A BLOG DEDICATED TO MY LOVE OF THE SILVER SCREEN
Established May 2010.


Gordie: Do you think I'm weird?
Chris: Definitely.
Gordie: No man, seriously. Am I weird?
Chris: Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird.
-STAND BY ME

Film Critic for Twin Cities Live

Member of THE LAMB: The Large Association of Movie Blogs LAMB #1588

Follow me on Twitter for updates to my blog and other fun movie news. Find me at @PaulsMovieTrip

Find and "like" me on Facebook at Paul's Trip to the Movies


Showing posts with label Alfre Woodard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alfre Woodard. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Movie Review: ANNABELLE

ANNABELLE
Director: John R. Leonetti
Starring: Ward Horton, Annabelle Wallis, Alfre Woodard, Tony Amendola


If you saw The Conjuring, you may remember that it opened with scenes involving a possessed doll named Annabelle who the Warrens later took possession of and kept in their artifacts room. It should come as no surprise that with the huge success of that film, a follow-up was rushed into production. This time the studio decided to go the prequel route by telling the story of Annabelle and her time with Mia (Wallis) and John (Horton). They live in a cozy house and are expecting their first child. The baby’s room is decorated with a wide variety of dolls, many of which seem far too creepy for any newborn. One day John brings home a huge box with Annabelle inside and Mia couldn’t be any happier as it’s hard to find and completes a set. I’ll tell you why it’s hard to find. It’s old, cracked, and scary as hell. Why oh why would you put that in a baby’s room?


Soon after Annabelle arrives, their house becomes a haven for disaster. One night Mia is awoken by the sounds of her neighbors being brutally murdered. The killers make their way over to Mia and John’s house where one of them starts whispering for the doll. One of the intruders proceeds to kill herself while clutching the Annabelle doll. Strange occurrences start to happen throughout all hours of the day forcing Mia to have the baby early. Like many possession stories we have seen before, Mia and John move to a new house hoping to rid themselves of their problems. We all know this never works and the demons follow the couple to their new apartment.


The Conjuring was based on a true story and the real Annabelle doll is an old Raggedy Ann doll instead of a porcelain doll that's used in the movie. While that film stuck fairly close to the real life story of the Warrens, I am curious as to why they decided to give Annabelle a completely fictionalized story instead of using the true story that goes along with the real Raggedy Ann doll. There seems to be plenty of information out there regarding it, but maybe this was the faster and cheaper way of cranking out a paint-by-numbers script. I’ve seen enough of these types of movies that always seem to have a priest character (Amendola) and a mysterious neighbor character (Woodard). Is it so hard to create a different type of character that informs John and Mia that Annabelle is a conduit for evil spirits? Even the ending feels unoriginal and tired.


I was relieved to see that the film does stick to the 1970s timeline. I would not have been surprised if they were going to call it a prequel and than randomly set it in a contemporary timeline. The 1970s was one of the smartest choices they went for as it provides for some interesting design concepts to make up for the unoriginal story. The names John and Mia may ring a bell for you as they are clearly named after John Cassavetes and Mia Farrow who played the couple in Rosemary’s Baby. It is very apparent that director John R. Leonetti was inspired by Roman Polanski’s film. Leonetti was the director of photography on The Conjuring so he knows his way around lighting and shooting a horror film. The film sticks with using real effects to give it a more natural feel over relying on CGI. It makes sense with the time period and how horror films were shot in that decade. Don’t worry, the Annabelle doll doesn’t walk around or do silly Chucky type moves.


This may be the biggest project yet for stars Ward Horton and Annabelle Wallis. Horton had a small role in The Wolf of Wall Street and has had numerous one-episode appearances in a variety of television shows. Wallis has had some television work on Pan-Am and The Tudors. They are both strong enough actors to keep the characters grounded without feeling like they are ever over-acting or being the bimbos we often find in horror films. I just don’t feel like there is anything interesting about John or Mia. Maybe the point was to make them very normal and bland people. How can you make a movie work with two fairly unknown lead actors playing characters we don't really want to invest our time in?


