Genre Studies: Horror

Of the various genres, horror is perhaps the most ambivalent. One of the oldest genres of the art form, its conventions, riddled in cliché, can be spotted by even the most generic of movie goers, yet it remains as one of the most sustainable powerhouses the studio industry has left. It possesses one of the most unique followings, a cadre of misunderstandings attached to its popularity, and, over the decades, a veritable rollercoaster ride in regards to quality and originality. However, despite its notoriety, the horror genre is ultimately a representation of our fears and failures, and as such, will always remain as a vital representation of our society, and the nature of our humanity.
As one of the earliest film genres, horror can trace its roots back to the early French film Le Manoir Du Diable or The Devil’s Castle, a short two minute film from 1896. And while this particular film was certainly the first in the fledgling genre, it was soon trumped by the feature length films produced in the silent era. The Golem (1915), The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919), and Nosferatu (1922), all born of German expressionism, became the true roots of the horror genre. These films, due to their much greater sphere of influence, appeal, and impact, are today considered the forefathers of the horror genre. Their more formal length giving greater room for exploration into new territory, and providing the foundation needed for actual solidification of the genre itself.
Now, the period in which a genre is officially recognized as such is a rather fluid stone to set, but in the early 1930’s, what with the American studios’ sudden recognition of the appeal such films had, the exploitation of this fact soon warranted its definite authenticity. It is within the 1930’s that one sees the emergence of many iconic characters in the horror genre. Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and the list goes on, the characters, most drawn from mainstream literature, providing a safe basis for the genre to continue to flourish, while allowing for new interpretations to take place and original ideas to be introduced. And, with the excellent reception these films received, the genre was successfully stabilized in its conventions.
Large portions of the population relish an adrenaline rush. And horror, at its most basic level, is meant to produce fear, the very definition of the word giving weight to the statement. Therefore, branching from this fact, many of the genre’s conventions spring forth. Reflecting the genre’s primary goal, to scare, the mise-en-scene of a horror film will usually be somewhat eerie or creepy in nature. This sets the stage for the rest of the film, creating a sense of unease in the viewer. As such, most horror films will be set in some sort of foreboding atmosphere. Disturbing weather, copious night shots, unsettling sounds in the distance, old or foreign places; these are all elements of mise-en-scene that a talented director will bring to life in order to make the audience more susceptible to the various scare tactics the story will provide.
Additionally, due to their nature, horror films have always offered a slightly more visceral experience than most other films provide, although the intensity certainly varies depending on the period of their creation. This is most commonly seen in how inherent death is to the genre, but is also seen in the tension between the characters. Watching the interactions between the victims in the film as they handle whatever is plaguing them, watching them crack so to speak, serves to further put the audience on edge, as they slowly recognize that the horror does not always come from the outside. However, as the genre has progressed, or, as society has become increasingly numb, this intensity has come to include both language and sex as well, which is responsible for much of the genre’s infamy. Blatant attempts to jolt the audience are common as well. The typified “just a cat” taking the form of sudden bursts of diegetic sound, appearance of hidden animals, shadow movement, or other such contrivances, all traditional scare tactics.
Finally, the villain, or the source of the horror, also possesses certain conventions as well. First, going back to mise-en-scene, the appearance or characteristics of the villain rarely leave any doubt to their purpose in the story. From red eyes and coarse fur to prison garb and a vicious smile, the picturesque elements of evil possessed by the villain are usually rather blunt. Secondly, the villain has to be somewhat unstoppable. Fear is most often rooted in helplessness, and a villain that can easily gobble up platoons of marines or possesses some sort of otherworldly power, creates that sense within the audiences. Lastly, a horror film will most often end with a moment of uncertainty, a hint that the villain just might not be gone forever. And, while this convention receives a lot of love from the studio execs in the form of multiple sequels, the original intention supports the genre, a final stab at the audience’s psyche. Basically, “the evil was defeated, but don’t get too comfortable.”
These conventions however, while they do validate the genre itself, do not, in this case, fall into the formulaic or stifle the art form too badly. And, being a subject of one of humanity’s most basic emotions, horror has become one of the deeper representations of our culture. Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954), one of Universal’s many monster flicks, is a prime example. From here one can begin to trace the genre’s evolution, tied to the changes in culture and technique. Creature, a relatively simple film, follows the exploits of a team of researchers, and the presence of an undiscovered life form, the titular creature. From the very beginning of the film, in the first few minutes, the culture in which the film was made becomes strikingly clear. First, there is a nod to the Christian faith, giving credit to God for the creation of earth, reflecting the need in the fifties to portray piety, actual belief in irrelevant. At the same time however, the film validates the Theory of Evolution, revealing the culture’s fascination for science, and the interesting hybrid created between faith and science born to this decade. Additionally, this introduction is performed by an off screen narrator, one having no place in the actual story. This practice, while still in mild use today, was common for this era, almost as if the common masses needed things explained to them, leaving no room for individual interpretation. This is once again, a reflection of the culture.
As the film progresses, a rather simple plot unfolds, lacking many of the details and complex character motives seen in many of today’s horror films. As an audience, America seemed to demand less at the time, while today people come to the theater with elevated expectations, regardless of what they will actually accept. In the film, the lead archeologist, without even the smallest montage, stumbles upon the fossil that pushes the plot forward, the man seemingly just picking it up out of the dirt. Bringing it back to the “lab” the rest of the characters are introduced, devoid of the actual complexity inherent to being human, their motives immediately made clear from the get go.
Additionally, the gender roles within the films reflect the culture with uncanny accuracy. While the female lead within the film is part of the work force, she is still portrayed as being dependant on her boyfriend for support and protection. She is seen within the film as being much weaker than the men, and constantly worrying. Within the plot she continuously puts herself in danger, and is the object of interest of all the other men as well as the creature itself. And while the film is an extremely far cry from possessing an actual misogynistic portrayal of the character, she is portrayed strictly within the bounds of the traditional perception of the fifties. The love story between the two mains is also extremely traditional in nature. Their interaction is innocent, subdued, and perfectly happy, the only complication being mild and playful banter regarding when they actually would be married. In today’s eyes, the relationship feels hollow and bland, but to a culture where the outward perception of happiness and perfection are paramount, this would have been acceptable.
As well as looking at the genre’s cultural facets, one must also note the various trifles within the film that map the actual progression of the genre itself. One of the most pointed examples of this is in the manner the director attempts to frighten his audience. Here the focus is almost entirely on the suspense and the actual monster, which was typical for the time. And, while one might normally think the genre has grown out of this completely, (looking at many of today’s mainstream horror films) the genre has actually just branched. While not as popular as the shock type imagery one most commonly sees, there still remains both a monster (special effects focused) and suspense branch within the genre, stemming from these early films.
As far as technical elements, the film has multiple scenes in which a POV shot is used, a trend begun in horror by Rouben Mamoulian in his film, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), which today is a mainstream component of horror films. Diegetic sound is also used within the film to startle the audience. A convention of horror mentioned previously, although it is certainly a limited amount of use by today’s standards. The mise-en-scene was appropriately creepy, but much lighter than a modern audience is used to. The score is blunt, but recognizably appropriate for the genre. But, in addition to these technical notes, the way the film plays out also presents many aspects that have imbedded themselves within the genre.
For example, the minorities in the film (Brazilian research assistants and crew members) are continuously dying as the film goes on. Typical in many horror films, especially the monster flicks, the minorities are the first to die, usually written into the script as mere fodder for the monster to devour, providing more tension in regards to the main characters. Another example is the presence of the notorious inability for the female lead to make a proper escape from the monster without tripping at least once on nothing. This is probably horror’s most laughable cliché and, as seen from this film, is an aged motion. The ending, revealing the monster’s uncertain defeat, is another of the film’s typified conventions.
Jumping forward a few decades, we can see how the genre’s conventions and cultural reflection have progressed, using Clive Barker’s Hellraiser (1987) as an example. In this film the focus is primarily on that of the supernatural, instead of the focus on science seen in Creature. The film revolves around a family living in the house where a man named Frank, the former lover of the main, died. When Frank begins to come back to live, feeding on the flesh of the living and manipulating his ex lover, the tale begins. Vital to the plot is a small cube, which can be manipulated in order to summon a special sect of demons, specializing in torture. They want Frank, who had escaped them in the past, and so the film plays out, entrenched in the machinations of Frank and the demons, and focusing on those captured in the struggle.
This focus on the supernatural as the source of fear is directly related the cultural priorities of previous decades. Prior, as seen in Creature, science is becoming inherent to the American culture, but is new and therefore produces fear. In Hellraiser, a film of the eighties, science has become part of our lives, and so the focus has shifted to that of the supernatural, that which cannot be explained by science. In addition to this, the exposition and characters of the film have become much more complex. What was so simply portrayed in creature has now become subject to individual interpretation, the complexity inherent to the new post modern era.
We also see a much different perspective of gender equality. In Creature the female lead was portrayed in a way reflective of the traditionalist views of the culture. In Hellraiser, we can see a notable change. The multiple female leads in this film are portrayed as equals, if not domineering, in each of their typical relationships. Both characters are much stronger and more outgoing in this film, and are no longer simply victims of the evil that plagues them. Here we see them killing men and demons alike in order to secure their goals or defend themselves, no longer relying on the male as a source of protection and providence. And while the film is still subtlety machismo in nature, (placing women in horrible situations for a mainly male audience) the actual portrayal of women within the film reflect the attitude of the modern culture.
The happiness in the film in no longer existent either, in fact, it is quite the opposite. It may seem ridiculous to not the absence of happiness in a horror film, but if we look back at Creature, the portrayal of happiness, even amidst all the adversity, is very important. Here, this previous importance has been lost, and a much more realistic perspective has taken its place. And while the tension between characters in Creature was essentially akin to two rocks hitting each other, in Hellraiser it is more like oil and water. Both have the same tension as part of the objective to set the audience on edge, but the more modern attempts have developed into something more, the tension from unseen motives and slippery beliefs, rather than simple differences in opinion.
The overall experience of the horror film has become much more visceral as well. In Creature much of the edge comes from the actual suspense. In Hellraiser, we see the trend of shock horror that picked up such momentum in the eighties. Close up shots of massacred bodies, rats, cockroaches go hand in hand with cringe worthy shots of personal injury and mutilation of the human body. No longer is there any active censorship of coarse language, the characters letting the F-bomb fly in order to add to the tension of the audience. In Creature the height of sensuality was a kiss. Hellraiser possesses multiple scenes of suggested rape, blatant seduction, and simple unhaltered lust, but it is still considerably lighter material than what one might find in a horror film today.
The mise-en-scene is noticeably darker, the sun rarely shining, more noticeable in a color film. The score to has progressed, the soundtrack much more subtle and complex, the music covering a much broader range of emotional pull. The monster has also changed slightly. While being more complex in motivations, the character itself has become less so. The monster in Creature carried a touch of sympathy, the genre convention of absolute evil having not quite set. In Hellraiser, we see this convention risen into its complete form. This shift is actually a by-product of the increasing complexity of the characters. As the protagonists begin to slip into fields of grey, the antagonist must become blacker in order for there to be a proper difference. In horror especially this difference must be made clear, so as to create a source for the fear.
These changes however, are not the end, the genre continuing to evolve. Today we can see the beginning of a shift away from the slasher film’s of the eighties, the focus coming back to monster and suspense films of the thirties and fifties. While fear of the supernatural remains strong, the fear of biological and genetic mutation has been becoming mainstream as well, the genre reflecting new fears within our culture. Even as more and more filmmakers begin to pull and stretch many of the genre’s conventions, horror remains, stronger than ever. And as a new branch forms, cinema vertite slowly stemming within the genre as a recognizable technique and the influence of many foreign filmmakers, one can only speculate where the genre will proceed to.

