Directed by: Gregory Hoblit
Starring: Diane Lane, Billy Burke, Colin Hanks, Joseph Cross
Rated: R for grisly violence and torture, and some language.
Parental Notes: The R rating is well-deserved. The deaths in this film are protracted and gruesome, making the film not for impressionable youngsters.
"Untraceable" starts with two scenes that pretty much sum up the entire film. In the opening scene, the villain of the film tortures a kitten to death, thereby heavy-handedly proving that he is A Bad Guy. In the second scene, the FBI Cyber Crimes unit gets a lead on an online identity thief through some essentially impossible computer work and sends a unit to "knock down a door" and bring the guy in -- in the middle of the night, without a warrant. The entire rest of the film consists of the villain being A Bad Guy (moving from helpless kitties to humans) and the heroes mis-using and mis-explaining technology and largely ignoring warrants and similar police procedures.
It's unfortunate, because the underlying themes of "Untraceable" are interesting. It clearly set out to be an examination of man's inhumanity to man as well as a critique of the internet's role in the phenomenon. The villain uses the web as both venue and pace car for his murders: he streams video of the victims live on a website and uses the number of people visiting the site to regulate the speed of the victim's death. The more people who visit, the faster the person dies (each one in gruesome fashion). Every visitor to the site is an accomplice and they know it -- but they visit anyway. As word of the site spreads, each victim dies faster than the one before, even once the FBI issues a statement that the deaths are real and people should stay away.
Cyber crimes agent Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane, "Killshot") heads the effort to find the killer, with help from the Portland police department. The killer's site is impossible to take down, she says -- then launches into an explanation that will leave anybody even slightly knowledgeable about how the web works beating their head against the seat back in front of them. The filmmakers should have taken a page from the "X-Files" and "Star Trek": if you have to explain, use fake technology or something general enough that the educated folks in your audience won't immediately start poking holes in what your characters are saying. The rest of the film is full of similar technological errors, and each one makes the supposedly expert characters more ridiculous.
One internet-related thing the film does get right is the content of the comments on the killer's website. They seem taken right off a gruesome YouTube video's page -- they're cretinous, cruel, and disgusting. The underlying premise of the film is an accurate one: people have a strong drive to watch the suffering of others. Sites that contain huge galleries of gruesome real-life videos, photos, and written accounts are all over the web if you know where to look, and they are populated by the same sort of people as the anonymous visitors to the site in "Untraceable."
On the bright side, the heroine is one of the better strong female characters to grace the screen this year (at least, until she makes a painfully stupid and badly-written blunder so that she can spend the last act of the film getting up close and personal with the villain). She, her mother, and her young daughter live in a large house in a rainy Portland suburb. Marsh works nights so she can be with her daughter, and takes great pride in raising her daughter well and catching bad guys. Lane gives her both intensity and vulnerability, and refrains from taking the performance over-the-top. It's a solid performance that deserves a better vehicle.
Ultimately, whether you enjoy "Untraceable" will depend heavily on whether you know too much about the technology in the film to be able to suspend your disbelief. This is probably a taut, horrifying thriller if you can overlook the immense technical blunders. If you can't, it's a painfully terrible movie.
Directed by: Matt Reeves
Starring: Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, Michael Stahl-David, Odette Yustman, Mike Vogel
Rated: PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images.
Parental Notes: This is a solid PG-13. It's not quite graphic enough to be an R, but there's plenty of scary stuff in here. This is not a movie for little kids. Teens and preteens with an appetite for monster movies should be fine, though.
"Cloverfield" is a giant-monster-eats-big-city movie with a gimmick: it's told from the point of view of a camcorder belonging to one of the characters, so all 84 minutes of it is hand-held camera work. Sometimes the characters are sitting and one of them is holding the camera, but mostly they're walking or running, and the camera is wobbling and bobbing and occasionally getting dropped. It makes "The Blair Witch Project" look like it was shot with a Steadicam. The screening I was at lost twenty people to motion sickness, and I heard afterwards that four of them threw up. Me, I was queasy for an hour after the end credits rolled.
