Movie Appraisal: Hidden (Skjult) (2009)

Well, here's a movie that had a lot of promise, but ultimately gave up very little. Movies like this suck to review mostly because they have the POTENTIAL to be very fun rides, but end up being less than they should be. And it's not like they're terrible either. They're just okay. Mediocre. In some crazy middle ground between amazing and awful. Sometimes it's a bad script, sometimes it's a bad plot, a bad actor, a poorly thought-out character, a director who has no idea what they're doing, and sometimes it's simply how things work out. Hidden (or Skjult for Norwegian readers) is exactly a movie that should be more. It has so much going for it: a very well-done premise, good actors, a compelling story, and a plot heavily hovering in the realm of psychological horror. It's a movie I should LOVE, but instead I find it incredibly mediocre. Maybe it's simply that I've seen this all before and have become cynical. The movie feels lazy. And that's the problem.

Hidden begins with a car accident. A boy's parents are killed in the cold open. The boy survives (maybe), but the reason for the deaths of his parents is another boy running across the road and causing a semi truck to crash into the parents' car. You get the feeling that the first boy (who seems to be Peter) is going to be our lead character, but that turns out to not be the case (I think). The protagonist of our story is KK (Kai Koss), the boy who had run across the road and caused the accident. Apparently Peter disappeared after the accident and was called dead after shoes were found near the scene and underneath a waterfall long after.

The problem is that KK looks EXACTLY like what Peter would look like when he grew up. The boy has long blond locks. KK has the same. While the young KK has a shaved head. The older Peter (if he is Peter at all) has a shaved head as well. It's weird. I feel like it was probably done on purpose, but I can't say for sure it was. It's a movie that explains very little, which I like a lot, but the things it does explain turn out to have really idiotic explanations (I think). And that's the problem. The movie did do a lot very good, but other parts were baffling. I personally think that the original KK was killed by the abusive and disturbed mother after he escaped. Eventually Peter, who later became KK, in this case the second KK, after the mother caught him, came back to the town after his "mother" died. I mean, that's what I think, but I can't say anything for sure. The movie doesn't hit you over the head with it, so it's really up to what you want to think.

You can see my confusion here. I'm sorry. Parts of this movie made little sense. There is a dark-haired woman who I'm pretty sure isn't real. I don't know if she's a random singer or something? I'm told she speaks in Swedish, but I have no idea what that means. Maybe she was the original mother of Peter? Or just an actress? Or maybe she was just an imaginary friend he made up for company in the darkened hole he lived in for years. Again, I don't know.

The funny thing is, while I wasn't happy with the ending of the movie when I first saw it, it's something I'm liking more and more as time goes by. I actually like the movie more now (a few days later) than when I had originally watched it. Maybe I'm the crazy one. I still don't like how KK and Peter are somehow the same person and the murderer, but I'll probably get over it someday. (Read: I will never get over it. It's really dumb. I disliked it, and it should have been better.)

I found parts of the movie interesting. Why was KK looked at with such scorn by basically everybody? Only Sara seemed to like him and give him any benefit of the doubt. And she seemed to like him a lot. All of the men in town hated his guts. Why? Did I miss something? Was there some kind of history there? I have no idea. It was weird. I have no reference for anything and have no idea how to interpret it.

I mean, KK is the killer. It's obvious. Maybe that's why nobody likes him.

Sorry, did I say that too abruptly? It was abrupt in the movie too. KK is said to be the killer. Some kind of weird fugue state probably. Maybe he dissociates? Maybe he knows he's doing it? I have no idea. It's probably brought on by his old house. But man, it makes no sense. Maybe it's not supposed to make any sense. I would've preferred if he weren't the killer... but maybe it makes the movie better if he's both Peter and the killer. I don't know. I just don't know. I don't so, but maybe I'm not who this movie was made for.

The best part of the movie are the psychological scenes though. They're not scary, but their simple weirdness is enough to enjoy by themselves. The phone calls, the odd scenes of KK just by himself and thinking or whatever, and the weird interactions between characters- these are all reasons to see the movie. Just expect to find yourself baffled if you do watch it. I mean, I put a halfhearted recommendation out there. If you REALLY live for psychological horror/thriller, then watch this. Otherwise... it's not required watching, but it's not bad either. I enjoyed most of it. Just remember, it's not scary. There's very little gore. In general, I would think of this flick as much more of a suspense or thriller with psychological elements than anything else. And those always seem a little "eh," I guess.