Silence of the Lambs: A Psychological Review

Silence of the Lambs was a near perfect film on all accounts. The writing was excellent and thought provoking; the director pulled off several interesting shots, thus bringing the story to life with an amiable performance. Additionally, the acting was superb, especially in the part of Hannibal Lector, whose character Anthony Hopkins embraces wholeheartedly. While the film is not rife with outright terror, relying more a diabolical thought processes and twisted characters to make sure the audience does not get to comfortable, it still remains as one of the top horror films to date.
The movie begins with the introduction of our first main, Clarice Starling, an FBI trainee and favorite of Jack Crawford, head investigator of new set of grisly murders. Crawford wishes to use the mental faculties of brilliant Dr. Hannibal Lector to solve the case. The only problem: Lector is an insufferable psychopath, wishing only to feast on human flesh. Sending in Agent Sterling, in hopes of getting Lector to talk, and thus reveal something about the case, Crawford thus introduces us to our second main, Dr. Lector. This first scene of interaction between our two mains is probably one of the most powerful in the entire film, setting the stage for Starling’s perseverance and Lector’s dark ruminations.
The film moves on with Starling’s continued investigations into the “Buffalo Bill” case, following the clues left by Lector, rather than by more conventional means. After another attempt to enlist Lector’s help in the matter, the interrogations come to a halt, following another murder at the hands of Bill, this time the body washing up near Starling’s home town in West Virginia. After other clues are uncovered by autopsying the newly found body, Starling lures in Lector with a false deal, guaranteeing him limited freedom in return for his help. After discovering this Lector makes a real deal with Bill’s newest victim’s mother. He is then brought to Tennessee to meet with her and, after some disturbing dialogue, drops both a name and description of the killer.
Crawford and Starling are both removed from the case, due to the false deal they created, but not before Starling has one last chance to speak with Lector. This last scene of face to face dialogue is the best, trumping even the first in its excellent execution. In the end Lector gives out a few more clues, just before Starling is escorted off the premise. It is not soon after this that Lector escapes his new prison in, perhaps, one of the most original ways to date. The action then shifts to Starling, who, following Lector’s clues, draws closer and closer to the killer. Eventually she finds him, and after one of the only, but frightening none the less, scenes of dramatic terror, confronts Bill and, in the end, shoots him to death. The film ends with one last conversation between our two mains, and while short, remains just as entertaining as those prior.
Now, however, we must turn to the application of various psychological theories to the film, in regards to its disturbing content. Fortunately this was a stellar film and therefore a true critique is unnecessary. First up, Freudian Theory. In the film Silence of the Lambs, the, perhaps, most prominent example of the Freudian Theory can be seen in many of the psychotic patients near Lector. Of these the insane man known only as “Miggs” is the most powerful example. The ego giving away completely to the id and the complete lack of any sort of recognizable superego accurately presents itself in the most horrid sexual manner. The character in the film lacks every social or cultural cue regarding sexual advancements, debasing himself and others with his overbearing sex drive, shedding light on what a human might be like with only the id controlling one’s action.
The id can also be seen in the primary villain of the film, Buffalo Bill, who also seems to have an overbearing id, albeit one that still has uses for both the ego and, to a minor degree, the superego. Another interpretation could be that his id is simply dysfunctional, needing things that one would not normally place in the normal person’s id’s jurisdiction. Once again sexual implications are a primary focus, very Freudian. As for Hannibal Lector, there could be multiple arguments for his actions, ranging from the dysfunctional id from the last example, to a dysfunctional ego, simply “thinking outside the box” to achieve the id’s needs.
Regarding another piece of Freud’s work, defense mechanisms, Silence of the Lambs offers plenty of fertile ground. Repression is most obviously seen in Starling’s purposeful forgetfulness regarding her own past, something Lector helps her out with near the end of the film. Isolation is also seen presented by Starling and Crawford with their extremely cavalier attitude to Lector’s rather distasteful enterprises. Reaction formation could be said to be displayed by Lector himself, in regards to his refusal to harm Starling, even after her constant attempts at deception and gregarious mistrust of him. Introjection is an easy one to see, as the villain is one whom thinks of himself as a transsexual. Regression is also a prominent piece at the beginning of the film, with multiple flash backs by Starling when in uncomfortable situations. Sublimation is, once again, displayed by our female main, who takes her fear of slaughter and transforms it into a drive to catch those whom slaughter.
Moving on to Karl Hung’s philosophies, we can observe the various archetypes present in the film. Of the most prominent of these in the film, the shadow archetype certainly takes center stage. Here the animalistic needs present within all of us lie and in some cases, as much of the evil presented in Silence of the Lambs, rises to the top of our consciousness. In Bill we see the dark side of sexuality. For him it takes on a twisted form, for in the film he is constantly shown to be doing things that in other circumstances might have been considered just normal horniness, but through comes out to be something rather sick. In fact many of the shadow like representatives in the film are presented as perversions of normality. But one cannot forget the most prominent example of shadow presented in the film, Hannibal Lector. He presents another aspect of the shadow, one of viciousness and brutality. In fact, later on in the series Hannibal is even alluded to a prominent example of the shadow, namely the dragon.
Naturally there are many other archetypes present in the film. As in nearly all film and other works of art both anima and animus are present. There is a father figure present, albeit briefly, as seen in Starling’s father. The child is also present, which could be said to be represented by many different characters, from Starling, to Bill himself. Naturally we have the hero, represented by the naive and idealistic Clarice Starling. We have the maiden, taking the aspect of the Senator’s daughter whom has been kidnapped by the villain. The wise old man archetype can be seen in Crawford, as he is continuously taking Starling under his wing and giving guidance and care as needed. Additionally, one can see lector as the dark father archetype, as he too is constantly giving the hero much needed advice and guidance, albeit in a much more twisted fashion. Finally, the hermaphrodite is a large part of the film as the villain very much so embraces such an archetype.
It is easy to tell why these things would scare us, loss of control over the id or even our one shadow archetype, are frightening thoughts. But, what else makes this film so disturbing? If you apply Evolutionary psychology, a most prominent example is evident near the very end of the film. When Starling is alone in the dark, being stalked by an unseen menace that can no doubt see her, one can almost feel her fear. According to the Evolutionary theory of fear this is due to the universal fear of both the dark and the unknown. It is during this scene that our main character fully realizes her fear of death, another universal fear. A final example of this theory lies in the fact that none of the prison guards tasked with keeping Lector locked up can stomach the thought of truly examining the “near dead” guard supposedly struck down by Lector. Naturally, this leads to Lector’s escape.
As for King’s theory, that we are fears are reflected by our culture and vice versa, this to can easily be seen in the film. Primarily these fears are represented by our two monsters, Lector and Bill. The primary reason the two to be so terror inducing lies in the fact that they could be anyone. They have no outward signs of what truly lies with in, and this is something that, in today’s society, we are afraid of. It is the reason we lock our doors at night, it is the reason we try not to go anywhere alone, we do not want to be eaten by a psychopath or skinned by another.
The moralistic fears evident in the film have to do primarily with our cultures views on sexual immorality. Miggs, with his blatant “immorality”, using sexual slang and masturbating in his cell, dies soon after he is introduced. The question is: do we feel sorry for him? No, certainly not, we cheer Hannibal on as he calmly speaks of the matter. Additionally, there is the cautious practice of not helping strangers. The third victim of Bill learned this the hard way.
Perhaps most prominent of all, however, is the extreme homophobia present throughout the film. The most obvious example is the difference between the two monsters in the film. Hannibal is actually portrayed as a sympathetic character. We tend to fear him, yet who did not applaud his ingenuity evident in his escape. No, he is not the true villain in the film; the true villain is Buffalo Bill, a despicable creature whose problems arise from his homosexual type tendencies. The film is created in a fashion as to force the audience to view Bill with the most blatant disgust we can muster. Why? Because he wants to be transsexual, he acts gay, he is, to “proper” society a monster simply for those reasons and the filmmakers attempt to exemplify this by creating him to be a true monster.
The film is good, I will most likely watch it again, something I do not do very often. It provides a wealth of examples for all the various theories and philosophies of the human mind, and with that, human fears. The film provides the perfect balance of thought provoking dramatics and shocking scenes only seen in our own nightmares. Truly a most excellent leader of its genre.

