Monthly Archives: February 2012
I think I was not in the mood for a masturbatory artsy flick so in love with itself that it lost its way. So, of course, I have to say that Drive was not enjoyable for me. It wasn’t the gore. I actually rented this because I heard it was violent. That’s the kind of gal I am. The “gore” was sudden and unexpected (if one had not read reviews beforehand) and I think that is why it was so “shocking” to critics and moviegoers.
From the very start, it felt like an homage to 60s/70s French cop flicks . It felt like I’d seen this before. The credits font, the electro-pop score, the way music was used, the camera angles were all so familiar. It felt like affectation. Still, it felt tight and I was geared up for, what I thought, was going to be a fun ride (pun intended).
What I disliked the most was that I could see all too clearly where the director was headed. I was too aware of the little tricks with pacing, for example. And it felt false, like it was just for the sake of making an arthouse film rather than making a kick-ass film which happened to be arty. I wonder at the repackaging into an indie, as well. Something to muse on…
What I did like, though, was Albert Brooks. He was a scary mutha, wasn’t he? “Don’t worry. That’s it. It’s done. There’s no pain, it’s over.” Oh my god, he was brilliant. Who knew Albert fucking Brooks could be so frightful and mesmerizing?
Can Harry Potter carry a film on his small shoulders? UK box office results say, “Hell yeah.” In the US, The Woman in Black was edged out by Chronicle. Hmmm. Still, all in all a good showing. Perhaps this is partially due to the agressive ad campaign, which seems to be the norm in recent years. Whatever the reason, this bodes well for DanRad as he tries to shake off his young wizard’s cloak and find his way as an adult actor.
The Woman in Black gives you old-school frights, which might not appeal to the jaded moviegoer who is accustomed to gore and torture porn. The gothic atmosphere, constant fog and wet wet wet of the remote English countryside, small cast, little dialogue…all this sets the mood for a good old-fashioned creepy film. Did I mention the dolls? Creepy toys from the period in which the story was written were used to lend authenticity. I guess they do. I thought the interior of the mansion looked too much like a set crammed with too many props. All I know is that old dolls like that creep me out. (and did he really have to turn on ALL the toys in the nursery?)
I thought the cinematography was excellent. Slick, wet, dark grays again lent to the suspenseful overall feel. I felt the score cues were a little heavy-handed but they usually are. It’s as if directors can’t trust us to know when we are supposed to be scared. DanRad was good but not as good as he might have been. I wish he showed more in his facial expressions. Loved Mr. Ciaran Hinds, as usual. You’ll have a few Hey, It’s That Guy moments. (See if you can find a Fifth Element That Guy)
If you are planning to see this film, pay the cash and see it in the cinema. Or at least watch it on an HD television. If you don’t, you might miss all the background spooky shadowy stuff. Boo!