Johnny Depp and director Tim Burton’s latest collaboration, “Dark Shadows,” once again has the actor donning some white powder makeup, but this time around, their work isn’t charming the critics as much as previous films. The critics agree that Depp is in his usual top form and Burton’s visuals still demand attention, but some issues with the script keep “Dark Shadows” from being all it can be.

Check out what the critics are saying about Dark Shadows : ”As a child, Barnabas and his wealthy family sailed from England in 1750 and founded the fishing village of Collinsport in coastal Maine. They spent 15 years building the grand Collinwood Manor, where a maid named Angelique (Eva Green) loved Barnabas passionately, but he never returned her affections. Because she felt scorned — and happened to be a witch — she turned him into a vampire, chained him up and stuck him in a coffin in the ground. Nearly 200 years later, a construction crew unearths him and sets him free.” — Christy Lemire, Associated Press

“Depp’s performance is more than just funny — it’s ghoulishly endearing. He caresses each line with great care, as if it were a piece of candy he’s unwrapping, and he gives Barnabas, in his very ‘demonic’ intensity, a quality of almost elfin innocence that recalls the characters Depp has most memorably played for Burton: Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Willy Wonka. But ‘Dark Shadows,’ entertaining as it is, is a milder echo of those earlier collaborations.” — Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly.

The story begins in the 1700s, when the Collins family leaves Liverpool for the New World and settles in Maine, where Joshua Collins builds a thriving business, establishes a seaport town, and constructs a majestic family mansion. But one of the household servants (Green) turns out to be a witch, and when Barnabas (Depp) shuns her in favor of another woman, she unleashes a curse on the Collins clan and turns the young playboy into a vampire who is then buried alive. The story picks up two hundred years later—in 1972, as Barnabas rises from his grave and tries to restore his family’s tarnished glory.

In the year 1752, Joshua and Naomi Collins, with young son Barnabas, set sail from Liverpool, England to start a new life in America. But even an ocean was not enough to escape the mysterious curse that has plagued their family. Two decades pass and Barnabas has the world at his feet—or at least the town of Collinsport, Maine. The master of Collinwood Manor, Barnabas is rich, powerful and an inveterate playboy…until he makes the grave mistake of breaking the heart of Angelique Bouchard. A witch, in every sense of the word, Angelique dooms him to a fate worse than death: turning him into a vampire, and then burying him alive. Two centuries later, Barnabas is inadvertently freed from his tomb and emerges into the very changed world of 1972. He returns to Collinwood Manor to find that his once-grand estate has fallen into ruin. The dysfunctional remnants of the Collins family have fared little better, each harboring their own dark secrets.

If you’re hoping for big, Addams Family-style laughs, however, you may come away disappointed. There isn’t much substance here, and once you absorb the tone of the film and acquaint yourself with its colorful characters, the movie has no big surprises in store. I was satisfied to watch Depp and sexy Eva Green bare their fangs, so to speak, and I enjoyed Helena Bonham Carter’s scenes as a slightly unhinged psychiatrist-in-residence, even if other cast members like Chloë Grace Moretz and Jackie Earle Haley have little to do. Michelle Pfeiffer is reduced to playing straight-man, as the family matriarch, but she does it well. And, of course, it’s nice to see 89-year-old Christopher Lee in his one scene as an old sea salt.

In voice-over, Barnabas economically details the Collins family history in once-upon-a-time fashion, from its rise to its fall and including some disastrous lord-of-the-manor grappling with a maid, Angelique (the French actress Eva Green, frisky, funny and excellent), who paws at Barnabas’s body while Josette (Bella Heathcote, a typical Burton Kewpie doll and a recent Australian import) runs off with his heart. Three’s a crowd and Angelique is a witch, so after a little boil, toil and trouble, she casts a spell that leaves Josette dead and Barnabas bereft, fanged and weeping sanguineous tears. In typical horror fashion, a mob descends on him, leading to his timeout in a deep grave until he’s disinterred in the 1970s, whereupon Mr. Burton cues the Carpenters and happily cuts loose.

Barnabas’s liberation does the same for Mr. Depp’s performance, and it’s delightful to watch how the actor handles the vampire’s readjustment to the world of the living, which, after he has thrown back some invigorating human Slurpees and faced down a “demon” (a car), he does with both lofty entitlement and abject bewilderment. Barnabas has the good looks of a vampire lover, but the character’s wide-eyed, somewhat baffled manner, in consort with his mysterious powers, means he mostly comes across like a visitor from another planet, more E. T. than Christopher Lee. Later, hiding from the sun under dark glasses, a fedora and an umbrella — Stoker’s creation moves around in daylight, too, so this isn’t as revisionist as it may seem — Barnabas also suggests the later-life Michael Jackson.