Welcome to Sarajevo: A Review

Welcome to Sarajevo is an excellent political commentary on the subject of the world powers' inefficiency at problem solving. Based off the novel of the same name written by Michael Nicholson, the film was directed by Michael Winterbottom. Starring several actors claiming unreputable careers themselves, Stephen Dillane, Woody Harrelson, and Marisa Tomei never less play their roles in a stunning fashion. Possessing a brilliant script and a unique style of filmmaking, Welcome to Sarajevo is arguably one of the best “true” examinations of war.
The film follows the activities of an insane group of field journalists as they attempt to accurately cover the Bosnian war in the red hot city of Sarajevo. The atrocities are unthinkable, the damage unimaginable, the evident nonchalance on part of the UN, uncomfortable. Eventually, the group decides to try and help the people around them, rather than just document them. Focusing on the desperate children of Sarajevo, the group shows the world how dangerous their situation is, at the same time showing the utter lack of compassion on the part of the UN bureaucracy.
Not wanting to lose face, the UN caves, supporting the evacuation of the children most threatened within the city to Italy. The journalists follow; wanting to make sure the children reach their destination safely, and film along the way of course. Their journey is interrupted, however, by a Czech border patrol, which takes some of the children. Shocked by this sudden turn of events, one of the journalists spontaneously decides to take one of the children home with him, in this case a nine year old girl by the name of Emira. In London Emira finds a home, unsullied by the destruction and hate rampant in her homeland. The journalist, and the rest of his family, has, at the same time, grown to love Emira, every day a reminder of innocence, rescued by the barest of margins. All this is threatened, when Emira’s mother, presumed dead, discovers where her daughter has been, and decides she wants her back.
Our ever so compassionate journalist refuses to comply, and travels back to Bosnia to find Emira’s mother and convince her to let him adopt Emira. The situation in Sarajevo has, unfortunately, not changed in the least, and after several dangerous escapades, the journalist finds Emira’s mother. She, however, refuses to comply with his requests, and the journalist, now rather frustrated, has Emira’s mother follow him to his fellow journalists’ base of operations, where he has a video recording of Emira back in London. Showing the distraught mother the tape, he decides to let Emira talk to her mother herself, for the Bosnian woman still is unconvinced. The situation is settled in one dramatic instant, as Emira flat out tells her mother that she will not be returning to Bosnia, not for her, not for anyone. The movie soon ends, with the assurance that the real Emira, is safe, still living in London.
The theme in this film is pretty straightforward. It attempts to show the viewer the horrors of war, the tragedy that is part of life, and the effects such a situation has upon the people. It also attempts to express the political paradox evident in such violent wars. The fact that the most powerful countries on our earth cannot efficiently affect even the smallest and least influential pieces of the world, is something the filmmakers wanted to get across. The creators of this film do this an extremely clever way, not focusing on any one country in particular, although there is a slightly greater focus on the U.S., rather they aim their jabs solely upon the UN, and every country part of it.
The style used in the film itself was an excellent choice for the film’s dominant theme. Much of the footage was actual footage shot on location during the war presented in the world’s news broadcasts. What was not, was shot in the same gritty, slightly unclear, feel that true on scene news footage has. It also presented many elements of an action adventure film as well, helping to keep the audience on their toes, but the focus was too thoroughly pulled towards the dramatic style and story, that any true semblance to such a genre is lost. The film almost bordered on that of documentary in several areas as well, giving it an element of truth that made it much more believable and engaging.
It was, perhaps, this “combination” of genres between drama and documentary that became the strongest element within the film. It breaks down the traditional barriers one places around the mind when watching a film with such horrifying scenes, knowing that what you are watching is not real. In this film, however, one does not know what is real and what is fabricated, due to the amount of true footage present throughout, this, in short, strengthening the emotional appeal of the entire film. In the end, however, the film remains firmly in the drama genre, due to the fact that it is fiction and only based on actual happenings.
The film was very effective in the fact that the viewer is easily able to grasp the main themes present in the film. As I mentioned previously the amount of documentary like style the filmmakers use in the construction of the film is the primary drive behind this, pulling the viewer in, and then punching them in the heart. It gives the viewer a much different impression then one might think given the film’s prominent form of emotional appeal, namely the various war crimes and their effect on the citizens of Sarajevo. What one expects is to have a more saddened reaction. Instead Winterbottom presents the film in a much more shocking format, basically sidestepping the tearful reaction, digging much deeper. Instead of the more superficial reaction, one almost feels disappointment in humanity. It is a disappointment in the fact that human kind can be so brutal, but at the same time disappointment that human kind can be so utterly uncompassionate.
In the end, Welcome to Sarajevo is a truly powerful film, presenting its message in a unique fashion. Expertly directed and executed, in no way does the script or directing take away from its primary purpose. Essentially it is a warning, a warning of the consequences evident in the human loss of compassion. I thoroughly recommend this film to anyone who might not have missed it; its message needs to be heard.

American Werewolf in London: A Review

This is a pretty good film in the scheme of things. In fact the only thing keeping it from being one of the best in werewolf cinema is the dismal acting throughout. The writing is mediocre, but serviceable and the director is definitely talented, but the acting… It just does not quite reach the level of hair raising horror that would make it perfect, mostly due to the fact that none of the characters ever show any real fear, but it does have its moments.
The film begins with beautiful sweeping shots of the English country side, slightly reminiscent of certain romanticism type elements. The camera then pans down onto two young American tourists, backpacking through England. After some personality revealing dialogue, the two young men happen upon a small pub and enter as to escape the cold. Eventually, however, the two figure they are unwelcome and leave, stepping out beneath a full moon. Continuing on, our two young adventures decide to turn around after being spooked by foreboding howling noises. Unfortunately, they do not make it in time and are attacked by a monstrous wolf. The locals soon arrive on scene, guilt ridden for sending them out in the first place, and shoot the beast to death. It is too late though for one of the boys is already dead, the other wounded, but only superficially.
David, the surviving kid and our main, wakes up in London Hospital confused and upset by the news of his friend’s most untimely end. The plot slows as we see dreary set of scenes slowly setting up the relationship between David and his nurse, Alex. Things truly begin with the apparition of Jack, David’s dead friend, totally gruesome and bearing devastating news. David, he explains, is a werewolf and must kill himself before the full moon as to prevent the potential destruction that will result if David transformed in such a populated city. David, already suffering from intense nightmares, dismisses the event as fabrications of his traumatized mind. Eventually, he is discharged from the hospital, and moves in with his newfound love interest.
The plot shuffles on, as David and Alex’s relationship reaches a physical level and David’s doctor, Dr. Hirsch, begins to investigate the true happenings behind David’s afflictions. After another apparition by Jack, once again pleading with David to just kill himself, the next day begins. David stays behind whilst Alex goes to work setting the stage for that night’s full moon. Finally, after an interesting confrontation with the locals that saved David, Dr. Hirsch discovers that David truly is a werewolf, or at the very least, lycanthropic. Calling Alex to warn her, it is already too late, for David has begun his transformation.
David then goes on a killing spree, spreading terror throughout the city. Waking up the next morning, he finds himself at the zoo and stark naked. Returning home he finds a worried Alex, whom, upon his arrival, heeds Dr. Hirsch’s warnings and takes David to have the doctor examine him. David, however, finding out about six grisly murders of last night, realizes what he is and runs deeper into the city, away from Alex. Attempting to commit suicide, but finding himself unable, he follows jack into a porn theater, hoping for advice. There he finds, not only Jack, but all of his victims from the night before. Losing track of time, the full moon comes out, and David once again begins his transformation. Creating even more havoc then the previous night, he is eventually cornered by police. Alex attempts to calm him, but to no avail. David leaps at her and is shot to death. Alex begins to cry hysterically, and the credits roll.
As I mentioned previously, the acting is what really brings this film down. Throughout the film there is not one character, with the exception of Alex and a few supporting characters, whom can act with any degree of emotion. Even the mentioned exceptions do not really act astoundingly well, simply the apex of mediocrity. The most prominent of these so called actors is David Naughton, playing David. His best friend was killed in a horrible accident, and besides one completely over the top scene in which he was supposed to show anguish, he never alludes to that fact in any way. The rest of the characters could have gotten away with it, but come on, the title character?
The directing is what truly makes the film. The writing is pretty good as well, Landis was able to convey many characteristics just through dialogue, without having to resort to direct action on the part of the characters. They way he brings it to life is much better, it is a pity he never really went anywhere in his career. He could have if he had kept writing horror films. Anyway, the camera shots never really belied anything spectacular, although his forest dream sequences are really well done. In the directing arena it is probably the excellent moments of suspense and great appliance of the background score that are most prominent.
Almost every scene meant to scare did so to its fullest potential. If a better writer had been hired it might would have been better, but it was sufficient. The scenes created to make the audience jump worked well and the tempo was kept during the suspense scenes. The best by far however, was the pure, unfiltered creepiness of Jack’s apparitions. The scenes were very much like those shown in The Sixth Sense, where the ghosts all still bear the wounds that kill them. Each of these scenes was expertly crafted for maximum affect, so that even with the special effects being substandard in today’s digital age, it was still creepy. It is too bad Jack was not portrayed by a better actor, it would have been even better.
The soundtrack was also selected very well, from the opening credits all the way to the end ones. The only weird piece of music I heard was the one played during David’s first transformation. It was a very happy, light hearted piece, and although it provided excellent contrast with what was happening visually, I think it would have been better to just go ahead and play some uncomfortable sounding music instead.
Overall, it was a pretty good movie. I would not be against watching it again in the future, but it did not quite make it to the “truly awesome” category, mostly because of the suckish acting, but I repeat myself. It was not bad as far as horror movies go, it did have some scary parts in it, although I would not put it on a Stephen King level. And really, even with the sort of cliffhanger ending, it worked. Thumbs up.

