's Ultimate Spiderman run by Brian Michael Bendis of which I own all the available trades. But by and large the classic DC Justice League materials really haven't been a draw for me, nor have Marvel's staples like the X-Men.

Recently I found myself with growing curiosity and interest in the Green Lantern, which I've started reading. Along with that I decided to pick up DC's Kingdom Come. I have heard many good things concerning this title and I felt it was time to give it a read.

As a relative newcomer to the JLA, Kingdom Come was an interesting story to jump into and somewhat overwhelming. With little comic knowledge of the actual history of the major players (Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Batman, etc.) in many ways I felt as though I were jumping in mid-stream even though it is a stand alone story. However, a working knowledge really isn't requisite because the themes of the story are easily accessible. All you need to understand (and most people do I have a feeling) is that Superman and the rest of the Justice League have superhuman powers that they use for the cause of peace and justice on Earth. Or at least they used to before they stepped away from their roles.

Kingdom Come is a story that examines what their role really is, what their responsibilities are and how their actions ultimately impacts the course of human affairs. What we learn early on in the story is that many years prior Superman decided to walk away from his role as a protector of the innocent and champion of peace after a series of incidents soured public perceptions of his role. Due to his position of leadership in the JLA, the rest of the league followed suit, awaiting the day they would return to action.

In the interim, meta-humans rose up to take the place of the absent heroes. This new breed of "supers", led by a character names Magog, started out with the best of intentions but soon lost their way turning their focus on fighting amongst themselves leaving a path of destruction and suffering in their wake. The rest of humanity was powerless to stop them. Desperation reaches it peak when an incident in Kansas results in the complete desolation of the Great Plains and food production center of the United States. Is there anything or anyone that can persuade Superman to return to his duties as protector of humanity?

The heart of Kingdom Come is story of Superman, Wonder Woman, et al's decision to return and try to convince (or force) everyone to live in peace and pursue the cause of justice. With the Justice League returned, in some form or another, Superman and company wage an epic struggle to corral the renegade meta-human population while fighting their own personal demons. The central question: What is the cost of their noble pursuits?

In their telling of this story, Mark Waid and Alex Ross draw heavily on biblical references, specifically that of Revelations. It is therefore fitting that we experience the story through the eyes of a character who is a preacher and struggling with his own fears and doubts about humanity and it's uncertain future. The scope of this story was epic! Everything from the over-arching themes to the conflicts to the characters themselves was presented through beautiful illustration (Alex Ross) and on a grand scale making for an immersing read. While very much its own story, Kingdom Come drew many similarities to two other classic super hero tales with its subject matter, namely to Alan Moore's Watchmen (the examination of the role of the superhero) and Mark Millar's Superman: Red Son (Superman's personal struggle with tyrannical control in forcing peace on Earth).

I won't go about spoiling the ending for potential readers who haven't paged through this story. I will, however, highly recommend it. While I didn't like this story quite as much as either Watchmen or Red Son it is certainly worthy of the praise it has garnered since its publication. One of the aspects I really appreciated was its more serious and thoughtful approach to super heroes that it took. That is not to suggest that all other super hero runs are simply silly and poorly thought out. Hardly. But Kingdom Come certainly did present itself a cut or two above the norm.

Battlestar Galactica (1978) - "A" For Effort...

My current favorite television series is SciFi's Battlestar Galactica (or BSG for short). It is a truly great show full of action, drama and flat out engaging storytelling. I make sure not to miss an episode. However, it is not an original series, but rather it is the re-imagining of the well-known, but short-lived 1979 television series which was launched by the 1978 film of the same name. It was the late 70s and with the huge success of Star Wars in 1977, science fiction was again finding life on the big screen.

It is somewhat surprising to me that, until this past weekend, I had never actually watched the original film that started it all. I have seen random episodes now and then on TV and I can recognize the theme music, but I had never experienced the original. On a whim, some friends that I regularly watch the show with happened to find a copy for $10 and bought it out of curiosity. We weren't expecting a masterpiece, but there was some genuine excitement.

Before I dive right in, let me set the stage for those unfamiliar. Battlestar Galactica is the story of a civilization's epic struggle to survive. The setting is somewhere out among the stars where a human civilization is thriving (the 12 colonies, each sharing a name with one of our zodiac signs). It is a time of peace in the new series (and just prior to an armistice in the original) between the humans and the robotic race known as the Cylons. Long story short, the Cylons launch a massive surprise assault and almost completely exterminate the human population, hold for one human battleship - the battlestar Galactica, and a small fleet of civilian ships with around 50,000 people aboard. The story focuses on the humans fighting and running from the Cylons while they desperately search for a "fabled" 13th colony name Earth. This is the plot of the series and of the 1978 film.

Oh... my... GOSH! It turned out to be a complete bore fest and time never seemed to move so slow as it did for the those two hours that the film lasted. Of course, we felt that we should tough it out, but it was beyond trying. As I write this I fully recognize that on a certain level I really can't make an objective observation of the original Battlestar since I've already been enjoying the re-make for 2 years. It is truly like comparing apples to oranges. Yet, I don't lie when I say that the original was a misguided mess of a film. It absolutely was!

It is unfortunate that the original Battlestar fell short because it started out really very well, full of potential, even if its special effects were clunky by today's standards. The story transcended that fact. For a time. Then it fell into complete disarray, seemingly unable to maintain a focus and most certainly unable to maintain tone. If the whole of humanity was just wiped off the face of the cosmos, you could have fooled me because these characters sure seemed to be indifferent for the whole second half of the movie.

Equally bad was the bumbling romance which was as convincing as that Skywalker/Amidala affair of the Star Wars prequels. It wasn't. It was awkward, boring and wholly unnecessary. But ultimately I feel that the worst aspect of this film was that it lost its epic feel after the first 30 minutes only to devolve into what felt like an overextended episode that could have been, no, SHOULD have been captured in one hour rather than two.

I felt worse about the film seeing as two other friends who don't watch the new series watched it with us. One was visibly bored beyond belief and yet to his credit didn't complain. The other, who stayed much later and got a taste of the new series afterward, did seem legitimately interested and was sold on the new series after "sampling" 1 hour and 15 minutes of the mini-series... which flew by in what seemed like 10 minutes. It blew him away! I felt like we made it up to him for the two previous wasted hours.

