Saw (2004).

Review #1750: Saw.

Cast: 

Cary Elwes (Lawrence Gordon), Leigh Whannell (Adam Stanheight), Danny Glover (David Tapp), Ken Leung (Detective Steven Sing), Dina Meyer (Detective Allison Kerry), Mike Butters (Paul), Paul Gutrecht (Mark), Michael Emerson (Zep Hindle), Benito Martinez (Brett), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Makenzie Vega (Diana Gordon), Monica Potter (Alison Gordon), Alexandra Bokyun Chun (Carla), and Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman and #1556 - Insidious)

Review: 

"It changed our lives. Sure, it really wasn’t the film I set up to do, yet it ended up being this cultural phenomenon that we never expected. I never expected that my first little, as I refer to it, my student film would ultimately go on to have such a cultural impact."

If any horror film could help to help define the first few years of the 21st century, you could likely make a great case for Saw to be in the argument. Oh sure, the quality of each feature has varied from film to film (for which there were six sequels in the next six years before the supposed finale was followed by two standalone movies), but one can't deny the lingering legacy that arose from an interesting presence from two soon-to-be known directors from Australia. James Wan and Leigh Whannell met each other when each were attending the Royal Melbourne Institute Of Technology, for which they bonded over their shared interest in horror. Years later, they wanted to make a film for as cheap ($5,000) and simple as one can make when having to work dead-end jobs; Wan and Whannell each suggested ideas to each other, but one idea by the former really stuck through: two guys in a room that had a dead body lying on the floor with a gun and a tape player. Whannell ran with the idea and expanded on it to what became Saw (for which he came up with the title); since they wanted to prove that they could actually do it, they took one scene from the film and shot it as a short (picking the scene involving the reverse bear trap for Whannell to act). Shot in Los Angeles in 2003, the short attracted attention from a variety of interested funders, with Evolution Entertainment being the one that Wan and Whannell went with because of the freedom granted to do the film their way (with a shooting budget of roughly $700,000 for eighteen days of shooting). 

Sure, it is gruesome, but it has a few fair merits to consider beyond just classifying it as the starting point for so called "torture porn." Pffft, I say, as this term seems to exist just for "higher-minded critics" to degrade horror films that just happen to make folks uncomfortable while being different from the usual fare (in other words, some folks are squeamish for stuff that seems tame to others). Besides, it would be the sequels that would up the ante in gore (which even got the 3D treatment with the seventh film), while this film is actually more reminiscent of Seven (1995), what with the exploration of a hunt for a killer that dabbles in sins. Undeniably, that film is superior in pretty much every way when it comes to its psychological aspects and main detective pair, but at least Saw manages to accomplish a portion of the terror that can come from the simple act of having two folks in a room with tension over trying to stay alive in a macabre mystery-thriller. Honestly, I thought it was a fine movie, all things considered. For 103 minutes, it balances itself out with a few elaborate traps and a few semblances of plot (in flashbacks, complete with red herrings) that hold up the interesting premise long enough to stick the ultimate landing, which likely will provide curiosity to those who prefer to sit through their films time and time again; its quality may vary from person to person like a puzzle game, where if one likes the process they'll go back to it and look to scramble it all over. Undeniably, the acting isn't the strong suit of the film, but I was fond enough of the presences captured anyway (although this is more because of the familiar faces more than anything, which can boomerang the other way around if in a lesser film); sure, Elwes may overact a bit with the material, but he makes the most of it with reasoned interest, since he has the overall story to work with (as opposed to Whannell, although expecting him to have great acting isn't exactly feasible). Glover and Leung do okay in the procedural aspect, albeit in the sense that it goes about as well with the film as it would on a buried script of a TV procedural. Bell is mostly utilized for his voice more so than physical presence for most of the film, but he gives it his effort for a role that could have veered into one-note (puppets don't count). The final turn of the screw for the closing is on the money, at least when it comes to not insulting its audience completely while being quite definitive in its lasting note on a killer that tests the will of survival of his would-be victims with traps that makes for a stone cold time. As a gritty feature with sparse features (such as in its shots and design), I would say it is a worthy accomplishment for what Wan and Whannell wanted to do in filmmaking, one that accomplished its ride of curiosity without stumbling over the clichés. It might not be a great piece in horror filmmaking, but it sure made its mark count with its interesting premise and execution that opened the door for further grips into terror in puzzle traps, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Halloween II (2009).

Insidious.

Review #1556: Insidious.

Cast: 
Patrick Wilson (Josh Lambert), Rose Byrne (Renai Lambert), Lin Shaye (Elise Rainier), Ty Simpkins (Dalton Lambert), Barbara Hershey (Lorraine Lambert), Leigh Whannell (Steven "Specs"), and Angus Sampson (Tucker) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman)

Review: 
"I wanted to prove to people that I could make a very classic, old-fashioned haunted house film and show that I could make scary films without relying on blood and guts."