Atomic Cafe': A Documentary Review

The Atomic Café is an interesting look at the astounding amount of focus thrown on to the atomic bomb after its use to end World War II. Directed by two men, Jayne Loader and Kevin Rafferty, the film was released worldwide in 1982 with moderately excellent reception. Loader and Rafferty use a many techniques of accomplished documentary producer and director Frederick Wiseman to accompany their own film. Overall, however, while they do possess enough talent to create a rather memorable film, they simply do not have the artistic abilities Mr. Wiseman owns.
The film’s one concurrent theme throughout, is the contrast between the destructive power the atomic bomb holds, and the ridiculous safety measures the government provided to its citizens and soldiers. The directors effectively hold the audiences interest by switching between the two views, first the power and effect of the atomic bomb, then the false sense of security provided by the government. This technique promotes the filmmakers main theme well, and at the same time, does still hold that ever elusive creature that is the audience’s attention. This ever changing comparison and contrast is very similar to present day documentarian Michael Moore’s style. The difference being the lack of transitional commentary Moore provides, versus the process of letting the film speak for itself that Loader and Rafferty use. It is unfortunate; Atomic Café could have used a little witty commentary.
It is this lack of traditional narration that nearly kills Atomic Café. As I mentioned previously, Loader and Rafferty use some of Wiseman’s techniques, most prominent being the act of letting the film speak for itself. The problem with this is that the filmmakers lose much of their control in the overall presentation of their piece. Wiseman managed to accomplish this without too many split hairs in High School, mainly due to the fact that he still was able to exercise control over what was shot and how it was used. Loader and Rafferty, because they were, obviously, not able to capture their own footage, were already heavily reliant on what had already been shot. They did not have Wiseman’s ability to capture the audience’s attention with varying camera techniques. If one includes their lack of narration, they only have control over what exact clips to use and how to edit those pieces, which is one of the few flaws of the piece.
Their apparent goal in creating the film was to present the fact that the American public in the 1950’s had no idea the destructive power of the atomic bomb. It is therefore not their focus to promote either the dangers of the atomic bomb or the government’s attempts to alleviate fear of the atomic bomb; we already know both of these things. Much like Moore’s object in Bowling for Columbine was not to promote how dangerous guns can be, nor to promote harsher gun laws, but to link violence and fear together. Therefore I am not sure that Loader and Rafferty had to be so worried about making sure the truth was being told, as to completely throw out the idea of narration. They got their message across the way in The Atomic Café, but could it have been better with a narrator? I suppose it would depend on the nature of the narrator, but I would be inclined to think it would.
Cinema verite simply became too much of a crutch in this particular film, for, overall, it has many propogandic elements that would have been much more efficiently exploited with more traditional film styles. For Wiseman, it was needed in a much more dramatic fashion, for, when questioning something of no ill report, evidence is more highly valued. In The Atomic Café, the message the filmmakers were trying to get across did not warrant the importance shown on having such hard core evidence. Certainly truth is important, while it may not always contribute to the overall effectiveness of the piece; one can never go wrong with stating the truth. It is just that in this film, the focus on it was unneeded.
Overall however, the film was good. It achieved its presentation of its themes with admirable success. The directors selected and edited the film in a way that, for the most part, grabbed the audience’s attention. Unfortunately, it simply did not have the unforgettable appeal of Wiseman’s camera techniques nor Moore’s equally unforgettable knack at finding situations so provocatively supportive of his chosen message. Atomic Café is an excellent documentary by documentary standards, but it is far from a truly magnificent film.

Platoon: A Cultural Review

Platoon is a film regarding the moralistic situations war forces upon men. Released in 1968, on Christmas Eve interestingly enough, the ground breaking film was both written and directed by Oliver Stone. Including many brilliant actors such as: Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger, Willem Dafoe, Forest Whitaker, Kevin Dillon, Keith David, John C. McGinley, and Johnny Depp, the film boosted the careers of some, and furthered the careers of others. And, although it had a varying range of acceptance due to its violent content and questionable material, Platoon remains one of the most acclaimed war films to date. The film truly embraces its famous tagline: “the first casualty of war is innocence”.
The film begins with several poignant scenes regarding the results of the war upon the soldier. Our main, Chris, played by Charlie Sheen, begins a narration of sorts, taking form in a letter to his grandmother back home. The first bit of action comes about as Chris’s patrol is ambushed by the enemy, resulting in the death and maiming of several soldiers. This tragedy, however, is mitigated due to Chris’s next scene, in which he joins some of the other men, partaking of their alcohol and marijuana, he finally seems a little happy as a result. This happiness is short lived though, for, as the film moves on, several more members of the platoon are killed by the Vietnamese.
The soldiers then happen upon a Vietnamese village and, with the death of their “brothers” so fresh in their minds, have a hard time keeping control of themselves. This results in the violent death of several villagers and the beginnings of a split in the force, the vicious on one side, and the moralistic on the other. The film races on with another battle, the most significant part being that the militant and slightly psychotic Sgt. Barnes attempts to murder the more sensible and compassionate Sgt. Elias. Barnes convinces the force to move out, explaining the death of Sgt. Elias; he is thwarted, however, when a severely wounded Elias runs out of the jungle, Vietnamese soldiers on his heels. He does, unfortunately die, and with him the largest moral balance left in the force.
Realizing what Barnes had done, Chris and some other soldiers plot to eliminate Barnes. They are found out though and decide against it. The film then begins to come to a close with one final battle, the largest so far, in which final decisions are made and many lives lost. Most prominently, Chris ends up killing Barnes in self defense, before collapsing due to his wounds. After the battle is over, Chris is told he can go home, he however never thinks he can leave, at least not in spirit. His final words, expressing the entire theme of the film, bring the movie to a stunning close.
It is easy to see why this film would be considered controversial. Its view of the military is far from stellar, really really far. While most other films of the genre exacerbate the bonds of “brotherhood” and other such things the military commonly tries to present, Stone, however, focuses on the opposite, what tears the military apart. Normally war films are shown as propaganda in favor of the military as a whole, this one, however, sets the stage for future films to question, perhaps, the normal idioms of such things. Stone uses moralistic decisions in this case, to do most of the tearing apart. Once again this was not a very common thing to see in a film of the day, soldiers were supposed to know what they were doing was in the right, leaving no room for alternative thought.
As I mentioned above, the film’s primary message is the moralistic battle for the soul that war jumpstarts. On one side you have the vengeful, vicious side, on the other one sees the more rational and peaceful bunch. One could actually argue that these two sides present in the film were meant to represent the varying sides present domestically during the time period in which the film is set, namely the hawks and the doves. Other themes present in the film, most of which are also pretty controversial, can be pulled out pretty easily. First, one might note the fact that war is seen in a negative light in the film, rather than the noble and patriotic duty more commonly displayed. Another theme that should be mentioned is the equality presented between the black and white soldiers in the film. Only once is there any sort of racist commentary and, naturally, it is thrown out there by the “bad” guy.
The film certainly seems to present many post-modern viewpoints throughout its entirety. Most prominent is the varying viewpoints between the soldiers. Where once there had to be a definite universal viewpoint on everything, suddenly there is a cornucopia of various views and outlooks on life. Additionally it should be noted that there, besides a few crosses and a picture, there really is not any true sense of focus on God. Prior films in the war genre would have at least mentioned something, but American society had shifted away from that. Another point is the casualty the filmmakers make many “morally grey” situations to be. Several times murder of an officer is mentioned, on both sides of the conflict, and while the conversation remains serious, the scenes lack the intensity such decisions would normally warrant. Naturally, heavy drug usage is also shown. This is again something in conjunction with the post modern view point of “whatever you think okay is great for you”, plus the film is set in the late sixties.
It is very interesting to look at how various elements of the film reflect its themes, well, when is it not? The first thing that caught my eye in this regard was how Vietnam is presented in the film, especially in the beginning. There are multiple scenes where various small, but deadly, wild animals harass the characters, giving the jungle a subtle darkness that has nothing to do with the lighting. Additionally, there are not very many times when the weather is perfect. Most of the time it is either kind of dark and raining, or, there is a tremendous glare, the sun high in the sky, making Vietnam to be a very uncomfortable place to be. The soundtrack is nothing special, in my opinion, but it does convey the mood of a given scene accurately, it just does not stand out at all. Many times in the break room where many soldiers are scene smoking or drinking the lighting used makes the scenes seem almost surreal. Rather this is reflective of the drugs being used or the actual moral ambiguity of the usage, I cannot guess. In the end, Stone does an above average job at creating a very real “sense” of what is going on, using all one’s senses in conjunction.
The film, all in all, was very good. It put a new spin on war and the struggle of the soldier. It reflected the post modern society in which it was made fairly accurately and presented its messages pretty well. It made the viewer think. And, thatis sometimes the most important thing a film can provide.