Like I've said, I'm sure part of my reaction is due to the fact I was watching a much older version of a series I love. Even though I really wasn't entertained by it, I did see potential in it at the beginning. It did start off very well. In a rare testament to the cause of "re-makes", the creators of the new BSG have managed to capture all of the right elements from the original while taking in a whole new direction of their own. It just proves that, if handled well, re-makes can be great and even necessary.

In the end, 1978's Battlestar Galactica went down in flames. Unless you are a real sci-fi junkie, I cannot recommend watching the original Galactica. Most likely you'll just end up wishing the Cylons would have gotten them all. 2/10

Borat: Good For a Few Yuck-Yucks, Not Much More (Archive)

Considering that most my friends had seen Borat months ago, it is somewhat amazing that I only saw this film last weekend. Now I can join that conversation that inevitably starts up when people start talking funny movies. I... am in the "know" now.

Let me set the scene. Borat, also known as Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Kazakhstan, is the film that got A LOT of press, mostly because it pushed a lot of buttons with people. It was one of THOSE comedies. Of course, that is exactly why it was popular from the first time the trailer aired in theaters- it was irreverent, edgy and generally hilarious in the eyes of movie-going audiences.

Borat is the creation of Sasha Baron Cohen, star of Da Ali G Show. I have never seen the show but was more or less filled-in about its goings-on at a wedding reception last Fall. It sounded pretty funny and I was already curious about Borat, but never got around to seeing it theaters. And really, that wasn't requisite either because Borat was all over TV, on the late night circuit, on the Internet and being talked about by just about everyone younger than 30. I felt that I had seen most of the film before actually viewing it.

So finally I saw it. It was okay. There were definite funny spots but I never really started laughing uncontrollably, yet I was entertained.

The plot centers around the travels of one Borat Sagdiyev, a Kazakh television personality who is sent to America to film a documentary on American culture. Of course, it isn't that straight forward. Borat is portrayed as one huge caricature, as is his home country of Kazakhstan. Among the many jokes are the village kindergarten being shown with 4 and 5 year olds holding guns, Borat's wife being an fat old woman and he has a cow in his house. Borat's broken English is also the intended source for many a laugh. But Borat is going to America to learn things that will benefit Kazakhstan.

He arrives in New York and chaos ensues as Borat doesn't fit in, but rather sticks out like a sore, offensive and uncomfortable thumb. Much of the movie is nothing more than situational, hidden camera gags and its funny enough, but nothing extremely memorable. It isn't long Borat and his producer and traveling companion get checked into a hotel and Borat discovers Pamela Anderson on TV during an episode of Bay Watch. Becoming obsessed with finding Pamela and marrying her, Borat break his directive and begins his crazy journey across America.

Part of the impetus behind the comedy of the film to poke fun at difference elements of American culture, including the wealthy, the ENTIRE DEEP SOUTH, urban culture, Jews, feminists, frat boys, radical evangelicals etc. Some of it worked with me and some of it was just a bit uncomfortable to watch. I found the rodeo sequence where he sings the Kazakh national anthem hilarious, I enjoyed the morning newscast segment funny and also thoroughly enjoyed the antique store bit where he "accidentally" broke over $400 in merchandise. I'm sorry, but when the store in Alabama sells bumper stickers that read "Secede: Its the Right Thing to Do", I am entertained when the stuff gets broken. However, the sequence where Borat stays the night a bed and breakfast run by a warm hearted Jewish couple and played on just about every stereotype, I wasn't laughing. It just wasn't funny. I don't care if Cohen is Jewish himself, it just wasn't that funny.

In any case, Borat continues across country hooking up with a "lady of the night", hitching a ride with some South Carolina frat boys (who ended up suing Cohen after release of the film for misrepresentation) and "finding Jesus" before he finally arrives in LA where he proceeds to ask Pamela to marry him, accosting her (very obviously pre-arranged) when she refuses. He ends up going back to Kazakhstan with a new wife (not Pamela)

Ultimately I found Borat to be a mixed bag. Some of the material was good, some was just too stupid to really be that funny and some was just flat out not funny. I laughed at a few things
but I found very little of the movie to be all that memorable in the long term. Broken down to the basic elements, this movie was comprised mostly of a bad accent and unending string of sex jokes.

On a side note, the frat boys were funny because they were so TRUE to who they were, stereotypically so. They sued Cohen claiming misrepresentation under the supposition that they were drunk during that bit of filming. Lets get serious - if you're a racist and sexist while drunk, you're racist and sexist while sober. They're not fooling anyone. They were just upset that they were exposed on the big screen across the globe. BOO HOO!

If you haven't seen Borat and you keep hearing about it, its probably worth seeing once. At least then you'll understand what the references you are hearing are coming from. If you're easily offended by nudity, don't see it because there was plenty of that. No... TOO MUCH OF THAT!! Of course, you'll have to see the movie to know what I am referencing. Borat was good for a few laughs with some friends, but if you're missing it, you're not missing much. I probably won't see it again. 5/10

Grindhouse: A Tale of Two Very Different Films (Archive)

Yes, I saw it. I wasn't planning on it. The thought had crossed my mind, but I wasn't really leaning towards going. Then I got a call from the usual group of guys and the decision was made - I was going to Grindhouse, an homage double-feature that is a collaboration between Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino.

Let me first say that the extras were well worth it! The spoof trailers tagged onto the two features were some of the funniest stuff I have seen in awhile and the experience was only made better in the company of a bunch of friends. Now the rumor on the street is that the funniest of the bunch, a film called Machete, is indeed going to be made. If true, I will attend. Of that there is NO DOUBT!

Now, as for the films, lets get to it. The first was Rodriguez' flick, a picture called Planet Terror featuring Rose McGowan as the heroine along with a cast including Freddy Rogriguez, Michael Biehn, Josh Brolin and even a brief appearance by Bruce Willis. This film was a raucous, over-indulging gorefest that was so over-the-top and outrageous it produced nearly non-stop laughter beginning to end. Of course it wasn't meant to be taken seriously so the mission was most definitely accomplished.

Lets face it - a woman loses a leg and it gets replaced by an M16 machine gun. Yes, that makes no sense except for the fact that she and her friends are on the run from an endless horde of zombie-like humans who have been affected by a biological weapon which is causing them to mutate, eat brains and cause general havoc. So, as luck would have it, the M16 leg was just what the doctor order. And of course there was a full helping of slapstick comedy, grindhouse-style movie spoofs and fight sequence involving a grown man riding at 60 miles per hour on a pocket motorbike. I am only scratching the surface here.