Pål Øie directs, and does a pretty decent job. I think the long periods without dialogue are some of the best pieces of the film. They work incredibly well. They add to the confusion, but those long moments of suspense and confusion could be small beautiful movies on their own. The dialogue and the writing are mostly not as good. And this being an indie horror film from the After Dark Horrorfest 2010, I was expecting good things. I usually enjoy them, although they usually have some issues. See my review of Autopsy for details. 

Honestly, I liked the film, didn't love it. Kristoffer Joner as KK, Karin Park as Miriaim, and Cecilie A. Mosli as Sara are the breakouts here. I tend to like these Eurpoean horror movies. They do a good job at hitting what I like. This one wasn't quite as great as some, but I was okay with it. I wish I could say more, but I don't really have anything else to say.

Movie Appraisal: Pontypool (2008)

Hello listeners. This is Saquarry coming to you from any corner of the earth you're listening from. Today we're going to read an analysis of a very interesting film out of Canada. I guess you could consider this a psychological film, a zombie film, or really anything in between. (There's a lot in between, I know, but bear with me. I haven't been on the radio that long.)

Listeners, there's a something I have to get off my chest about this movie: It's really good. Fascinating really. It's effective- yes, effective- as both a movie and a horror movie, something that I think you'd all agree is pretty difficult to find in this darkened and drastic age of sterile special effects, terribly written screenplays, and critics who think that the only movies that matter are the ones that involve historical figures of one sort or another or A-list actors. Let me tell you listeners that those things have never been true.

You have been lied to your entire life, thinking  big names and Hollywood actors are the only people you should be watching movies from. You've heard that horror movies are scum, drivel, pieces of undercover and disguised excrement on a bleeding sidewalk. And you want to know something: everything about those statements might be incredibly true, but that doesn't mean that a horror movie can't be just as good- nay- better than any other kind of film out there.

I love horror movies. I love the feel of them, the look, the style. Everything about them works so wonderfully. Of course not every horror movie is great, good, or even okay, but Pontypool, well here's a gem if I've ever seen one.

The film is all about tension, plot, and the characters. It's effective as a horror movie despite having very little gore, blood, or brains spilling out on sidewalks. Most of the tension comes offscreen where you, as listeners, can only hear what's going on, imagining it as it happens rather than being shown all the garbage gore in shocking detail. And by the tone of my voice, I'm sure you can tell that I look down on the idea of showing every detail. The horror sometimes comes from not understanding and from not seeing, and this movie takes that to heart by showing a radio station and very little else. No explanations beyond some very vague hints as to what's going on. No reason to believe that the world hasn't gone to hell.

Now, listeners, I don't feel like I should spoil this movie. It's good enough and straightforward enough that I don't think it deserves that treatment. It's slow-paced, and builds on both the characters and the plot in such a way that you actually feel for them and want them to succeed. The horror comes from the realization of infected words and phrases, especially those that infect some of the words closest to your heart. Can you imagine a world where you can't express a pet name like "honey" or "sweetheart" for your lover, friends, or children? It seems impossible, but simply imagine a world where your own language has been turned against you, that even in the understanding of a word you may get infected by it. It's horrifying in it's own kind of silly way, and I think it's wonderfully executed even if the idea is a little out there.

This is a movie that could really only be Canadian with their dual languages and historic fight over which language should be spoken and et cetera. I even remember going to Canada a few years ago, seeing the signs in both French and English and thinking that was pretty cool, but I digress. It's a serious issue over there, and this movie certainly touches upon it.

Pontypool is an easy movie to make up theories about as well. I mean, the epilogue certainly leaves a few questions. But there are even questions as to how the "virus" started and if it involved anti-English terrorists or was just a naturally occurring thing. Did the two leads, Grant Mazzy (played by Stephen McHattie) and Sydney Briar (played by Lisa Houle) end up in that epilogue? And how would they have done that? I think it has to do with the fact that most seem to point this movie out as being a psychological horror movie. I do see some elements of that, but despite the people infected with the virus not really being zombies, they're basically zombies. So, this movie really seems to be a zombie film more than anything else... until you start thinking about it. The whole idea of changing reality, the way words work, the meaning and understanding of terminology... well, listeners... maybe this movie has a lot more than meets my little discerning eye. I like to think that maybe reality could have been shifted or changed... or maybe the epilogue was nothing more than a spirited and odd death dream. Who can tell? All that really matters is that the movie was tense, well done, and actually horrific while showing very little.