Jaws: A Cultural Review

Jaws, released in 1975, was directed by, at the time, new found film maker Steven Spielberg. Based on the bestselling book of the same name, the writer of that book, Peter Benchley, also wrote the screenplay for the film before his death at 65. Although the cast is completely made up of relative nobodys, the acting is still pretty good, most likely due to Spielberg’s handling of the matter. As one can imagine the directing in the film was about as close to perfect as possible, albeit a rather long list of continuity goofs present in the end result. The writer is also very good at his job, all of this coming together to make, in the end, a great film.
The film actually begins in a fashion relatively new for the genre at the time of its release, for a girl is actually eaten in the first five minutes of the movie. This, as I mentioned above, was in direct contrast with most other horror films made in the past, which normally wait and focus on plot exposition, before focusing on the monster itself. The movie truly begins with the discovery of the young girl lying half eaten on the beach. It is here that our first main character is introduced. Police chief Martin Brody, played by Roy Scheider, is of the opinion to make the beaches off limits to swimmers, so as to prevent further shark attacks. He is confronted, however, by the “accidental antagonist”, Mayor Vaughn. He is not a true antagonist like Jaws, due to the fact that he really does not want to hurt anyone and truly wants what is best for the people of he is in charge of. But, he is an antagonist in the fact that he is constantly in the way of the heroes.
The movie moves on with the death of a little boy at the hands, or teeth rather, of Jaws. A town meeting of sorts is called in which Brody attempts to close the beaches once again, only to be shot down by both the local citizens and the mayor. Our next main is subsequently introduced as a shark hunter, Quint, played by Robert Shaw. Quint, having heard of the problems the little town was facing, has come to make an offer: the shark’s head, for 10,000 dollars. Naturally they decline, choosing to take matters into their own hands. Mrs. Kitner, mother of the little boy that was killed, has put out an ad claiming whosoever catches the shark will be paid 3,000 dollars.
The story moves on with some interesting, yet really unnecessary scenes, before finally arriving upon some actual plot propulsion. The town is rife with wannabe shark hunters, foolishly going after Jaws in the hope of a quick fortune. Chief Brody, trying his best to protect the people in his charge, is seen overwhelmed amidst the chaotic mess of stupid people. Arriving into this chaos is our third and final main, Matt Hooper, an oceanographer with a shark specialty, played by Richard Dreyfuss. Introducing himself to Brody the two go off in hopes of solving the mass of problems presented before them.
Later on a shark is caught, purportedly the fish responsible for the deaths of so many. Elated the townsfolk rejoice and life seems to go back to normal. Hooper, however is unconvinced that the shark found is not Jaws, merely another shark that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. After convincing Brody of the same, the two sail out into the ocean, trying to find the real Jaws. What the find, however, is simply a chewed up boat filled to the brim with the dead men that took it out. Finding a tooth, Hoper classifies the shark as a Great White, one of epic proportions. The two go back to the island and once again try and convince the mayor to close the beaches. Once again the mayor refuses. It is not until Jaws strikes again, this time with a beach full of tourists that the distraught mayor finally agrees to close the beaches and hire Quint.
The last hour of the film is a sequence of action and exposition similar to a roller coaster ride in the fact that the tension rises and slows and a continually heart stopping fashion. As the three mains attempt to kill Jaws and Jaws attempts to kill the mains, the intensity of the given scenes vary dramatically. The crew continually injures jaws, which just retaliates by increasing the ferocity of its attacks on the boat. As the end of the movie draws near both sides slowly become more desperate. Finally, all enter a final battle to the death resulting in the complete destruction of Quint’s boat and Quint himself. But, as a result, Jaws also meets its end at the hands of Chief Brody. As the two remaining heroes paddle off to shore, the tide comes in, and the credits roll.
This film is certainly a creation of the post modern mind set in the fact that it differs so drastically from the counterculture movement at its most basic levels. Truly the styles and messages evident throughout the film are near completely foreign to those held up during the rebellious movement, of which ended only a couple years before the film’s release. While there are certainly some elements of the film that would not have been possible without the barriers broken during the counter culture movement, one can certainly see the similarities between this film and those squeaky clean films made in the forties or fifties. One of the most prominent evidences of this lies in the return of the wholesome family structure. Additionally, the return of more traditional protagonists can be argued as another post modern element. For example, one would never have seen a hunter or member of law enforcement as the hero in a film made in the late sixties.
It is also interesting to note how influential the time period was in the making of the film. This is seen most prominently in the realm of economics. One of the primary issues during the seventies was the dreary economic situation. The seventies held sway to one of the worst depressions since the thirties. In the film, one of the most problematic issues the main characters have in protecting the people of Amnity Island and destroying Jaws, lies in the fact of the locals unwillingness to put their economic situation at risk. Closing the beaches, even though it would keep the people safer, would mean losing many of the tourists that bolstered the town’s economy. It is easy to see why a filmmaker might decide to make this issue such a prominent one in the film, for many of those going to see it would feel a heightened sense of sympathy for the situation, after all, they were most likely going through dilemmas springing from the same sort of issue.
Additionally, this film has an awful lot to do with nature. The environment was another issue prominent in the seventies, most likely a byproduct of the same concern shown in the counter culture movement. This film also presents this fascination, for this is one of the first films of its genre to have to do more with natural monsters, rather than ones bred of scientific or supernatural means. Plus, one of the main characters is an environmentalist of sorts, once again reflective of the focus shown for nature in the seventies. But, for a film made in the seventies it does seemingly lack in one thing: feminism. Jaws, simply does not exemplify the issue in the way that films such as the Taxi Driver or Carrie do. In those films women are given prominent roles in the film itself, belying the fact of a rising feminist movement. It could be, however, that it is simply too early in the era, for in Spielberg’s later films, such as Raider’s of the Lost Ark, such female prominence can indeed be seen.
As for the actual film itself, as I said before the excellent combination of talent makes for an awesome movie. Spielberg creates a beautiful scene, many of which have been copied and parodied throughout American culture. Spielberg masterfully combines both suspense and shock elements of the horror genre that truly deep you at the edge of your seat, or behind it, as the case may be. The soundtrack of the film should also be commended, although the credit for that cannot be given to Mr. Spielberg. John Williams, whose talents are used continuously by many of the film school generation created a genuine masterpiece, utterly unforgettable, and ultimately an epoch of musical suspense.
The acting is, as I mentioned earlier, rather mediocre, but not so bad as to ruin the film. The writing to, while sufficient, does bring the film down a bit. As Benchley tries to fit every piece of his book onto the screen, the audience is dulled at times by lengthy and ultimately unnecessary scenes. These could have been prominent pieces of the book, but really should have been edited out in the final cut. Overall, however, the film truly is a classic addition to film history, most certainly deserving its place as the first of the summer blockbusters.

The Graduate: A Cultural Review

The Graduate was an interesting film to say the least. It could also be pretty funny at times, but with the possible potential such a premise presents, the writers fell short. Luckily Mike Nichols, the director, was able to save the film from an otherwise dismal failure with simply amazingly well done shots. Of course, it also helps to have such a talented cast.
The film begins at a party thrown for our title character, the graduate, Ben Braddock, played superbly by Dustin Hoffman. Our next character, the brilliantly seductive Mrs. Robinson, throws the plot forward by asking Ben for a ride home. Once there she then slowly begins roping Ben into her devious designs. This is probably the only really well written scene in the movie; the exacting system of staged events Mrs. Robinson uses to seduce Ben is simply phenomenal. Ben however does not think so and after an uncomfortable talk with Mr. Robinson, is finally able to escape.
The movie slows for a bit as we see an excellent montage of Ben’s summer exploits, most of which include lounging about the pool and sleeping with Mrs. Robinson. Finally, however, the plot begins to move on again with the entrance of Elaine Robinson, whom Mrs. Robinson has forbidden Ben to see. Ben agrees to Mrs. Robinson demands, but is eventually forced to take her out by his parents. Ben first tries to get rid of her, driving like a maniac and then taking her to a strip club, but after Elaine starts to cry, Ben simply cannot bring himself to go through with his plan. Explaining everything, but not really mentioning any names, Elaine forgives him and they both end up having a pretty good time.
Mrs. Robertson, however, is furious and attempts to tell Elaine everything, but is beaten to the punch by Ben, who wants to explain to Elaine himself. This unfortunately just leads to disaster, and after being kicked out of the Robinson household, he settles for stalking Elaine as she goes about her business. Eventually, Elaine leaves to go back to school, sending Ben into a lethargic state of depression. This does not last, however, and with a sudden goodbye to his parents, he travels to UC-Berkley, in hopes of finding Elaine and getting her to marry him.
This new plan though, also falls through as Elaine has already been proposed to by another man, one whom her mother deems much more acceptable. Ben, however, refuses to give up, even after heated encounters with both of Elaine’s parents. Searching for Elaine, Ben finds only a note of farewell, explaining that Elaine had decided to marry the other man. Still refusing to admit defeat, Ben travels across the state in pursuit of Elaine, hoping to stop the wedding ceremony. After a few mishaps and a few small stabs at hilarity, Ben finds the wedding, and proceeds to attempt to stop it. Fighting off nearly the entire wedding party and assorted guests, Ben and Elaine manage to break free and escape onto a public bus. The movie then ends, quite un-romantically, with the camera focusing on the eloping couples’ uncomfortable faces and an escalating soundtrack.
Although this film did not really have an ulterior message relative to the counter culture movement, it certainly had some themes previously unheard of. Most prominent of course is the entire premise, which focuses mainly on an affair with a married woman. This complete destruction of morality previously epitomized by the American viewer is what truly makes this film part of the counter culture movement. Additionally, there are several other issues present at the film that also would have been something of a disgrace among older films. This includes things such as: the fact that the Robinsons were married due to a child out of wedlock, the seeming lack of importance of an education, the basic idiom of “if it feels good do it”, the apparent idiocy of parents, and of course someone sleeping with an older woman. While this film certainly is not an One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, all of these disparaging themes do come together to provide evidence of when this film was made.
As for the actual quality of the film, its most evident failing is, as mentioned before, the writing. There were just so many places where situational comedy could have put the film into an entirely new bracket, but the writers simply fail to present. Much of the dialogue, while getting the point across, is utterly lacking in any sort of entertainment value what so ever. With a character like Mrs. Robertson, seductive, demanding, and cunning, interacting with a character such as Ben, naive, clumsy, and completely lacking common sense, there should have been much more humorous dialogue. Once again the writers fail to deliver.
It is definitely testament to Mr. Nichols ability to direct, to be able to use such a sorry story, I mean some bits did not even make sense, and tell it in a way that is actually marketable. Taking advantage of the excellent actors he had at his disposal, he was actually able to create some humor, just by focusing on certain mannerisms and voice inflections. Another astounding display of talent was his use of the camera. Even more so than the actuality of bringing the story to life, the shots he used were extremely innovative. That is probably the one thing that I actually found attractive about the film, using glass tables, mirrors, and even furniture to create some really interesting camera angles.
Overall, the film was pretty good. The lack of any real meaning, however, did it no favors. Much of the time a film will focus too much on a given message, and as a result the film will lose much of its value as a story. By the same token, a film lacking in any real message, simply does not have any real value. And with a lack of adventure, comedy, or horror elements, the film is not really that entertaining. In the end, The Graduate is worth a viewing, simply to see the superb acting and excellent camera shots, but I would probably never watch it again.