Planet Terror was graphic beyond belief but it did serve a purpose lampooning a whole genre of movies and causing a chorus of loudly yelled "oooh"s and "eeeeeewww"s from the audience. If you are a fan of alien invasion movies, horror flicks, zombies or hardcore gore and action, I'd say this is a must see. It was simply too funny to dislike. Bravo, Mr. Rodriguez. Bravo! 8/10

That brings me to the second half of this double feature, Death Proof. Quentin Tarantino films don't have a good history with me, but after Planet Terror I was stoked and ready to go. And what should happen but that I get bogged down and bored out of my skull with a film that was way too talky for its own good and I would add simply disturbing in some respects. This film gets a big thumbs down from me. I couldn't wait for it to be over and had I been alone I would have walked out. To his credit, I think Kurt Russel played his character Stuntman Mike very well and he was the lone bright spot to this picture.

As I've said, this film was way too slow and talky from the get-go. It centers around a deranged man (Stuntman Mike) who gets some kind of sick satisfaction from spotting women and then ultimately killing them by means of his "death proof" stunt car. Or wait... did it center around two separate groups of girl friends who are going out on the town and hanging out in bars and talking... and talking... and talking.??? I really can't decide, but then again it isn't worth the effort to figure it out In fact, the first third of this film was two really long, really boring conversations. My friends and I kept looking at each other during the film and rolling our eyes. It comes down to this - if I wanted to spend a night out on the town with some girls, I would go spend the night out on the town with some girls. I didn't want to, I don't and it was completely lame.

Tarantino likes to pride himself on clever dialogue in his films and I'm sure his intent with these women were no different. However, these conversation were like watching paint dry. (Did you notice the impressive 25 minute long shot without a cut in the bar? No, because my eyes glazed over and I checked out after 15 minutes.)

Then there was the just plain disturbing nature of the rest of the film wherein a guy hunts down and kills women for sport with his car. I can tell you that I don't get any entertainment out of that and I didn't need to see a high speed car wreck in slow motion repeated three times. This film had no appeal to me, bored me to tears and disgusted me. Had it not been a double feature, I would have demanded my money back. Planet Terror is definitely worth paying for, but you won't miss much by ducking out early after its over. Death Proof sucked! 3/10

Now, I have heard some comments that Death Proof should have been shown first and been followed by Planet Terror, but I really think they made the right choice putting it second. Had it been the other way around, I think a lot of people would have simply walked out and missed a great time at the movies in Planet Terror.

As for Tarantino and me... of his films that I have seen, here is the rundown.

Liked: Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Volume II (own it)

Disliked: Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill Volume I and Death Proof


Edit: So after a well stated comment by good friend and film aficianado Jacob, I am adjusting my ratings for Death Proof and Planet Terror. He made some valid points and also upon further reflection, my ratings were out of whack. Notably, I can't justify to myself rating Planet Terror higher than Snakes on a Plane. So, let it be noted that the new ratings are adjusted.

300 Reviewed: Spartans Kick Ass! (Even If I'm Picky) (Archive)

There is little doubt that by now you've heard at least something about the latest Frank Miller graphic novel adaptation 300, a retelling of the ancient battle of Thermopylae fought between the Spartans and the Persians. Critics have said just about everything concerning this film: its runaway macho-ism, its brilliant film making, its juvenile, it testosterone-driven drivel, its inspired story-telling, its senseless violence, its great, its crap. Somewhere in that list of diverging opinion and analysis, the truth indeed lies.

I had the opportunity to see this epic clash of sword and shield on the big screen of the IMAX. (aka you take big and epic, you stuff it in a visual cannon, stuff WAY too much powder in it and shoot it into you face at point blank range!) Yes, seeing it on the HUGE screen was pretty sweet; this film was nothing short of epic in tone and scale! It filled my entire field of vision.

I shall start my analysis with the good. I was hesitant to see this film in the theater because, honestly, the trailers did not really psyche me up, it didn't make my blood boil, nor did it appeal to me it what appeared to be two hours of muscled men shouting at the top of their lungs. I was glad that it turned out to be nowhere near that. In fact, as far as story goes, it was balanced between the action and the more subdued aspects of the tale, and was ultimately an entertaining story.

One thing that the trailers did very accurately preview was this film's visual flare. It was a visual delight! There are those who may find it a bit overdone at times with the use of overflowing sepia tone. Some critics have flat out said that the landscapes didn't look real, but it didn't bother me. Other criticism I had read prior to viewing included bad dialogue and too much gore, neither of which I agree with. The dialogue was fine (and honestly, a secondary feature to this particular film) and the gore was actually less than what I was anticipating, whatever that means. I also found the actors to be more than competent (Gerard Butler, Lena Heady, Dominic West, Vincent Regan, et al.), with equal credit deservedly going to director Zach Snyder.

And what of the action? Yeah, what about the action? For swords, shields, spears and bare hands, there is no question that 300 delivered. NO QUESTION! Yes, they even had battle rhinos and war elephants! And yes, the Spartans took it too everyone and everything involved. Now, the Persians also had what appeared to be Uruk Hai (Lord of the Rings) and demons taken straight out of the old PC classic Doom which seemed a bit corny to me. I fully admit that this is simply a nit-pick based on my personality because in certain situations I can only suspend my disbelief so far and so long in proportion to said situations. I do also realize that is a feature of the fact that this is a legendary story with a mythos on par with that of Hercules, the Illyiad and Odyssey and we are being told the story as a narrative. It'll work for most. I just didn't completely work for me. But no matter what, the efforts of Leonidas and the 300 are legendary and my nit-picks do not by any means ruin the movie.

The not so good (more of a minor annoyance than anything) includes the fact that the movie gets a bit heavy at the end as suddenly the oratory speaks of how Leonidas and the 300 fought for everything good, right and just.... apple pie, blah blah blah blah blah.... yeah, we understood that much from the first act. Again, the intent is to add to the glory that given Leonidas and the 300, but it just hit me weird at the time. (I've never been big on reading the epics of old, whether Hercules, Beowulf, etc.)