Like many gimmick movies, if you remove the gimmick, the movie is nothing terribly special. There's a monster. It attacks the city. A small group of friends tries to evacuate but changes plan when they get a call from the girl one of them is crazy about and learn she's trapped in her apartment. They set out across the city to rescue her, braving the giant monster, the military, and the tiny monsters the big one seems to be shedding like fleas.
The special effects are pretty good (they're filtered through the tape-recording fuzz applied to the film, which probably helps). The monster is most frightening when glimpsed briefly amidst its destruction, but we do get a close-up view of it, right before the character holding the camera gets eaten. Of course, the camera gets spat back out.
The characters are pretty simple, which is important in a movie that has little time for character development beyond occasional glimpses of happier times when the camera is shut off and bits of the original matter on its tape are preserved. The acting is solid, and sometimes feels more like a quality improv group working together rather than something scripted. That's probably helped by the camera work, which puts us right there with the characters.
The gimmick does work -- there is no fourth wall, the camera is in the movie with the characters and that puts us right in the middle of things. Even as I was having to look at steady things like the ceiling to keep from getting thoroughly ill, I was drawn in. It wasn't until after the credits rolled that I started getting annoyed at the things left out to make the gimmick work. Character development, for one. Closure, for another.
It's obvious from the opening, where we learn the footage is from a camera that was found in an area "formerly known as Central Park," what is going to happen to the main characters, but we never learn what happened to the city, or what happened to the monster, or where the monster even came from. There are apparently clues in the viral marketing campaign for the film, but unless you're willing to go hunting online, you're out of luck. The filmmakers even rub a little salt in the wound with one character's comment that anybody viewing the camera's footage probably knows more about the events than he does.
Ultimately, if the gimmick works for you and you don't mind the lack of explanations, you will probably like "Cloverfield." If, however, you have any issues with motion sickness, lack of character development, or unexplained monsters, "Cloverfield" will probably not be a fun experience for you.
Directed by: Rob Reiner
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, Sean Hayes, Beverly Todd, Rob Morrow
Rated: PG-13 for language, including a sexual reference.
Parental Notes: In terms of violence and sexuality, this is a very low-key film. It does have some gentle deaths in it and the whole terminal-illness thing, plus some language, but that's about it.
The idea of making a list of things to do before you die is not a new one. Lots of folks make them in college. But what if you made one when you knew you had at most a year to live? The protagonists of "The Bucket List" are two old guys who have both been diagnosed with terminal cancer. One of them happens to be incredibly wealthy, so when they decide to make a list of things to do before kicking the bucket, they can include things like "see the pyramids" on it. This movie is only a hair or three less super-sweet than one might expect from the plot.
The two guys are a classic odd-couple pair: Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson, "The Departed") is the owner of a great many hospitals, which he runs to be profitable rather than comfortable. Carter Chambers (Morgan Freeman, "Feast of Love") is a mechanic, a quiet, wise man who has a real head from trivia from intently watching Jeopardy! for decades. They wind up paired together in a hospital room when Edward collapses and is taken to one of his own hospitals. He has a rule: two beds to a room, no exceptions. It sure saves money, but he is not a happy man to be on the receiving end. Carter is more philosophical.
They both have cancer, it turns out, so they're in there for the long haul. Gradually, the two men bond over chemotherapy side-effects and card games and become friends. When they receive their terminal diagnoses at about the same time, it seems only natural for Edward to fund a joint bucket list trip. Much to the confusion of Carter's large, affectionate family, he heads off with Edward to see the world before his time is up. Of course, some of Carter's wisdom and humanity rub off on Edward along the way.
Watching Freeman and Nicholson in their roles is almost like watching two old hands at juggling passing the time by throwing a few clubs around. The script is not a particularly difficult one, but even at their most relaxed and least-challenged, these two men are better actors than most. Indeed, they seem to be having a wonderful time, and their chemistry is great. it's a pity it's not a better vehicle for them.
The one great flaw of movies like "The Bucket List" is that they are fantasies. They are like pleasant dreams that are all too easy to wake up from if you actually know anything about what is supposed to be happening on-screen. I have so far been lucky enough that cancer has not struck my immediate circle, but I strongly suspect that the daily affairs of cancer wards are nothing like what's shown here. I also strongly suspect that two men in their seventies with a terminal illness, even if it is a variety that is "symptom-free" in the last year, would not find skydiving, climbing a pyramid, or hiking in the Himalayas terribly enjoyable -- or even at the top of their list of things they wish they could do.