Sure, one can go the mainstream path with horror films, or they can go into independent features that try to reach audiences without trying to compromise themselves too much in vision, whether with gore or not. James Wan found himself as a key figure in making independent horror that reached mainstream success. Born in Malaysia but raised in Western Australia, he graduated from RMIT University with a bachelor's degree in Media in 1998 that helped him teach him about the process of filmmaking he had wanted to do. Wan made his first film in collaboration with Shannon Young as Stygian (2000), a 16mm low-budget action-horror feature that found its way to local film festivals (such as Melbourne's Underground Film Festival, which noted it as having a great use of the "Guerilla Aesthetic"). It was his directorial debut in true features however that proved prominence however: Writing with Leigh Whannell on a script that was inspired by their dreams and fears. Aspiring to pitch to studios with something presentable, they made a short film together in 2003. The nine minute short (with Whannell appearing as the star) Saw ended up attracting enough attention for a subsequent feature film to be directed by Wan the following year. While Wan would co-write for the third film, Wan moved on to other features, although Dead Silence and Death Sentence (both 2007) proved less successful, leading him to take a rest until he aspired to make a horror film with Whannell without needing to resort to gore. He has kept himself busy with horror in directing and producing (aside from a few profitable blockbusters), which included directing the second of the subsequent Insidious franchise.

Sure, it is easy to go around the bend and call the film an attempt at a modern-day Poltergeist (1984), with its haunted house aspect (...to a point) and having to have a parent rescue their child from the other world and such. But that would miss the point of the fact that this is actually more equal to the sequels of Poltergeist in that they are laughably missing adequate scares along with its attempt at explaining itself in the second half for less adequate effect. I do wonder how the film might have been with acting that seems more prepared than having three weeks to film - of course it could also be possible that Wilson and Byrne just okay and that's that. One gets to partake in the "things are happening and I'm the only one who sees it", while the other tags in for the latter half and handle the horror themselves because plot reasons or something. One almost wishes for more Shaye at that point (without more of the obvious bumbling from Sampson and Whannell), mostly because one would probably want the soothing temperament in reaction to building horror as opposed to the family aspect (oops).  If you desire a film that tries to ride on atmosphere with a bit of visuals that don't rely on gore, this could be for you, but honestly this just came off as a parlor trick that has seen better days. This was written by Leigh Whannell (who wrote for all four Insidious films while directing the third one and also doing his own somewhat overrated horror film with The Invisible Man ten years later), who as with Saw also has an important small role in the film. 

Wan and Whannell can be applauded for their attempts at making a cheap little family drama falling into horror that maintains their independence without spending more than $1.5 million, at least. I just wish it wasn't such a silly spectacle in doing the mundane in jump scares that might as well be a film where someone goes "BOO!" every so often. At that point, I'd rather have the little gore cheapie that could, because it will test patience in a less tiresome way. The second half may be weaker than the first, but that's mostly because if it is going to try and explain itself or delve into concluding itself with scares, it better accomplish something meaningful more than just a book report of how they spent their haunting. If one invests themselves into its carefully concocted family scare-show for 102 minutes, they may find something with some satisfaction in those moments to jump out in imagery. For me, it proves too mild and too late to build its mood to a rightful enjoyment worth more than one viewing for those who prefer to see a bit more fight in their horror times.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Aquaman.

Review #1175: Aquaman.

Cast: 
Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Amber Heard (Mera), Willem Dafoe (Nuidis Vulko), Patrick Wilson (King Orm), Dolph Lundgren (King Nereus), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (David Kane / Black Manta), Nicole Kidman (Atlanna), Temuera Morrison (Tom Curry), Ludi Lin (Captain Murk), Michael Beach (Jesse Kane), and Randall Park (Dr. Stephen Shin) Directed by James Wan.

Review: 
I will admit that I did have mild expectations for Aquaman, much in the same way that I try to hold for most superhero films, where I hope for some fine entertainment along with at least some sort of storytelling or substance. It isn't an exceptional film by any means, but it does have plenty of entertainment value and a fair bit of charm to make a solid feature with enough spirit of adventure to prevail. It fits squarely in the middle with other superhero films in recent years, being just as fine as other features such as Black Panther (2018) for example but also being particularly better made than other films adapted from DC Comics such as Justice League (2017). Honestly, the best way to make a superhero film is to just have fun with the material while not making a mockery out of what makes a hero what they are, while having interesting secondary characters to go with it. In that regard, Momoa is up to the task handily enough, giving plenty of dignity and charm while handling himself just fine for the action sequences. Heard does fine with her role, although the chemistry between her and Momoa isn't too noteworthy. The others in the cast stand to do their parts just fine, although having two villains in Wilson and Abdul-Mateen II seems a bit much. Lundgren seems to be having fun with his kingly role at least. The dialogue certainly doesn't help too much with giving these characters too much life, having more splashes of delivering exposition; in that case it is no wonder the film runs at 143 minutes, which can feel a bit long at times, although at least the action scenes do help to cover some of the slack. The film also has time for humor amidst the spectacle - where else can one see an octopus do a drum solo? Undeniably, the film hinges quite a bit on the execution of its effects, since a majority of the movie takes place underwater. For the most part, it looks fairly convincing, and I can only imagine the effort it took to make the actors seem like they were in water. The action works well, not being too jerky or blurry for the eyes. The climax is fine and dandy. The film has a bunch of people pulling the strings behind its execution in writing, with David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall being behind the screenplay while Geoff Johns, Wan, and Will Beall are credited with doing the story for the film. On the whole, this proved to be a good fashioned crowd-pleaser kind of movie, doing what it aspires to do without too many bumps. The film works more often than not in trying to give its main hero a place for the big screen through good fun and a decently patched story that allows the possibility for more with this character that can only go up from here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.