On the up-side, the Spartans did in actuality win a tactical victory historically, despite ultimately losing the battle and the film doesn't stray from that. Facing a Persian army that was literally exponentially larger than their small force of 300 Spartans and several hundred allied Greeks, they inflicted a lot of attrition (which was exceptionally fun to watch!), based on factors that included superior fighters, location and tactics. Whether historically accurate or not, which is completely irrelevant to the purpose of the movie, all of this was very entertainingly demonstrated in 300. There is left absolutely no doubt that the Spartans are not your average men. None whatsoever. Hell, the women weren't your average women either.

In the end, this film was a hit with the IMAX crowd. In fact, aside from negative reviews that I've read, I have not spoken to a single person who didn't enjoy it. I enjoyed it too and may go to see it again before it leaves theaters. 300 is a movie with the sole purpose to exude epic-ness and it certainly succeeds.

If you are in rampaging mood, definitely go see it. If you want to see a good epic movie, definitely go see it. If you want to see Spartans just kick some good, old fashioned ass, you must see this movie! 300 gets my blessing; the Oracle says "Go see it!" 8/10

Children of Men Stays With You (Archive)

Rare is the occasion that I am left speechless. In fact, there is only one other film that I can recall viewing in the theater where I left completely silent: Saving Private Ryan. Let me begin by saying that Children of Men left me speechless. I was left deep in thought. When asked what I thought about the film, I had no immediate answer. I just didn't know what to say.

All I could think was that it wasn't a bad film, but I didn't know how I felt about it. A strange situation certainly. And in the hours and, yes, days that followed I kept running over it again in my mind. What had I seen?

Alfonso Cuarón's adaptation of the novel by the same name (author P. D. James) is well crafted. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. Set in a futuristic Britain of the year 2027, humanity is facing its own demise as, for reasons unexplained, humans can no longer produce offspring. In fact, no human has been born for 18 years! And slowly, the world has drifted into chaos and ruin as African and Eastern European society has crumbled entirely leading to a mass migration of refugees to places such as Britain which somehow manage to soldier on, but in a very despairing fashion. Ultra-nationalism and the police state permeate most aspects of everyday life and internal strife keeps people living on edge.

The main character of the film is a man named Theo Faron (Clive Owen), an ex-political activist who just wants to live his life in a relative peace. In fact, the film opens with Theo barely escaping a terrorist bombing of a coffee shop. Soon, events find Theo in the middle of a desperate attempt to smuggle a young girl named Kee (an African refugee) out of the country so that she can find and join an almost mythical group known as "The Human Project". This is a an almost impossible task as the government and military strictly control immigration (which is simply outlawed) and emigration of British citizens. While little is known about the group itself, they are allegedly a group of scientist located in the Azores (Atlantic islands) searching for a way to save humanity. However, like most people, we never learn more of The Human Project beyond the rumors and speculation.

Theo is recruited to help smuggle the girl by his estranged ex-wife (Julianne Moore) and a group known as The Fishes who kidnap him off the street in broad daylight. Theo really doesn't know what is happening but soon learns some harrowing truths, about the Fishes, about the world and most importantly about the girl.

To my surprise, after a mostly calm and talky first act, the action of the film picks up with some very intense moments during the course of Theo and Kee's journey. Even so, the film seems to retain a quiet, almost reverent and reflective tone throughout, never letting the central issues get lost in the sometimes overwhelming chaos of the moment.

The direction and cinematography do an excellent job of allowing us to experience the story - its amazingly immersing. Perhaps was this no more apparent than during the final act of the film, specifically during a sequence (an incredible, un-cut tracking shot) in which Theo and Kee find themselves caught up in a violent uprising in a refugee camp. The prisoners rebel and the government troops engage in very intense street combat to quell the uprising and restore "order". The intensity and realism was on par with other works like Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.

I know that my biggest obstacle with this film was that I was not sure how to interpret it: is it more a film of despair or is it ultimately a film of hope? The very worst on human nature is seemingly always on display, and yet it is intricately juxtaposed against the very best qualities of humanity and the strongest sense of hope. Still, the bleakness of a "not-so-distant" future is compelling, especially when presented at a time of unparalleled technological advance in our own world. In the end, there is no definitive conclusion. We are presented the good and the bad and what the future holds is for us to decide. Perhaps it is best that way.

After much deliberation and reflection, I can confidently say that Children of Men is an outstanding example of science fiction, presenting ideas that provoke and require pause as opposed to simply a collection of flashy gimmicks and gadgets as are so often employed. I cannot say that I enjoyed Children of Men in a way that invites sitting down on a Saturday afternoon and watching it, but I did enjoy the storytelling and the way in which Cuarón handled the compelling subject matter. It most certainly drew me in and it is a good story; perhaps not ultimately a feel good story (that is for the viewer to conclude), but a good story. I am glad that I was able to see it on the big screen and for a film that left me speechless, I can only give credit where credit is due. 9/10

The Prestige Delights (Archive)

Ok, I admit it - ever since Batman Begins, I've been on the Chris Nolan bandwagon. There. Now that is out of the way.

No, that movie with Edward Norton and Jessica Biel is not The Prestige; that movie is The Illusionist. I have not seen that film, but I know enough to tell you that it isn't anywhere near the same film as The Prestige. They just happened to both be about magicians and hit theaters at roughly the same period of time, hence the confusion.

Now I can tell you about The Prestige, Christopher Nolan's latest effort and second collaboration with both Christian Bale and Michael Caine (Batman Begins). The succinct review is that I really enjoy this film and you should see it! Of course, I cannot leave it at that. Allow me to lay out my thoughts.

I first became interested in The Prestige a few months before its release in theaters after I saw the trailer on the Internet. It looked somewhat dark, mysterious and stylish and I was further intrigued because I thought I had the drop on it; I thought I had it figured out. From what I saw in the preview I expected this movie would have something to do with supernatural powers. Let me simply say it wasn't what I was expecting... just like a magic trick should be.

The Prestige is a story about two, young competing magicians, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale). They meet in Victorian London while working under a man called Cutter (Michael Caine) and their rivalry is born when a tragic accident during a magic act claims the life of Angier's wife. All signs point to Borden as the cause of her death, but when earnestly questioned by a grieving Angier, Borden is sincerely unsure of his actions during the trick claiming only that "he doesn't know." But how? How can a man who was part of the act be so completely unsure of what took place? Angier, furious at what he sees as a callous response, refuses to accept the answer he receives and the two men start down a long path of mutual mistrust, hatred and professional competition. One of my favorite aspects of this film was watching these two men continually sabotage each other's acts in an ever escalating display of one-upsmanship.