The Thing From Another World: A Cultural Review

This was an extremely well written film, in regards to the suspense sections at least. It would have been, perhaps, one of the most superbly written films in the genre at the time, except for one hindering quality. It focuses too much on the propagandic elements of the movie. If the writer had spent half as much time devoted to suspenseful moments, instead of subtle insinuations towards the Soviets, it would have made a much better film.
The story begins when the crew of an Antarctic air force base discovers a mysterious crash site near the base. Investigating the site they discover a circular object underneath the ice. In typical militaristic fashion, they try and uncover it with explosives. Essentially destroying the discovered craft, they do, however, manage to safely uncover some sort of living creature frozen in the ice. Bringing it back to the base, they attempt to contact an authority figure on the matter, but, naturally, a storm sets in, effectively closing them off from the rest of the world. The commanding officer, Pat, decides to keep the thing frozen until base command can be reached, much to the distress of the lead scientist on base, Dr. Carrington. Unfortunately, the young officer charged with watching the creature covers the block of ice with a blanket, in actuality an electric blanket. The thing, of course, escapes and proves invulnerable to the man’s bullets.
After the rest of the base is alerted, they run to watch the thing fighting off the bases’ sled dogs. The thing kills them and escapes, but not without leaving behind an arm for the group of scientists to properly examine. The plot thickens as Dr. Carrington discovers that the creature is actually plant based rather than animal based, constantly interrupting himself with various announcements of what he could discover from such an advanced life form. The rest of the base seem unconvinced however, and plot to destroy the creature. They then begin searching the base to no avail. Dr. Carrington however discovers evidence of the thing in the greenhouse and decides to wait for its return, hoping to learn from it. This naturally leads to disaster and the death of a couple of the base crew. They finally capture the thing back inside the greenhouse, but begin to prepare for another assault, realizing that the thing will not be held for long.
The action escalates with Pat’s discovery that Dr. Carrington is actually growing some of the creatures inside his laboratory. He does not have long to be mad, however, due to the fact that the thing has managed to cut the fuel lines, plunging the base in to sub zero temperatures. The crew confronts the thing again, this time slightly more prepared and actually manage to fend it off, nearly burning it death by lighting on fire using kerosene. Running along the same train of thought, the crew decides to try and burn it to death again, this time using electricity. Setting up a high voltage walkway, in hopes of trapping the creature in a high powered arc of electricity, the crew begins to wait.
The creature finally appears and the crew begins to back down the hallway, successfully tricking the thing onto the booby trapped walk way. Dr. Carrington enters the scene attempting to rescue the creature, only to have the thing nearly shatter his neck. The thing falls right into the well hidden trap, and without a moment’s hesitation Pat triggers it, and it slowly shrivels into a lifeless husk. The movie then ends with a report to civilization from a reporter on the scene, ending the movie with one last not so subtle line regarding the “imminent” Soviet invasion.
The directing is probably this movie’s saving grace. While most of it is rather mediocre, there are some definite highlights; the way that the crew actually finds the shape of the thing’s ship is probably one of the best. I have to admit that that was pretty good. The suspense scenes probably make up most of the others. They really do get your heart pumping for brief stints of time. Besides that though, once you add in some off the rather unfortunate discrepancies, such as the unrealistic base props and the excessive amount of sub characters, the end result is mediocrity.
The acting also leaves a lot to be desired, while a step up from a true B film, the movie still does not take advantage of good actors. The three leads, Pat, his girlfriend, and Dr. Carrington are all ok actors, but the lack of true believability does not do the film any real favors. Not only that, but the mass of support characters really seems to take them all down a notch into the relative state of extra-hood. The writing, on the other hand, truly is pretty good.
The dialogue is excellent, and I did not notice anything particular gregarious in the plot, but nothing spectacular either. Like I mentioned earlier though, the constant attempts at subliminal messaging the vileness of the Soviet nation, truly does harm to the writers ability. He should not have let that become such a major focus of the film, but I suppose it kept the McCarthy fanatics off his back. Another example of how ridiculous fanaticism only harms a culture’s ultimate progression.
As I mentioned previously, the references to communism is really blatant. The first evidence of this is, of course the whole invasion by an alien species. But, realistically that could be the premise for any number of movies. The first truly blatant reference is when Dr. Carrington discovers the truth regarding the thing’s classification. Speaking of how completely mindless and how lacking in emotions the thing is, but, how it still has an astounding ability to advance in scientific discoveries. One of the second references is once again told through Dr. Carrington when he speaks of “how the only way to beat this thing is through science”, a clear allusion to the race again the Soviets in scientific discoveries.
Other themes throughout the film include the constant threat of being complete overrun by this life seeking, furiously replicating thing, once again making reference to the suppose imminent invasion from Russia. Another one is the fact that in nearly every confrontation but the last, the crew underestimates the thing’s ability, in reference to the government’s warning to never underestimate the Soviet’s ability. Finally, the movie actually comes to a close with one last thinly veiled reference to the Soviets. This is delivered by the news reporter on base telling the people of America to constantly “watch the skies”, as if America needed to expand on its paranoia any further.
All in all the film was worth watching, once at least. It is unfortunate that the writer had to so heavily taint his material with propaganda as to suffocate the film so. Truly a tragedy, for it had such promise. The 1980 remake took an entirely different route, a better one, in my opinion, but lacking the original’s stellar writing. In the end, The Thing from another World is a remarkably forgettable film.