Share:
  • blogmarks
  • Facebook
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • RSS
  • Twitter

MOULIN ROUGE“Moulin Rouge” is a vivid assault on the senses. From the opening credits to the final scene, the movie’s breathtaking costumes and vibrant production numbers invade your mind and fill your eyes with luscious, sensuous treats. The mix of 19th century Paris and its bohemian underground, over-the-top style and decadence, with music from the late 20th century, creates a film that slides into a category beyond extravagant. This movie takes musicals to a level never before experienced, and which may never be equaled in its exaggerated style. This visually stunning film blends elements that normally would clash, and does it with such panache it’s almost painful to watch in its beauty.

Directed by Baz Luhrmann as the third and final part of the Red Curtain trilogy (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet), Moulin Rouge! follows the ill-fated love affair of Satine, a glamorous showgirl (Kidman) and Christian, a struggling writer (McGregor). Moulin Rouge! is a visual spectacle that shouldn’t be missed.Watch this spectacular spectacular whenever you can can.

If you’re a Romeo  Juliet fan, you’ll love this – it has the same energetic, exuberant style that Luhrmann has become renowned for. It’s non-stop action all the way, with a fabulous soundtrack to accompany the frenetic cinematography.

Set in 1900 Paris, Satine mistakenly falls for Christian, believing him to be the duke, a wealthy man about to invest in the Moulin Rouge and transform it into a reputable theatre.

Ewan may warble that all you need is love but the obsessed duke demands exclusive rights to the leggy courtesan as well as the theatre while, just to add to our doomed lovers’ tragedy, the luscious Satine is revealed to be dying of consumption.

With a mix of romance, tragedy and big musical numbers that Busby Berkeley would have been proud of, Kidman and McGregor set the screen on fire.

Prepare to be astounded by the actors’ previously unknown abilities to both sing AND dance. Special mention should be given to the fantastically choreographed Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend and inspired rendition of Sting’s Roxanne.

Somewhere between a fairy tale and an episode of Sesame Street, sitting on a strange line between history and fantasy, lies Moulin Rouge, a vaguely familiar story about a love affair between a penniless writer and a dying courtesan. Set in Paris in the year 1900, in and around the infamous Moulin Rouge — a brothel/dancehall in the seediest part of town — the film quickly tosses us into a whirlwind of a story, windmill included.

Christian (Ewan McGregor) arrives in Paris, eager to make his mark as a writer. No sooner does he begin to type than a band of bohemian poets and actors literally fall in on him, including the crazed and diminutive Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo, acting on his knees). Together they hatch a plot to take a new musical across the street to the Moulin Rouge in search of a backer for their thrilling new show.

Naturally, before midnight strikes, Christian has fallen in love with the star of the Rouge, the ‘Sparkling Diamond’ Satine (Nicole Kidman), while her boss, the maniacal Zidler (Jim Broadbent) looks on disapprovingly. The man with the money is the Duke of Worcester (Richard Roxburgh), to whom everyone must suck up. But it wouldn’t be a movie unless the Duke was also in love with Satine — and boy does he have a mean streak.

Combining old-style Hollywood glamour, Orphean myth and boulevard farce, “Moulin Rouge” tells the story of Christian (Ewan McGregor), a young writer in Paris who begins a doomed romance with the city’s most famous courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman). Satine is the star of the eponymous nightspot, whose future depends on her marrying a wealthy patron (Richard Roxburgh). In a plot twist borrowed from “La Bohème” (which Luhrmann filmed for Australian television in 1993), she is also suffering from tuberculosis.

Stunningly conceived if dramatically weak, Luhrmann’s latest caused a stir at Cannes with its use of contemporary pop tunes (Elton John’s Your Song, Nirvana’s Smells Like Teen Spirit) that add an anachronistic spin to the period setting. Add flashy editing, lush production design and spectacular dance routines and the result is something akin to an extended music video – a resemblance reinforced by Kylie Minogue’s fleeting appearance as the Absinthe Fairy.

McGregor reveals a fine tenor voice as the lovestruck lead, but it’s Kidman who steals the movie with a devastating display of sultry allure. Watching her commit herself body and soul to Luhrmann’s bizarre vision makes it easy to overlook the film’s structural deficiencies and its tendency to sacrifice emotional resonance for stylistic bombast.

Christian, a handsome, young, poet/writer, goes against his father’s wishes and moves to Montmartre, Paris. It’s the perfect atmosphere for an aspiring young writer who yearns for a freer, more bohemian lifestyle. He meets the artist, Toulouse-Lautrec, after a narcoleptic Argentinean actor falls through the ceiling and ends up hanging upside down in the middle of Christian’s apartment. Teaming up with the acting troupe living upstairs and headed by Lautrec, Christian meets and falls hard for the featured star of the Moulin Rouge, sexy, sultry, Satine – the Sparkling Diamond. Together with Lautrec’s actors, Satine and Christian create “Spectacular, Spectacular” – a play that Satine hopes will make her a star. Financing is an issue and Satine’s boss, Zidler, pins his hopes on a Duke. The Duke agrees to finance the play, and a renovation of the Moulin Rouge, in exchange for a contract that binds Satine to him. Christian and Satine’s love must stay hidden to ensure the play will debut. Their love becomes the main storyline for the play within the movie, and allows Satine and Christian to continue their forbidden relationship under the nose of the despicable Duke.