This film is built around the central themes of magic, showmanship and deception. The story, while focused on the lives of its central characters, also serves as an interesting "behind the scenes" look at the world of Victorian-era magic (whether accurate or not, I have no idea). We see how tricks are pulled off and it is all interesting while remaining critical to the plot's development, with the real magic being the story itself, originally an award-winning novel by Christopher Priest. The manner in which it is told and the plot executed is superb! Without spoiling too much, the story is what it presents, that is to say, we too are an audience sitting in front of a grand stage. So as the magician's voice at the beginning of the film asks "Are you watching closely?", it is vitally important that we do.

As the story progresses we watch Borden rise to stardom in London as he performs the fascinating "Transported Man" illusion to packed houses. Meanwhile, Angier, already bitter at the loss of his wife and his career in ruin, becomes obsessed with discovering Borden's method so that he can improve the trick and steal the coveted spotlight and fame for himself. But Angier finds himself at a dead end, unable to crack Borden's secret. What is the illusion?

What follows involves sabotage and espionage, a bit of a history lesson (involving David Bowie in a role that impressed the hell out of me!) and a dash of well-executed science fiction. In the end, a truly marvelous trick plays itself out for us the audience and the rivalry between Angier and Borden finds itself at a surprising climax, or prestige in magician's terms; a prestige well-worth the price of admission.

Some critics faulted the film for being a bit over-acted. I disagree. I didn't find it to be unnecessarily heavy, over-the-top or distracting in any way, but that's just me. I thought Nolan once again did a fine job of directing and crafting a story. It is however a complex story, often played out through flashbacks and chronologically out of order presentation, so your attention is required or you will easily find yourself utterly confused (but not as confused as with, say, Primer) The performances were solid all around and it is truly the presentation of the story itself that entertains.

If you appreciate a mystery and enjoy connecting the dots, this film is one you should add to your NetFlix queue. Your patience and attention are ultimately rewarded with an ending that delights and raises an eyebrow or two. I found this film to be a thoroughly enjoyable experience and plan on going back many times to enjoy it again and again. 9/10

Going Back to Re-Visit Primer (Archive)

Today I had a friend ask me, "Primer? What is Primer?" Its an opportunity such as this that I relish- being able to talk about something that I consider a "favorite", whether it is a game, movie, book, etc. As listed at the side of this blog, Primer is one of my Top 10 favorite films.

Let me start by answering the question. Primer is a sci-fi film, a perplexing piece of story-telling and a respectable film making achievement. It is the product of literally one man- director Shane Carruth, who not only directed the film, but wrote, produced, edited, scored and starred-in it! The end result is a very impressive feature that, on a budget of only $7000, garnered critical acclaim and won the Grand Jury Prize - Drama at the 2004 Sundance Festival. ($7000.... take THAT Blair Witch!)

Its an indie film, but it certainly doesn't present as such. The skill demonstrated in the shooting and editing of this picture is impressive, especially for a first effort; Carruth has no previous films to his name. True, the film does carry a gritty aspect to it, but works more as a style than a distraction and I never once was bothered by any of it because it was the story itself that drew me in, confused the hell out of me and then pulled me back for a second and finally third wholly satisfying viewing.

The story of Primer is that of two garage physicists and friends, Aaron and Abe, who tinker and experiment during their time spent away from their nine to five jobs as engineers. They are trying to start a business of their own with some other associates, but are finding little success. That is until the two men stumble upon unimaginable discovery! That's when the projects goes underground- Abe and Aaron cut the rest out, work behind their backs and keep it all to themselves. But what exactly did they create in the garage?

Without spoiling too much, the men created a time machine! But it isn't what you think. Believe me, it isn't what you think.... at all. And as it would happen, it isn't what they think either. The guts of this story isn't the invention but rather the inventors themselves as we are witness to a struggle and intellect and wills. The occupant of their machine is able to travel backwards in time a distance equal to the length of time they spend inside the machine, so its not as if they can travel untethered to the distant past or the far future, and there are risks involved.

Like I said, the machine isn't the story, but rather its creators and their intentions. What starts out as simple curiosity quickly becomes an increasingly tangled web of deceit and maneuvering. Things begin to happen, events begin to change and a friendship becomes a rivalry as we follow this intellectual thriller and it certainly isn't easy.

I took me three viewings to really understand what was happening. While some people just choose to dismiss Primer as a confused, mess of a film, I give kudos to Carruth for his attention to detail and his expert telling of the story, a story which by its very nature is confusing. The confusion of the main characters mirrors our own but as you watch, it all comes together and in the end it all does make perfect sense. It is an amazing science fiction story which, for me and the group I watched it with, sparked a very long and interesting conversation in its wake. Again, my hat is off to Carruth for his efforts.

This film is not for everyone, especially those who like their films straight forward. I don't mean that as a criticism, but simply as observation. Its a complicated story made all the better when suddenly it all finally clicks for you, which is why I love this film. Its high concept, heady but utterly entertaining , especially upon reflection.

I have to hand it Shane Carruth; I cannot give him enough credit. He had a story that he wanted to tell, originally about inventing, and he ended up with a fascinating tale of science, human ambitions and consequences. Whats more is that he did it all on his own- no studio, no huge amounts of cash and no high expectations. Now that's storytelling! 10/10

The Walking Dead is Dark, But Compelling (Archive)

I'll get this off my chest up front - I'm not really a big zombie genre person. Films like Romero's Dawn of the Dead and your classic zombie subject matter material aren't high on my list. Now, I don't hate this stuff, but I am surprised that I have latched on to Robert Kirkman's "The Walking Dead" series from Image Comics. The title makes no bones about it: we've got zombies. LOTS of zombies. Perhaps I just have a subconscious fascination with apocalyptic type stories (which would explain my love of Brian K Vaughn's "Y: The Last Man") but one thing is certain- I can't get enough of this story.

Allow me to set the scene: Its modern day and Rick Grimes wakes up alone and confused in a hospital bed. He quickly realizes something is wrong and it may be the mindless rotting corpses walking around trying to eat him, but something is amiss. He quickly realizes that it isn't just the hospital that is overflowing with "monsters", the whole city and perhaps world are dealing with a catastrophic situation of completely unprecedented scale!