I wish I could say that Annabelle is as exciting and scary as its predecessor. There are a couple of jumpy moments, but most of the scares tended to be dragged out longer than they needed to be. James Wan is attached to the film as one of the producers. He is the top-notch horror director behind The Conjuring, Insidious, and Saw, and I would have expected it to be better with his involvement.

Is It Worth Your Trip to the Movies? Go revisit The Conjuring or Rosemary's Baby instead.

RATING: 2 out of 5 TICKET STUBS




Pin It Now!

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Movie Review: 12 YEARS A SLAVE

12 YEARS A SLAVE
Director: Steve McQueen
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Alfre Woodard, Lupita Nyong'o, Paul Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Giamatti, Brad Pitt


Not since Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List has a film so vividly captured a horrifying chapter in history. Steve McQueen’s (Shame, Hunger) latest film is an adaptation of the memoir of the same name by Solomon Northup. In 1841, Solomon (Ejiofor) was a free black man with a wife and two children. Being an accomplished violinist, he is targeted by two men (Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam) posing as artists offering him a chance to be a part of a touring music gig. He is bound and kidnapped after he passes out after a night of heavy libations.


He is sold into slavery and given the new name “Platt”. For twelve years, he is sold off to various plantations. His first owner, William Ford (Cumberbatch) is a preacher and seems to treat him a bit better than future owner Edwin Epps (Fassbender). Solomon and fellow slave Patsey (Nyong’o) spend the majority of their time under the cruel and vicious hands of Epps and his mistress (Paulson). He holds onto enough hope that someday he will be rescued.


The film is getting a lot of buzz about how brutal the depiction of slavery is. I have even read some articles stating that movies goers, even members of the Academy, are walking out or cannot take too much of it due to the violence and graphic nature. I would like to know what these people were expecting. A light walk in the park? This is a tragic period of American history and I applaud director Steve McQueen for going all in by depicting the violence, hatred, and brutality that went into it. I do not feel like we see enough directors that are willing to tackle such dark and horrific moments in history. If they do, they end up sugar coating the truth or adding in some sort of love story or fictitious subplot to lighten the tone.


The story gets right into the nitty gritty early on as Solomon is sold into slavery within the first fifteen minutes. For the next two hours, you may feel a tight wad of anxiety and intensity inside of you as it never lets up. It compels you to watch Solomon’s journey that hopefully challenges you as an individual and demands your attention. There are numerous moments where I could hear the others around me squirm and writhe in their seats.


McQueen has assembled a big cast of heavy hitters, many of whom have very small parts. Pitt and Cumberbatch appear for about fifteen minutes or so. Paul Giamatti, Alfre Woodard, and Bryan Batt are all on screen for about five minutes each. Paul Dano gives another strong performance this year after his turn in Prisoners. Fassbender’s character is truly heinous in every possible way. There are very few redeeming qualities about him. At times I wanted more out of him than just a monster. As Patsey, Nyong’o is a revelation who is vulnerable and heartbreaking in every way. I expect an Oscar nomination to come her way. We now come to Chiwetel Ejiofor who is the heart and core of this film. He carries so much weight and determination in his eyes the whole film. You just look into his eyes and see layers behind them. You never see Solomon give up. Ejiofor conveys so much emotion and range without it being a flashy or showy performance. The simple yet effective cinematography by frequent McQueen collaborator Sean Bobbitt oftentimes is a still shot focusing on Ejiofor hoping, praying, and waiting for help to come his way. In so many movies these days, the camera is zipping by so fast that it can be hard to keep up. The exact opposite is happening here it where keeping the camera still gets these images and actions ingrained in your head.


How do you walk away saying this is great film when it is about such horrific events? You are not left with that feel good type feeling like you do after say The Way Way Back. Instead, you are left with this pit in your stomach. You have to go back and judge it off how well did McQueen do his job as a storyteller. Did it affect you in another way? Did it teach you something? Does it leave you in deep discussion afterwards? Did it shake something inside of you? McQueen has created a film that is sure to be talked about for quite some time. There are certain scenes and images that I cannot stop thinking about that I would love to discuss here, but it is better to just experience them firsthand without me spoiling them.

RATING: ***** (5 out of 5 stars)

Pin It Now!