Showing posts with label Jeffrey Donovan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeffrey Donovan. Show all posts

November 5, 2024

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.

Review #2309: Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.

Cast: 
Jeffrey Donovan (Jeffrey Patterson), Erica Leerhsen (Erica Geerson), Stephen Barker Turner (Stephen Ryan Parker), Kim Director (im Diamond), Tristine Skyler (Tristen Ryler), Lanny Flaherty (Sheriff Ronald Cravens), and Lauren Hulsey (Eileen Treacle) Directed by Joe Berlinger.

Review: 
"“My original intent was to make a comment on the dangers of blurring the lines between fiction and reality. Even I didn’t realize how prescient that idea is. We’ve never had more information available at our fingertips yet the truth has never been more elusive.”

Remember The Blair Witch Project? Sure, you probably enjoyed it when it came out 25 years ago in 1999. The film starts with people gushing about the phenomenon of the film and the interest of in how the website apparently really sold folks about the events that supposedly appeared in Burkittsville, Maryland (a town with less than 200 people) as a "documentary". Unfortunately, you are reading the words of someone who thought the original film was an overrated, over-hyped, under-produced fluke. Part of me thought about re-watching the first film before seeing the "sequel", particularly since it had been five years since I saw that film (and three since I saw the 2016 "whatever you want to call it" Blair Witch). But since I had an inkling that this was not going to be a particularly "good" experience, I didn't want to consider watching two mediocre movies back-to-back, so here we are with a curiosity. Artisan Entertainment, wanting to rush out a follow-up as quick as possible, went with Joe Berlinger to direct; he had gone to the studio to pitch a script to the studio that they were more interested in ignoring to instead approach him with scripts they had cobbled together about the Blair Witch (in found footage, again), which he rejected. Amusingly, Berlinger has been on record as saying that he thought the original film that was both effectively done by the filmmakers along with one that "aggravated" him because of its camera work (with relation to reality) along with its marketing hoax that made people really think they were watching a snuff film. At the time, he was noted for his work with Bruce Sinofsky in documentary filmmaking, such as their films chronicling "the West Memphis Three" with the Paradise Lost trilogy (1996-2011).  He co-wrote this film with Dick Beebe. After the film had been shot, Artisan decided, yes, let us change the "ambiguous psychological horror movie" they fast-racked into production to piggyback off the first film to impose more "commercial" elements to the film in post-production, such as seeing brief moments of gore or interrogation that occasionally pop up in the film (for the latter, it was meant to bookend the film as one whole video sequence); Berlinger has been quoted as saying that Artisan did not care for the idea of going for a "Hitchcock-ian" idea of seeing nothing with its violence because in the view of the executive (as quoted by Berlinger), "our audience can barely spell "Hitchcock." The result of spending $15 million was a movie that had a fair audience showing, albeit not one on the level of the original. Berlinger has continued to direct documentaries, although he did return to narrative films once more with Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019). There apparently exist efforts by online people to do an "Artisan Studio Removal Cut" for viewing if you know where to go.

Before I forget, apparently the "book of shadows" involves a witch's book of illusory incantations. That, and the film is a "fictionalized reenactment of events that occurred after the release of The Blair Witch Project [1999] (specifically November 1999)". That's one way to get moving for a film after it gushes about trips to Burkittsville (and TV pundits talking about the first movie like suckers), having a guy get a tube stuck up his nose. Obviously, this is so one can flash back to how things will eventually end up in the "conventional" narrative. It probably is not a great sign that the first 15 minutes has one interesting sight: Director, being first shown lying on a gravestone with a cigarette. The movie may say that people fear what they don't understand but the only thing people should fear here is that the original Blair Witch Project not only managed to trick people into believing the crap spewed out in "found footage" but that people actually thought they could make a follow-up that wasn't just as dumb as before. At least this time one isn't hearing "what was that?" while the camera gets shaken round and round like before...it just merely is a silly movie that has little to no suspense but at least has a narrative worth making fun of to go with some bloodshed, which at least is something tangible. The idea behind the film was yes, the characters we are to follow were the killers and also are blinded by hysteria when it comes to the aforementioned legend. The problem with that is ironically the same problem that happens with cruddy "traditional horror" movies and the aforementioned 1999 movie: I do not like these dorks that much. Director and her attempts at playing "Goth" is at least alluring in ways that Leerhsen just manages to come off as annoying (so anyway, ever heard of a "Wiccan"?). At least Flaherty is meant to be amusingly over-the-top. I shudder to think about the film really would be with the original intent of romp-gone-dour, but what you get is a movie that might as well be thrown up into a toilet. The ideas of trying to be "subversive" for a horror audience at least was handled with some sort of amusement in The Cabin in the Woods (2011; wow, I found a way to compliment that movie in less time than I ever expected). The movie doesnt work for much interest in "what horror fans want" because it doesn't have cohesion in actually making the trip worth shuddering over. All you get is a panicked feeling. As a whole, this compromised mess of a movie is amusing in its monumental mediocrity that shows ideas of interest but flails around just a bit too much (studio or otherwise) to be a worthy winner.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.
Next up: The sequel to Ring...well, the real one this time with Ring 2.