Skip ahead. Rick escapes the city, finds his wife and young son and bands together with some other "survivors" and they begin wandering the countryside looking for safety and others who may remain. The similarities shared with "Y" are abundant, but where Y is more adventurous in tone and more of a running social commentary, The Walking Dead takes a more intimate focus on interpersonal relationships and how the psyche deals with and processes traumatic experience. And every few pages you get a fair helping of zombie killing, including shooting them and hacking them down with shovels and hatchets. Its a fairly graphic comic!

The prospects for the future are bleak and no news from the greater outside world ever seems to reach our wandering band of survivors and so not surprisingly with death in all quarters, this is a dark comic. Very dark! Yet, it wasn't until I read the fifth trade paperback that realized just how morbid it can get. A new character is introduced who is an embodiment of evil, inhuman capabilities and utter fascination. Its the same kind of character exposition that made Hannibal Lector such an intriguing character, but The Governor, as he is called, is a wholly individual character all his own. I guess I equate him with some of most brutal dictators of the 20th century. No question he is mad, a damaged man who is simply incapable of normal function in a psychological sense.

For me as a reader the question arises as to whether or not this man was simply like this from the beginning or rather his behavior is the result of psychological trauma. Perhaps we will never have it fully explained, but even so, the ideas that this story brings into perspective are impressive nonetheless making The Walking Dead a compelling and engaging read. At first I was tempted to simply dismiss it as mindless violence and gore for the sake of violence and gore. The more I read, however, the more it becomes evident that Kirkman is touching on deeper themes and is weaving a tragic story that reaches out and pulls you in. As I said earlier, the biggest themes are how the human mind finds a way to survive in the face of dauntless odds and the intricacies of human relationships including interpersonal, familial and communal.

I didn't fully appreciate the art work at first either. It seemed very minimalist in the first book (very similar to 100 Bullets) and has changed with the artists along the way, but I have come to greatly appreciate how the utilization of shading creates depth which in turn reflects the tones of the story and expertly conveys the emotion. They also make great use of perspective throughout, framing scenes in ways that break from the norm. It works in adding scale and detail to the world in which the characters find themselves.

I am proof that you don't have to be a zombie aficionado to appreciate The Walking Dead. While it may not always seem like, there is more to the story that simply chopping up and shooting hordes of undead. If you are looking for an interesting, shocking and compelling comic, this title comes fully recommended. Its extremely dark, but a fascinating character study.

Babel Interesting, But Conflicted (Archive)

Its nearing Oscar time again and with that comes a hearty helping of film buzz. This year's nominees for Best Picture are an eclectic group which includes Babel, Letters From Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, The Departed and The Queen. This week I had the opportunity to see Babel and I took it.

I went in knowing nothing about the film. I had heard some of the buzz, but nothing particular and, in fact, I don't believe I had even seen the trailer. All I knew was that Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett had star billing. So in I went with a blank slate, something that I am rarely afforded these days, but it was a welcome and refreshing change.

Without giving too much away, Babel is a film that takes a single event and then shows how completely different worlds apart become entangled in the interconnectedness of our increasingly smaller world. It was somewhat similar to last years Best Picture winner Crash in that regard, although, beyond that these films share little in common. For starters, I enjoyed Babel infinitely more than Crash. I'll just leave it at that.

Credit director Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu (21 Grams) with presenting some very interesting stories. However, the manner is which they are woven together is a stretch, and unfortunately didn't work well together for me at all. The stories were worthwhile but the conflict of their relationship causes trouble for the film. The individual parts are interesting, but the whole is jumbled. I see how the characters and plots are connected, but that device pales in comparison to the compelling nature of each story resulting in an ultimately aimless film.

First, we are introduced to an American couple vacationing in Morocco who are suffering marital strife, a small Moroccan family living in the heart of North African wilderness, a nanny who is caring for the aforementioned couple's children back home in San Diego and finally a deaf-mute Japanese girl and her father who also have a strained relationship. A tragedy in Morocco ends up affecting all these characters.

As I've said, the individual stories were interesting, especially the Japanese story which seemed a completely different film all its own. The Japanese storyline followed the day in the life of a deaf-mute high school girl who is struggling with her place in the world, namely that people don't see her as anything other than "monster" to use her words. We watch her struggle in the common social situations and especially in the arena of boys and dating where her disability seems to her to be an impenetrable barrier. It seems that only her friends (who are also deaf) are the only ones who treat her with any amount of dignity. In response, she takes on behavior that screams for help in its recklessness and inappropriateness. Worse yet, her mother is dead and the relationship with her father is rocky. The question is how she will cope or will she even cope? Presentation of this plot was exceptionally well done and I was drawn in from the beginning.

The plots of American couple and the Moroccan family are directly connected when a shooting accident critically wounds one of the Americans leading to an international incident and the struggle to survive in heart of a foreign land. A couple already in the midst of strife seemingly have only each other as they face an uncertain future. Meanwhile, the Moroccan family is torn apart when the authorities come looking for the shooter putting them in their own struggle to survive.

Finally, the nanny taking care of the kids is called away from San Diego with no one to look after the kids while she is gone forcing her to take them with her in what turns out to be an illegal action. For me, this story, while a socially relevant and passionate commentary, was the weakest link.

I see this film as being almost too ambitious. Does it have a message? Yes, although I find it a bit difficult to clearly discern. Is Innaritu's aim more to make a statement on the interconnectedness of life or is it more his aim to make a point about the need for better interpersonal communication as the title would suggest? Its very hard to tell, and while I like the parts, the sum just doesn't seem to add up. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised that this film is a Best Film nominee. Films that are more artsy and philosophical tend to do well in this arena, and yet I would be surprised if Babel actually wins. Then again, I was shocked that Crash won! It certainly didn't deserve to, but it may be the same emotional mindset that votes for Babel this year.

In the end I really appreciated aspects of this film, but I don't consider it a great or powerful film. It required more cohesion and frankly the individual plots worked more to serve their own ends rather than to effectively pull together the big picture. Perhaps it was a shortcoming of the director or perhaps it just was too diverse in its focus or lack thereof. See it if you have a genuine interest, but if you aren't chomping at the bit, wait for DVD. 6/10

Band of Brothers is a Masterwork (Archive)

My recent purchase of Relic's real-time strategy game Company of Heroes has put me in a World War II mode as of late. I've always been extremely interested in the history surrounding that period of the 20th century and I've long been a fan of WWII films, notably Saving Private Ryan which is on my Top 10 List for favorite films. But a change is in order. While I will always appreciate that film, its spot will be given to HBO's mini-series Band of Brothers.