The acting can be hit or miss at times, but is mostly very good. There are really only four actual characters that show up on screen, but many more who call in on the radio and become personalities through that. The filmography and direction can be odd at times as well, but is mostly incredibly solid if a little slow at times. Bruce McDonald, the director, did a great job altogether. I have to say that the way the film was shot and done all around was pretty fantastic. The screenplay and the lines themselves were also very good, and I'll have to mention Tony Burgess as both the screenwriter and the novelist from the novel which this was adapted from Pontypool Changed Everything.

So, speaking a little bit specifically, I did some work for a radio station a few years ago. Technically I can still use their soundproof studio if I ever need to record anything. I found that the radio scenes themselves were fantastic because some of them reminded me of my experiences doing what I did. The joking, the hectic pace, the one person who is often exasperated and tells everyone else to stop goofing off... It all was very true to life and really drew me into the story and its characters. I do wish there had been more though. At an hour-and-a-half running time, I thought it was a little short, possibly missing a bit of character development from the very beginning of the film.

So, loyal listeners out there, I must bit you a very fond farewell. This review has been a blast. Seeing this movie was fulfilling in some ways. I would both recommend the movie and encourage watching it. I enjoyed it, and maybe all you people desperately seeking some great horror will enjoy it too.

Movie Appraisal: Below (2002)

What a strange movie. I'm not entirely certain how I should review Below. Should I review it as a World War II movie? A submarine movie? A horror movie? A psychological horror movie? A ghost movie? Or some combination of all of those? I just don't know. I don't know what genre this movie is trying to be besides regular creepy.

Below reminds me of Event Horizon in many ways, except it's not even close to as good and is a bit more psychological in some aspects. I don't think it's a bad film per se, but it isn't a great film either. The acting shouldn't even be talked about. The characters were forgettable. The plot was a bit ridiculous. The horror wasn't fantastic (although it was decent), and the best thing this movie had going for it was the claustrophobia.

As a World War II movie, this one has just enough of that era's plot to get by. Honestly though, I can see a movie like this taking place during any era. The few parts that are really World War II era specific aren't done incredibly well. I like the era talk and what I'm supposed to believe are the era's clothing, but besides that this movie really has nothing to do with the era it supposedly is in.

As a submarine movie, it's not a bad flick, showing the claustrophobia and nervousness in such tight quarters. I actually think that the claustrophobic elements in the film are the best things in the film. Most of the imagery involving the limited space is quite well done.

This movie is not really a horror movie. Oh, it has elements of horror, but it's more a thriller... and even that is being generous. It does have a jump scare from time to time and it wants you to believe it's building up the scares for the climax, but it's not. It's just playing games and pretending to be something it isn't. Sad really.

Psychological horror? Ha! This is weaksauce psychological thriller material at absolute best. This is the kind of film that would make Jacob's Ladder laugh with rage! Anybody who even compares this film with a gem like Jacob's Ladder is confused and probably insane.

I guess there are ghosts? I don't really know... It's never explained, which is fine, but it's also not done well which isn't fine at all. I do like the banging coming from outside the submarine. I thought the sounds were very well done, but the imagery really does leave something to be desired. As a horror film it falls apart, but I think it would stand up fairly well if it were a creepy radio drama. As I said, the sounds are actually fantastic.

This is not a great film and I don't have much to say about it. It's decent, but there are so many better films out there... why would somebody watch this over any other given movie? Hell, I only watched this because I was going to watch and review The Beyond by Lucio Fulci and I couldn't because my television was in use. So, I had to freaking settles for watching this on my laptop. Yeah. That's my story for watching this piece of crap movie... Anyway, it's not unwatchable, just not great. Watch it in the background while you're doing something else and you'll have much more fun than if you're watching it.