The Big Sleep: A Cultural Review

The Big Sleep was a confusing film to say the least, but then again, most hardboiled detective films are. It was definitely not as dark nor as sexually based as other film noir examples, for it had a relatively happy ending, was not extremely jarring, and lacked the truly dark and dirty feel of many others. But, compared to My Man Godfrey I suppose it was quite horrifying. All in all however, I found Casablanca to be slightly more favorable in my mind, simply because I could understand it a little better and it had a much stronger message than The Big Sleep.
Now, normally I start out with a brief synopsis of the film, but do the movies utter lack of any cohesive elements I must admit that I was completely lost about halfway through. I suppose this is one of the characteristics of film noir and another reason the dark films of today are not classified as such, that sort of screenplay simply is not accepted anymore. The audience of today wants a movie they can, if not easily, at least possibly follow. However, I now know why film noir was both popular and unpopular in its time. I could see where the film was certainly enjoyable, the superb action sequences and the constant hilarity of the many sexual innuendos were two of its most appealing qualities, previously unseen in most films at the time. By the same token I am sure that were many other people not as drawn to these new qualities that would be more susceptible to be turned off by the films confusing nature. I myself did very much enjoy the film, for the exact reasons mentioned above. In fact if I were living in the time period I am sure that I would be one to continue to view these types of films simply to see these exciting new qualities. Today, however, the film loses some of its value due to the mass of other films that pull off the same effect, without the element of confusing writing. Still it was good.
The main character, played by Humphrey Bogart, is introduced as the typical private eye hired by Gen. Sternwoood to investigate a case of blackmail. Agreeing Bogart is thrown into an overly complicated plot with an ever increasing amount of suspects, motives, and additional crimes. Our ill fated detective is led to Gieger’s bookstore, a supposed front for more illicit activities. Failing to converse with Gieger on account of his own sexually exploits, Bogart is forced to follow him home. He arrives too late, however, as upon arrival Gieger is killed by a mysterious attacker. Finding Carmen Sternwood, subject of the blackmail and younger daughter of Bogart’s employer, he takes her home, after failing to force her to reveal the killer. He then returns to Geirger’s home, but is surprised to find the body missing.
The plot thickens as another detective reveals that the Sternwood’s chauffer has been found at the bottom of a lake or something similar. Our female main, Vivian, makes her presence known in the story by telling him the blackmailers are now after her and have asked for 5,000 dollars. It is at this point that Carmen finally reveals the killer, a man named Brody. Following the lead Bogart visits Brody, surprised to find both Vivian and Gieger’s female assistant. Apparently, Vivian was going to pay Brody with money she borrowed from a kingpin by the name of mars, who coincidentally had harassed our main earlier that day. After a tense and pretty nonviolent struggle in which everyone pulls out a gun, Bogart finds the photos, but is interrupted by a knock at the door. Brody, answering, is shot, which compels Bogart to chase after him. Bogart catches the mysterious shooter, whom, upon capture, explains that it was actually the chauffer that killed Geiger, Brody just seized the opportunity to steal the photos and blackmail the Sternwoods himself.
Now the film seems all wrapped up, Bogart figured out who the killer was, got back the incriminating photos, and explained everything to the police, but the movie is only half over. This is when the film really gets confusing, but the action escalates, so it’s all good. From what I can tell Bogart suspects something about Vivian so he follows her to a gambling joint, where she mysteriously wins a lot of money. He is then jumped by two men, but is saved by a, very short lived, supporting character by the name of Jones. Jones is then bumped off by one of the Kingpin’s men, who is pretty creepy by the way, while Bogart waits so that he can follow him. Needless he say, he does, but, of course, is captured by the murder. Interestingly enough, they decide not to kill him, and leave the house, giving Vivian enough time to save him, just before they can escape though, the murder and accomplice return, where Bogart defeats them.
The movie ends with the confrontation between Bogart and the kingpin. The two converse in a tense fashion, each explaining to the other how they are going to kill the other one. Naturally, Bogart outwits the villain and the day is saved, for it ends up being that the criminal was responsible for everything. Finally, while very un noir like, Bogart and Vivian tell each other how much they like each other, kiss, and the credits roll.
It seemed to be the film was an extremely “light” noir film. It lacked much of the dark lighting common to most noir films. This could be the fact that much of the plot involved characters of the upper or middle class, so the film did not take place in as much seedy underworld settings as others. Additionally, the film did not have an exceptionally tragic ending, while it certainly lacked the happy feeling of everything being all tied up in the end, it did end with the bad guy vanquished and both mains surviving. It was, however, still a film noir.
The most prominent evidence of this was the women. After reading so much about it you think I would have been less surprised, but man. It seemed like nearly every female character the main came in contact with was an absolutely shameless slut. While not exactly femme fatal, in the deadly sense, the sex object message was still there. I mean the first scene, Carmen comes in, wearing a skirt that would be stretching sensibilities even today, and just begins flirting with Bogart like there is no tomorrow. This is light years away from Irene in My Man Godfrey, or even Ilsa with her gun in Casablanca. From book store proprietor to taxi cab driver, nearly every girl throws herself on the detective. I must say though that the taxi driver scene was absolutely priceless. But still, it seemed like every conversation involving a young woman ended with sexual connotations, even today we do not see such blatant innuendo.
Additionally, the film did have a couple other evidences proving it worthy of the noir caste. The violence being one, still a far cry from today, compared to other films of the era it was rather unprecedented. In this film violence was definitely meant to be a part of the film, where as in Casablanca, the violence was barely noticed as that was not meant to be substantial in itself. I mean in this film everyone had a gun. As I mentioned before, the confusion was definitely there as well, while the film did not have an over excessive amount of weird camera angles and such, it was jarring. Many of the plot lines did not seem to have ends and the movie itself left no room for the absent mind, not even for a second. One would probably have to sit and watch the film with a finger on the rewind button to fully understand all the happenings. Oh well, to each his own.
In the end though, the movie was still pretty good. The director did very well in the fact that the film was based on a hardboiled detective novel, and didn’t shock the audience so much the film became un enjoyable. Additionally, I am sure it was difficult to make a film adaption of such a book with such restrictive censorship and such. Truly this film is a shining example of the noir class. If you can use shining and noir in the same sentence.

The Omen (2006): A Review

The Omen, or at least this version, was written by David Seltzer and directed by John Moore. The film, as I alluded to above, is indeed a remake and, according to public reception, is a pale shadow of the original. Although I have not seen the 1976 version, after viewing the 2006 edition, I would certainly be inclined to agree. This film, unfortunately, just completely misses the mark.
After a brief introduction to the prophecy regarding the omen, the movie then moves on to an Italian hospital, where the main character, Robert Thorn, is anxiously awaiting the birth of his son. The birth, however, does not go as planned and his wife, Katherine, not only loses the child, but also is damaged in away that may very well prevent future pregnancies. Robert, traumatized by this fact, agrees to adopt another infant recently orphaned in the hospital. We are then introduced to Damien, who is, unbeknownst to his parents, the spawn of Satan. Thus the plot is set, and the story begins.
As the film moves on, we are given the background information on our two mains. Robert works for a United States ambassador stationed in Italy, while Katherine is a at home mom trying her best to adapt to her surroundings. Soon after, the family moves to London, where Robert will perform as the ambassador to England, following the death of his boss. Once in England the drama is turned up a notch as we see Damien’s mother slowly beginning to suspect that her son is far from normal. We are then subsequently introduced to two new characters, one a worried priest, the other a curious reporter. The priest, present at the birth of Damien, tries to convince Robert of the danger he faces, and subsequently moves the plot forward. The reporter, while nothing special in himself, takes on the position of pushing the story forward, after the priest is removed. Finally, our last supporting character is introduced. After Damien’s last nanny’s tragic death, a new one is found, while seemingly perfect to Robert, she actually becomes Damien’s protector in the days ahead. As the movie nears its half way point, the story continues to take a dark twist as Katherine, after a series of strange events, truly begins to believe there is something wrong with her son. Robert’s own plot line also becomes slightly more insidious, as he receives another dire warning from our priest and our reporter makes a startling discovery.
Robert’s troubles increase after a dramatic meeting with the priest, as his wife slowly falls to madness, frightened to death by their own son. This is brought to a terrific climax, as Katherine’s worst fears are realized. We next see her in a hospital, near death, after an accident brought about by Damien and his nanny protectorate. Robert is at a loss, his wife in the hospital and his mind still reeling from his meeting with the priest. After the priest meets his end, his place is taken by the reporter, Keith Jennings, who calls Robert with a most troubling discovery. After Keith convinces him that something must be done, Robert follows the urging of our late priest and travels to Rome, in hope of finding the one man that might be able to help them. After several scenes of startling revelations and small spots of action, Keith and Robert discover the location of their mysterious helper, marred only by the news of Katherine’s death. Upon meeting their mysterious benefactor, however, the drama heightens as Robert finds out what he must do to save the world. He must kill his only son. Robert tries to run from this horrid fact, but is stopped short upon the Keith’s untimely death.
Spurned by the Keith’s death, Robert returns to London, where he must do the unthinkable, kill his son. Hope drives him, for he clings to the fact that if his son does not have the cursed mark of Satan, he will not have to go through with the task set before him. His hope, however, is short lived and upon the realization that his son is, in fact, the spawn of the devil, the final drama comes to climax. Robert begins his hurried race to the church, fighting possessed nannies and well intentioned police along the way to the final battle between father and son. Reaching the church just in time, he hurls Damien onto the altar, intent on destroying the evil he has raised. But, in the end, love overcomes Robert’s determination, and Damien, his last trick played out, wins the day. The movie then ends with Robert’s burial and one final look, at the triumphant Damien.
As I mentioned above, this film just completely misses the mark. The writing was nearly identical to the first, so the real problem was the directing. While really, the film is not horribly directed, the pantheon of small mistakes and missed opportunities come together and, in the end, ruins the film. Most horror films today are grouped into two categories, gore and suspense. This film aimed for both and as a result missed both. It simply was not scary.
The gore that the movie showed, failed to shock, because it was so easy to see coming. The director actually slowed time to show exactly what was happening to, in the end, cause the variety of freak accidents. The problem was, the viewer was not in the least surprised, because you knew exactly what to expect. Moore would have been much better off to have left the speed alone, and let the audience gasp a little bit, even if the audience was slightly confused as to what took place. After all, not knowing what is going on is scary in itself. The style of direction used would have been much better placed for one tragic scene in a different type of movie, rather than in a horror film.
The suspense was also a letdown, a large part of which is due to the soundtrack being so out of sync with what was going on. A key factor in this type of movie is to have a soundtrack that reflects what is going on in the film to heighten the fear. This movie failed rather spectacularly in this. Another few missed opportunities, were the nightmare scenes. They were too surreal; you knew she was dreaming. Part of what makes a film scary is the unknown, when you know that a given situation is not real, it takes a significant part of the scary away. When everything seems normal, and then, suddenly you know it’s not, and then just as suddenly you realize it was all a dream is scary. The calm, FEAR, then calm again, albeit a slightly raised heart beat, is what is needed in a horror film.
Unfortunately the one truly, jump out of your seat scene, is the final one. It is sad that the director finally gets his act together in the final scene. If he had only so successfully filmed the rest of the movie like he did there, I have no doubt that this would have been a truly scary movie. As Robert captures Damien to take him to the church and the subsequent scenes after, the music finally synchronizes with the rest of the film. The action is shot perfectly, keeping you right on the edge of your seat, with the demented nanny popping up to force you to jump back into them again. The acting is perfect, Damien finally seeming like the innocent child he is supposed to be, with the evil that is his true self lurking just out of sight, caught only in short glimpses. This is really the movie’s only saving grace, just barely keeping it from being a complete waste of time.
In the end, I would have to stand by my earlier statement; the movie simply is not scary. While it does have a few memorable parts, really just the last one, it just cannot compete with other films of its genre. Hopefully, this will not be the last of the Omen films though. It really is quite the idea. Maybe in the future another brave soul might try and breathe life back into the franchise, and give us something that truly makes us sleep, a little less soundly.