If you've not had the chance to view this 10-part series, it is spectacular! You can expect it to be well done having been an HBO series, but it is also the work of Saving Private Ryan collaborators Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks. In many ways it is the companion production to Ryan but also superior in my opinion, partly because it is a true story of the men of Easy Company of the 101st Airborne during WWII but mostly because, as a whole, it is simply one of the best productions I've ever seen.

Like Ryan, it holds no punches - it has some very graphic sequences and very intense combat sequences throughout. It also features a huge ensemble cast including actors such as Ron Livingston (Office Space), Donnie Wahlberg (Boom Town) and David Schwimmer (Friends) along with actors from across the entertainment industry including Colin Hanks, SNL's Jimmy Fallon and even Battlestar Galactica's Jamie Bamber. The series gets stellar performances across the board and becomes a very immersing experience as it moves along. If there is a weak performance, I've never been able to pick it out.

The series follows the men of Easy Company from their airborne training at Camp Toccoa state side in 1943 all the way through their experiences to the end of the war in 1945, including the pre-dawn airborne assault just hours before the Normandy landings on June 6, 1944 through the Battle of the Bulge to their capturing of Hitler's Eagle Nest in the Alps. The episodes flow together almost effortlessly and yet each one carries a distinctive feel to it, focusing on different characters and aspects of the campaign to liberate Europe. However, the storytelling is expertly done, creating a very real sense of camaraderie as we see the men of Easy change dramatically from their first jump into France to when they find themselves relaxing in the Germany Alps in 1945. Even as 10 episodes, it feels like one film.

One justified critique of Saving Private Ryan is that at times it gets a bit too sentimental and carries an almost forced feeling of its own importance. I never get that feeling from Band of Brothers, and perhaps it is due to it having more time to develop and tell its story than Ryan; it doesn't have to be as rushed. But Band of Brothers features something that really strengthens it and that is that it is set against interviews with the real men who made up Easy. We hear about the events and experiences in their words and then we see it played out on screen. Its an added and important connection. And what John Williams' score was to Ryan, Michael Kamen's score is even more so for Band of Brothers as it conveys much emotion through its refrains and suites without becoming overbearing. It quickly became one of my favorites.

It is evident throughout the series that great care was taken by Spielberg and Hanks and their production team at DreamWorks in adapting Stephen Ambrose' bestselling biographical account. The final product is a compelling, engaging and reverent look at the men who spearheaded the assault to liberate Europe from Nazi occupation of Europe. I have watched it through at least 3 times and appreciate it every time.

Lengthwise it is comparable to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, each episode roughly one hour long, some a bit longer, some shorter. It is likely that most people haven't seen this series for a couple of reasons: a) that they didn't have HBO when it aired in 2001 and b) it has been priced at around $90 since its release on DVD. It is starting to come down in price and I have seen it selling for around $50-$60 at most major retailers. If you haven't seen this series, I comes with my highest recommendation! If you have interest in World War II and haven't already, it is a MUST SEE!

This is hands down one of the best productions I've ever seen and Band of Brothers deservedly takes its place among my Top 10 films... even as a mini-series. 10/10

Snakes on a Muthaf**king Plane! (Archive)

"Whatever you do, do it well."

If that was the motto of the creators of Snakes on a Plane, then they get an A! The much-hyped, Internet-driven movie starring Samuel L. Jackson, a 747 and a butt-load of snakes never once diverted from its course of campiness and B-movie fun. A movie like this one, with such a huge expectations to be horrible, but fun has a great chance to just be horrible. All it takes is the slightest injection of seriousness and the movie fails. In viewing Snakes on a Plane, I don't think seriousness was on the same flight.

During the opening scene there is a suspicion that the creators might be trying to go for more. That feeling last approximately two minutes and after that you know that Snakes on a Plane will be just right - bad and with no apologies. Obviously the plot is far fetched and because of that you cannot help but laugh at everything thrown the audiences way. Every character is a caricature; the dialogue is paper thin.

Lets see... there is the hip-hop rapper signing teen-aged fans' breasts in the airport terminal, we have the stewardess on her last run (Julianna Marguiles), the flamboyant male-steward, the crazy pilot (SNL's David Koechner), the slutty stewardess, the snooty Brit, the newly-weds, the unescorted school-aged brothers, etc, etc, etc. Oh yeah, and a crate full of the world's deadliest snakes! Wait... AND Samuel L. Jackson as the FBI agent who ain't going to take shit from anyone, including the snakes.

Its a five hour flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles. The first class passengers have been relegated to coach, you can expect some turbulence as we fly through a thunderstorm and beware the snakes. In true B-movie fashion, the first attack strikes two young lovers aiming to join the mile high club in the bathroom. Yes, we get to see bare breasts and on top of that, a snake strikes one of those breasts, met with a chorus of laughter. Later there is the guy who gets bit in his junk. Real high brow stuff.

One chihuahua and a full grown man later (they were eaten by a Boa) we arrive at the climax of the movie wherein Sam Jackson yells his famous line, "I'm tired of these muthaf**king snakes on this muthaf**king plane!" Solid gold material!! They finally are able to land the plane solely on the experience of one of the rapper's bodyguard's (SNL's Keenan Thompson) Playstation 2 flight sim experience. Whew!

As I've already said, this movie could have simply been bad. But because the creators were able to keep it light and avoid any seriousness at all, this movie worked. When you read the title, you know what you expect and it is exactly what you get - a very stupid premise that is hilarious in its ridiculousness. Watch this movie with a large group of friends, the more the merrier. It isn't a great movie, but it is great at what it is supposed to be - Snakes on a Plane. 8/10

Ambiguous "Black Hole" Fell Short... In Its Time (Archive)

Certain things happen in your childhood and they somehow manage to stay in your memory very vividly as the years press on. For me, The Black Hole was one of those things. I was one of those kids who, instead of being endlessly fascinated by dinosaurs, I was always intrigued by the heavens- stars, planets and of course, black holes. This is why I rented the film when I was about 8 years old. I watched it by myself. I was thoroughly creeped out! And through the years that experience of being scared stuck with me, buried deep in my psyche, nagging me to go back and watch it again. So not only did I watch it again, but I had to find and buy it merely to do so.