I enjoyed the film a lot more than I expected to, but I imagine that if you have personal experience with the things it manhandles in the pursuit of the sweet storyline, it may be more like salt in the wounds than an enjoyable time at the movies.
Directed by: Juan Antonio Bayona
Starring: Belén Rueda, Fernando Cayo, Roger Príncep
Rated: R for some disturbing content.
Parental Notes: This is not a child-friendly film, on several counts. For one, it's subtitled. For another, it is very creepy, with the ghosts or corpses of dead children featuring prominently in many scenes, and one graphic car accident scene. This film deserves its R rating and is not at all for kids. Teenagers who can appreciate foreign cinema and love spooky films will likely enjoy it.
Guillermo del Toro has made a name for himself with films like "Pan's Labyrinth" and "The Devil's Backbone" as a teller of tales equal parts fairy and scary. The latest film to come out with his name on it is not one of his own productions -- he was a heavily-involved producer and "presents" the film, according to the opening titles -- but it has a strong flavor of his work. "The Orphanage" (released in Spain as "El Orfanato") is the feature film debut of Juan Antonio Bayona, and it is a very effective atmospheric horror story for filmgoers that have long attention spans. If you can handle subtitles and are looking for something scary but not a gore-fest like the "Hostel" films, this may be right up your alley.
Laura (Belén Rueda), her husband Carlos (Fernando Cayo), and their son Simón (Roger Príncep) move into an old building which was once the orphanage where Laura spent her childhood. Laura and Carlos plan to turn the building into a home for special-needs children and are renovating the old structure. There are hints of creepiness here and there, but they are mostly a creakily turning merry-go-round and the settling noises old buildings make. At least, until young Simón asks if his newest imaginary friend, whom he met in a cave on the beach nearby, can come home with him to play.
The setting is beautiful, shot in rich sepia and gray tones. The house is old and imposing, and the nearby beach is made up of crashing waves and unforgiving, sharp rocks. There are moments when the background music is a bit heavy-handed, but for the most part the opening scenes are atmospheric and unsettling in a quiet way.
As opening day for the special-needs kids home approaches, strange things begin to happen. An old woman identifying herself as a social worker comes by asking about Simón, who is (unbeknownst to him) adopted and ill. The woman is later discovered making noise in an old shed with a shovel, but runs off when Laura confronts her. Simón now has more invisible friends, and he goes on a treasure hunt with his mother, insisting that his invisible friends set up the game and becoming hysterical when his mother won't believe him.
Then, during the opening day party for the home, Simón abruptly disappears. Was he kidnapped by the social worker? Has he run off to be with his invisible friends? As time passes with no sign of Simón, Carlos suggests that they leave the empty orphanage and try to move on with their lives. Laura is having none of it, however, and insists on staying to examine every nook and cranny of the house and grounds until she finds out what happened to their son.
The film is told through Laura's eyes, and as the scenes pass she becomes more and more unreliable. She sees, or thinks she sees, the ghosts of her playmates from her days at the orphanage. Are they the playmates Simón talked about? Are they there to warn Laura, or to punish her for leaving them behind all those years ago when she was adopted? Are they even real? Laura is a desperate woman, after all, and might be imagining it all.
Audiences will need a long attention span to enjoy "The Orphanage" -- most of its scenes are spent in a state of suspense, particularly once Bayona shows us what he is capable of in a gruesome scene that made even this jaded movie reviewer jump and gasp. Every time we follow Laura into danger, it's impossible not to wonder if she will meet a similarly horrifying fate.
For a feature film debut, "The Orphanage" is an astonishing film. Fans of suspenseful horror and ghost stories told with a real sense of fear must not miss it. Fans of slasher flicks and other gorno fests are best advised to skip it, as it will likely bore them to tears. It should definitely be seen in a group, if only so you have friends to pick it over with after watching. There are many questions left unanswered as the end credits roll, and they make the film even more effective.