Movie Appraisal: The I Inside (2003)

The I Inside is a psychological thriller. It really is. I know I've been a little careful about naming genres, but this movie is in no way a horror film, but a thriller film? Yeah. That pretty much hits it on the button. It's a good film too, full of something most movies today don't seem to have. But I'll get to that. I'll get to everything.

The movie starts off with a man waking up in a hospital. That's always a bad sign in movies, especially movies like this. It makes them easy to predict. Hospitals seem to be the place to go for these types of movies. I guess it makes sense, but still... these kinds of psychological films are so easy to predict. The story moves on from there as the main character Simon (played by Ryan Phillippe) goes forwards and backwards through time seemingly trying to figure out his own mystery.

The acting here is phenomenal. It's incredibly good, but also feels very strange. Everything feels off. The way the characters act feels strange. They don't exactly seem like real people through the way they're acting alone. But it makes it a fun ride, seeing how they act, and how it is so different from what a person in a normal movie might do.

The character of Anna (Piper Perabo) is one I think I should linger on for a few lines. Her character is incredibly mysterious and really kind of creepy. The way she acts is both off-putting and far away from what her character looks like. There is a disconnect there and it is fantastic to watch. It's understandable once the end of the film comes around, but it is fascinating to watch throughout.

Not to give any spoilers away, but this movie reminds me a lot of Stay and Sublime, both of which I reviewed in October. It reminds me of Stay because some of the plot elements almost seem copy-pasted between the two movies. It reminds me of Sublime because of the hospital setting. The I Inside is nowhere near as horrific as Sublime, but with both being in hospitals, it's hard not to see some similarities.

The film's plot is a gorgeous and anachronistic flow. It always feels subtly off, but it tells the story it's meant to tell. Everything works together and flows beautifully. Some of the things I'd like to compliment most are the gorgeous cuts through time. It's done so well and so nicely that I really did enjoy those parts.

The movie itself wasn't amazingly engrossing. Simon is a hard character to like simply because of the way he looks, like some reject from a pretty boy reality show. The main female character of Claire (Sarah Polley) is also hard to like for the same reason. The film feels like a soap opera in parts, especially when those characters share time on screen together, but it makes sense that it would, and despite the fact that both of those characters are fairly unlikable, I found both their stories fascinating nonetheless.

Then I noticed Stephen Rea. I like this guy. I think he's pretty awesome. He was in The Reaping though, so that takes down his credibility some. Even though he was in that awful film though, I still like him. He does a good job here. I enjoyed his performance, even if he did seem like he was phoning it in at points.

The filmography of this movie is all over the place. I liked the time transitions and some of the "gorier" shots (even though there really is no gore in this film) come off quite well. But when characters are simply speaking or nothing is really going on at all, the shooting style is strange and off-putting. It really took me away from the film.

The I Inside is the kind of movie I like in theory, but not usually in practice. I did happen to like this film. It's not the best film out there, but the acting is solid. The story is one I liked even if it is way overdone. I didn't love the ending because it made the whole film pointless. The ending was a bit like the ending to Stephen King's Dark Tower series, except that there was no payoff, no real reason to watch the film at all. You can watch the first ten minutes of the film, shut it off, and would have never missed anything. It's annoying when a film does that. So, yeah, this film lost some points in the clichéd ending.

Oh, one thing I don't think I've ever mentioned in a movie before, and it needs to be mentioned in this one, is the writing. The writing was singlehandedly the best feature of this film. Whomever wrote this film did a phenomenal job. The words flowed from the characters and felt real regardless of how the actors took it. Half of why I complimented the acting so much is because the writing was just so good. Two characters that seemed particularly well-written were Travis, the orderly, and Mr. Travitt (Stephen Lang), the heart transplant patient. Those two characters were funny and witty and simply awesome. I would watch a film about their adventures together, doing stuff and kicking crime in the face or something. It would be so awesome. Then Travitts has a heart attack and Travis swoops in with snarky comments easily saving his life. Yeah... oh... um... I'm supposed to be reviewing this movie, not writing fan-fiction for it...

Anyway, this is a good film, not as good as Stay for instance, but not as bad as Sublime either. It's somewhere in the middle, and it was a nice film to watch, even if it wasn't perfect.