Casablanca: A Cultural Review

First off, I must say that this is easily one of the best movies I have watched in a long time. The film is a perfect mix of suspense, action, romance, and wit, something hard to come by in today's mainstream. The director uses excellent film techniques, including many unforgettable close-ups, and the writing left nothing to be desired. It is easy to see why such a film is claimed to be a classic, for it to enthrall audiences for close to seventy years is quite the accomplishment.
The movie begins with the death of two German couriers, killed for the priceless letters of transit they hold. The next scene takes place in a night club, owned by our first main character Rick Blaine, a former American patriot. Rick is entrusted with the letters by a rogue selling them to the highest bidder, but when the rogue is subsequently shot, the letters become Rick’s. The plot thickens as our second main, and Rick’s former lover, enters the scene, escorted by her rebel husband.
The movie continues with the explanation of Rick and Ilsa’s past. Telling the story of how the two fell in love, and how the two split up. For when Ilsa first fell in love with Rick she had no idea her husband was still alive. When she did she left Rick without notice, leaving him the bitter and cynical man he is shown to be in the film. Several more characters are introduced, including: Sam, the piano player of Rick’s night club, he knew both Rick and Ilsa when they were together, Major Stasser, a German officer intent on getting the missing letters back, and Louis, a corrupt chief of police assisting both Rick and Stasser, whoever seems most inclined to prevail at the time.
The action continues as Rick is confronted by Victor, Ilsa’s husband, criminal kingpin, Louis, and Strasser, all suspecting Rick has the tickets, and all trying to get him to give them up. Finally, after a tense confrontation with Ilsa, Rick decides on a plan of action. He will convince Louis to free the jailed Victor, convincing Lousi that he will set Victor up for a much more serious crime, therefore giving Louis a much higher status among the Germans. He then double crosses Louis, forcing him to assist in their escape at gunpoint. Arriving at that the airport, a major twist in presents itself as Rick convinces Ilsa, who was going to stay with him, to go ahead and board the plane, telling her she will eventually regret it if she does otherwise.
Finally, we reach the climax of the film as the rebel carrying plane takes off, and Strasser, tipped off by a perturbed Louis, arrives, intent on stopping the plane. The movie comes to a close as Rick, forced to shoot Stasser to keep his lover safe. Louis, switching sides once again, takes the suspicion off Rick, seeing that he has nothing to gain by supporting the Nazis. Rick, following Louis off the runway, ends the movie with one of the most memorable lines in film history: "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”.
This movie is, as I said before, quite amazing, the perfect mix of nearly everything. One can definitely tell the film was made in America, however. One of the main themes in the film, in actuality the entire plot, is the perfect country that is America and how important it was to get there. One scene after another one sees people pining about how much they want to go to the America, how amazing it will be when they get there, the freedom it provides. It almost gets to a point where it gets a little sickening, but manages to not cross that line. Another point the film tries to make, while not so blatantly as the first, is the fact that America should get involved in the war. The message is quite subtle, but it is definitely there. It lacks the “in your face” affect that The Great Dictator had, but somehow, I think this method is slightly more effective in the long run.
As for the directing, it, like the rest of the film, is excellent. Many of the camera angles that are presented have hitherto been relatively unused. One particularly compelling technique is the level of close up that the director achieved, while still maintaining the films overall flow. The scene in which Ilsa pulls a gun out is a good example, getting right up into the characters faces, watching them think. One must also congratulate the actors in this, however, for that kind of skill is to be heartily commended. Another of piece of evidence proving Curtiz to be the great director he is, is simply the overall flow of the film. This like I mentioned before is evident in many different scenes, where much of the time a films flow is interrupted by a certain touch of plot or various technique. He holds together the film very well, something not extremely easy given the suddenness of tempo change presented throughout the film.
Another kudos to be given to the film, is for the excellent use of music to help create the overall effect of the film complete. Besides the soundtrack, which is near perfect in itself, several other elements are used with great effect. First is the ability of the character Sam to play, this allows for many different and useful techniques to be used, not only to set a given mood in a creative fashion, but to assist in characterization as well. Another element is the inspiration of patriotism, which we can see in the scene where the night club clientele out sing the Germans in a war of national anthems. We see this much today, with the adding of our own national anthem or other patriotic song into films, to pluck that patriotic chord within us all.
In the end, this movie takes its place as one of the most highly regarded films of its era. Its use of subtle propaganda, moralistic victories, and patriotic themes, give it the perfect elements for a film made during the Second World War. I must admit that I have found older films to be lacking, but Casablanca truly shows that a film can be amazing no matter what year it was created. I for one cannot think of any improvements to be made.

Rouge, A Review

This is an extremely well done film, both written and directed by Greg Mclean. Using basic plot elements and real life situations to provide the bulk of the tension and suspense, it strays away from the more traditional methods of many horror films of today. Ultimately, Rogue supplies near constant suspense, all the while providing a detailed description of the human mind stripped of its natural inclination to be the hunter, instead of the hunted.
The movie starts out with scenes from the outback and some of the wildlife native to the same. The title credits roll a wildebeest is eaten and, finally, the movie begins. The main protagonist is portrayed as a young travel writer for some unnamed, and therefore unimportant, magazine. As he and the other unlucky tourists board the ill fated tour boat, we are introduced to our second protagonist, a sunny and comfortable tour guide named Kate. As the tour runs its course, the quirks and perks of our casts’ characters our revealed, while, incidentally, we learn about the salt water crocodile and view more of the Australian ecosystem. The movie then starts building momentum, as a several flares are seen somewhere upriver. Thus ends the first third of the movie.
As the cast move farther up river into, as Kate says “sacred territory”, the movie begins to take a sharp turn into the dark. Although still focusing on the Australian scenery, it loses its happy Rescuers Down Under look, and begins to take on a much more sinister appearance. The tension eases as the wayward tourists realize that they can longer search for the source of the distress signals and must turn back. This ends most abruptly as the killer croc attacks the boat, forcing the cast to crash land on a small island near the river bank. The movie then begins its fast paced climb to the climax with the cast proceeding with a series of ill fated attempts to get off the island and to the relative safety of the shore.
Tensions rise as, one by one; the rouge crocodile picks them off. After a sufficient number of tourists have been eaten, the story moves on when our resourceful reporter finds a way to occupy the croc and give the others enough time to swim to safety. All the while putting himself in mortal peril of course. The plan works for only so long, with the result being the capture of our female main, Kate. The movie then begins to slow with the cast walking towards safety and our hero at a loss as how to proceed. Thus ends the second third of the film.
As our heroic writer walks through the dawn lit forest, we once again are immersed in the beautiful outback setting. Following Kate’s dog into an underground cave, filled with mud, tree roots, and, naturally, water. It is here he finds Kate, thoroughly mutilated and barely alive. Here the tension rises once more, as our inevitable climax draws near. For of course, the cave belongs to our mammoth crocodilian. As the beast enters and our hero hides, the climax arrives. A fierce battle ensues between the protagonist and the antagonist, concluding with the death of the killer croc and our hero’s narrow escape from death. Carrying the girl off into the sunset, the rest of the remaining cast is found, along with several rescue helicopters. After a brief dialogue between the mains, the camera pans out, the credits fade in and we assume that everybody goes back home without further trauma.
Greg McLean should be congratulated on his savvy approach to this film. Instead of focusing entirely on the fact that a monstrously sized crocodile is eating people, he brings a sort of gritty realism to the film by also focusing on the characters reaction to a monstrous crocodile eating people. Throughout the film each character, no matter how small, is shown that they are, in fact, a real person with a real personality. This brings a whole new element to the film. Not only do you have the horror aspect that you paid to see, but you also get to watch real people, how they tick, and then wait to see who in the group cracks first. This takes some of the pressure of the croc and therefore lessens the films reliance on its special effects.
As one would expect, most of the films special effects are used in conjunction with scenes concerning the killer crocodile for which the film is named. Unlike many horror films however, Rogue does not rely on special effects alone to scare and shock the viewer. While of course the film did rely on them to make the movie better, it did not rely on them to actually make the movie. This film wisely used CGI and animatronics as very effective supplements to add on to the excellent writing and realistic characterization that made the film so successful.
Mclean missed a few things, but that fact is buried well beneath all the things he hit right on, so really, such things do not matter. He did exactly what he intended and he did it very well. The two fold focus of suspenseful horror and real characterization was successful in a way remiss of a Stephen King novel. The tour boat sequences were an excellent way to bring the characters toward the action, but also to provide situations to further understand the characters themselves. While I have to admit that there were several missed opportunities on the island to heighten the drama and a few lacking transitions, the film was still excellent. Mclean put in his own touch with many breathtaking scenes of Australian scenery and an awesome soundtrack that significantly furthered both the suspense and thrill of the movie itself.
In the end the film’s excellence on nearly all levels must again be acknowledged. It did exactly what it was supposed to and left a genuine impression. The fact that the croc featured in this film was only about 22 feet in length; a full six feet shy of the longest croc recorded, is probably the scariest facet of the entire movie. Not only was this monster real, but it could be even bigger.