A testament to a different time, it carries a PG rating, but I would argue that this film isn't for kids, at least not when I was 8. Now being an adult, I was very excited to go back and see just what it was that frightened me back then and to see if it held up at all. The results are mixed, but its not what I expected.

This film IS creepy! Of this there is no doubt. The atmosphere created and presented in this film are genuinely eerie. But watching this film in 2007 I saw how utterly cornball major aspects of it are which results in this film being completely ambiguous. Its not that this movie is of poor concept or even poorly made (from a cinematic aspect), but it doesn't work on a lot of levels, namely in that is tries unsuccessfully to combine a very heady concept with light hearted action, which itself is oddly paced and feels extremely out of place. This is probably the result of this film having been Disney's first major effort to move into a new genre and the fact that in 1979 it came on the heels of the wildly successful Star Wars franchise which launched in 1977.

Buried in its shortcomings, this film is a gem and, as a friend pointed out after our viewing completed, was well ahead of its time conceptually. This film deals with some very abstract concepts, dark themes and its setting is gripping - it gets to you.

The film opens in deep space where the crew of the Palamino is in the midst of a long voyage of exploration when they encounter a ghost ship- the Cygnus, a ship lost for nearly 20 years. Not on is the discovery of the Cygnus an amazing find, but it is found to be sitting perilously (but completely motionless) on the event horizon of a massive black hole. The crew of the Palamino take an examining pass of the Cygnus detecting no signs of life. Then, after narrowly escaping the outer pull of black hole, the crew of the tiny ship suddenly see the ghost ship come to life with a dazzling array of lights. They have only one choice- they must go aboard. Naturally.

This is where the film becomes unnerving. The ship indeed apparently lifeless. The crew is slowly ushered further and further into the bowels of the ship where they finally encounter an small army of robots and one lone surviving human- Dr. Hans Rheinhardt, a legendary, arrogant, but genius scientist. They come to learn that he has harnessed enough power to resist the pull of the black hole and he stands on the verge of perhaps the greatest discovery in human history - he is going to go in and through the black hole! Is he mad? Is he capable? Is he really alone on this ship?

In truly great storytelling fashion, all of those questions remain debatable even past the credits, a true testament to the ambitious efforts of the film's creators. Indeed, something unthinkable did happen to the crew of the Cygnus and it is the discovery of the truth that brings an abrupt halt to the crew's visit, or so they think. They suddenly find themselves destined to accompany Rheinhardt on his final voyage into the unknown. In what turns out to be yet another impressive feat of storytelling, the end truly is unknown, or rather unexplained, much like the endlessly discussed (and maligned) ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Below the very cheesy surface, including a robot with a southern drawl and unimpressive and clunky action sequences, the ideas and concepts explored in The Black Hole are BIG! This film reminds me of films like 2001 for its conceptual ambition and others like Event Horizon for its macabre and unnerving tone and feel. (I don't want to give anything away, but throughout the film you always feel as if you are always being watched wherever you go, and that despite being alone, you are not) But ultimately it doesn't fit in its own skin, that of a vintage classic, a take from the old guard of cinema. (Fact: It was one of the last films to be released with an Overture) The ideas of this film are not nearly the same shades of black and white of previous generations of film. They are abstract, open-ended and conceptual... more in the vein of many of the movies that find popularity with today's audience. At the same time, this movie simply looks too goofy at times to fit with more modern films. It truly is an orphan, perhaps best classified as an experiment.

Another friend looked at me and said, "This film deserves a re-make." Normally, I am not gung-ho for re-makes, but in this case I agree that it would be appropriate. If handled right, this film could make for an amazing project, with the correct use of special effects and a fine-tuning of the science behind the concept.

At 25 years old, I immediately understood why I was frightened by this film nearly 20 years ago. I was still creeped out this time around, only this time I appreciated what lay under the surface of this story. It held up where I had hoped it would but fell apart in many, many places. I probably cannot recommend this film to the general viewing audience. But if you appreciate bold ideas and non-standard fair, check this movie out. ... If you can find it. 6/10

My Thoughts on The Descent (2005) (Archive)

Normally I am not one who views and enjoys horror films (films that are simply made to frighten). But I had been curious to see Neil Marshall's The Descent after hearing from some folks that it was rather good movie. This weekend I got the chance to sit down with some friends and view it. It wasn't totally what I was expecting, but I have to admit that for a horror/thriller it was entertaining.

I do not wish to spoil the film for those who haven't yet seen it, but I will present a brief synopsis. The story focuses on six women, all of whom are friends and all of whom share a passion for adventure, namely climbing and caving. This time around they are going to a place that all but one of them have never been... or so they think. In fact, none of them have ever been to this cave and thus the gears are set in motion for a trip gone terribly, terribly wrong.

For me, this non-traditional premise helped the film because it didn't feel derivative. In today's film culture, that scores points with me. It also didn't waste any time setting itself up as a psychological thriller, tapping into some of the most primal human fears including being trapped, being lost and most notably being in the darkness. The setting of a cave also adds that claustrophobic element which heightens all the other elements I've just listed.

The title of the film serves a dual purpose: to describe the physical descent deep into the earth and also to denote the psychological descent into madness that arguably all the characters undergo, but most notably the central character, Sarah. But due to a previous personal trauma that she experiences a year prior to this adventure, Sarah is already not on even keel mentally, battling her own demons.

Speaking of demons, I'm not entirely sure why, but I somehow expected this film to feature some supernatural demonic element to it and this film turned out to be different that what I expected, because that never came into play. Something did, but discovering what exactly that is is part of the experience that goes with viewing The Descent.

This movie makes you jump and is quite eerie, but looking back, the methods employed by the director are conventional; things get very quiet, the musical cues come in and the characters suddenly movie very slowly as they peer around corners and move through tunnels. Most of the time you can feel that something is about to happen, but you still jump! This film was a great showcase for music is this respect. While watching I began to wonder how different the experience would be if the soundtrack were removed. It still would have been creepy, but the music definitely helped to put the audience on edge. It wasn't a memorable score, but it succeeded in its purpose.

Overall, I would score The Descent a 8/10. It wasn't derivative, did some very interesting camera work (given the confines of a cave setting) and genuinely creeped me out. I would recommend it, and certainly if you're looking for something a bit different in the horror genre.