July 6, 2018

Sicario: Day of the Soldado.


Review #1105: Sicario: Day of the Soldado.

Cast: 
Benicio del Toro (Alejandro Gillick), Josh Brolin (Matt Graver), Isabela Moner (Isabela Reyes), Jeffrey Donovan (Steve Forsing), Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (Gallo), Catherine Keener (Cynthia Foards), Matthew Modine (Secretary of Defense James Riley), Shea Whigham (Andy Wheeldon), Elijah Rodriguez (Miguel Hernandez), Howard Ferguson Jr. (Troy), and David Castaneda (Hector) Directed by Stefano Sollima.

Review: 
Apologies for the delay, I had some things I needed to get done in the past few days, so this review was delayed from its intended day of Wednesday. Hope you enjoy regardless.

Sicario was a movie that I described as a "tense and brutally effective thriller", with the main three leads of Emily Blunt, del Toro and Brolin proving to be dynamic to watch in how striking each are in dealing with what transpires on screen, and it was a film that had a sense of purpose and intent to what it showed on screen. This time around, the filmmakers decided to not have Blunt back, stating that the "moral guidance for the audience" that she provided in the first movie did not fit with the tone of the sequel. Perhaps the fact that she is not featured alongside del Toro and Brolin that makes this feel a bit unnecessary for some, and your mileage may vary on how this film succeeds at churning up points to exist. However, one important that is retained from the first one is Taylor Sheridan as writer, and he does a fine job once again in giving these characters a fair bit of depth and interest to them. It is in the depiction of the action and in the main three of del Toro-Brolin-Moner that the film works best, with parts in the story being the biggest detriment. The two movies stand out in their levels of moral complexity, with the first one being the one with more of it. It doesn't click as well with showing the pursuit of some sort of greater good crashing into the nature of what it takes to make for said "greater good" that occurred with the earlier film, but its the sequences with del Toro and Moner that make it seem fairly worth it. Brolin also does a fine job with making his (fairly) amoral character work in not having his plotline come off as stale. The other members (including a returning Donovan, who I had forgotten about) do decent in the time they get on screen. The action this time around is pretty rough, with occasional moments of shock but manages to not come off as repetitive or dull. If you compare the two Sicario movies, it is evident which is better pretty quickly, but it shouldn't get in the way too much of how the sequel manages to succeed on its own terms just enough to make a winner. Although it is a bit eager to set itself up for a sequel moreso than the original, I am curious to see where the story will lead itself from here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

November 1, 2015

Sicario.


Review #753: Sicario.

Cast
Emily Blunt (Kate Macer), Benicio del Toro (Alejandro Gillick), Josh Brolin (Matt Graver), Daniel Kaluuya (Reggie Wayne), Maximiliano Hernández (Silvio), Victor Garber (Dave Jennings), Jon Bernthal (Ted), Jeffrey Donovan (Steve Forsing), and Raoul Trujillo (Rafael) Directed by Denis Villeneuve.

Review
Sicario (a term for hit man) is a tough movie to write words about. It's a good movie, I can say that much. But I can also say that it is not for everyone. The movie certainly had a mystique on me, given that it was the first R-rated film I saw in theaters. The movie had gone into full release in October, yet I was watching it in November, with not much of a crowd (six, including myself) but perhaps that made the movie a little more isolated and intriguing. The movie certainly deserves its R-rating, but it also deserves accolades as well. What we have here is a tense and brutally effective thriller that is both unrelenting and interesting to watch. The main three are brilliant in their own ways. Blunt is certainly a lead character we can identify with as an audience to follow with. As for del Toro, he always seems to lurk around but still manage to be interesting and entertaining to watch, especially as his story comes full circle. Brolin has a grimy charm to him that makes him enduring to watch as well. The movie isn't really about hunting down a villain as much it is about seeing the progression of our lead as she sees the methods Brolin and his team uses, especially with regards to del Toro. The movie works because the drama and action balance each other out really well, especially at the end with del Toro. It's a great movie to look at, especially the night vision scenes. Ultimately, this isn't a movie for the faint-hearted, but it is a good movie to watch for some entertainment that may make you think hours after you watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.