Casting Nicole Kidman as the sexy, erotic, seemingly unattainable, courtesan Satine, and Ewan McGregor as the handsome young writer/poet Christian, was a bit of inspired thinking. Their obvious enjoyment of each other’s company exudes sexual energy; their scenes together nearly leaping off the screen. Though neither are known for their singing skills, both manage to pull off their musical numbers with enough bravado and style to make up for any vocal shortcomings. The supporting cast of Richard Roxburgh and Jim Broadbent added the right flair to the film, with both actors giving it that depraved, immoral feeling through their characters. Talented, chameleon-like John Leguizamo was incredibly entertaining as the vertically challenged, addicted to absinthe artist, Toulouse-Lautrec, who sets the doomed love affair in motion.

From the opening strains of “The Sound of Music” to the raucous rendition of “Lady Marmalade” and into Satine’s sultry seduction of the clientele in “Sparkling Diamonds” (paying homage to those most infamous sex goddesses, Marilyn Monroe and Madonna) the audience is treated to a non-stop visual and auditory repast worthy of Caligula’s envy. The romantic stage is lovingly set with Christian’s emotional rendition of the Elton John classic, “Your Song”, culminating in a love song medley performed atop Satine’s tantrically decorated elephant-shaped boudoir.

Traditional comic scenarios common to “boy-meets-girl, boy-gets-girl, boy-loses-girl” themes play nicely amid this voyeuristic extravaganza, receiving great assistance from songs made famous by the likes of The Beatles, David Bowie, Whitney Houston and of, course, Elton John. Not so traditional, however, is Jim Broadbent’s rendition of “Like A Virgin” which is played to the hilt and will have you in stitches from laughter.

Jim Broadbent, as Harold Zidler, the rouged and mustachioed emcee of the Moulin Rouge, gives an unforgettable portrayal, surpassing those luscious performances of an emcee in Cabaret by both Joel Grey and Alan Cumming. Adding to his absurd Barnumesque character, Broadbent provides a touch of humanity with his desire and effort to be protective and almost fatherly to Satine while trying not to squelch his over-riding passion for money.

To be fair, I love Ewan McGregor and would have seen this movie had it been about a man who sits in a chair, alone, watching paint dry. I’d been looking forward to this film and wasn’t disappointed with Baz Luhrmann’s finished product. “Moulin Rouge” was an incredibly riveting film. Not a scene went by that didn’t virtually electrify my senses.

Share:
  • blogmarks
  • Facebook
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Edward ScissorhandsThis is a wonderful tale about love and kindness, but also about rejection and estrangement. It shows the limits of people’s tolerance for what is different from them and how strangers, those who stray from the norm, commonly named ‘misfits’, awake mockery or fear from a society which will use them and ultimately reject them, thus breaking their innocence and goodness. Though a harsh satire of people’s vices, such as deceit, gossip, jealousy, hypocrisy, as well as a tragic witness to the pain and frustration linked to being unable to be accepted as one is by others, the tone is still infused with an ever constant sweetness, gentleness and innocence.

Edward has apparently hidden here for a long time, with nary a trip to the grocery store. But one day, as seems perfectly reasonable in the ripe, fanciful pop universe in which “Edward Scissorhands” unfolds, a thoughtful Avon lady (Dianne Wiest) pays a visit. Seeing Edward, she immediately grasps that he has a problem and sweetly imagines that it can be solved with kindness, not to mention the makeup base of exactly the right hue. So the Avon lady brings the outcast back to her home, where he amazes the neighbors with his rare feats of snippery. He’s a wizard when it comes to poodles.

In a sense, Mr. Burton is too. His “Edward Scissorhands” is as crazily single-minded as a majestic feat of dog barbering, with much the same boldness, camp ebullience and fundamentally narrow wit. Like a great chef concocting an exquisite peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich, Mr. Burton invests awe-inspiring ingenuity into the process of reinventing something very small. In the case of “Edward Scissorhands,” which opens today at the Ziegfeld, that something is a tale of misunderstood gentleness and stifled creativity, of civilization’s power to corrupt innocence, of a heedless beauty and a kindhearted beast. The film, if scratched with something much less sharp than Edward’s fingers, reveals proudly adolescent lessons for us all.

The acting is impeccable. Depp’s performance as Edward is truly touching and Keaton and Price’s characters are full of gentleness. Their good-nature shows humanity at its best while some other characters efficiently show its least pleasant aspects. The photography is quite beautiful and is thematically based on a strong contrast between Edward’s universe, the dark noiseless castle, strongly influenced by the gothic visual style, with the town, filled with bright colours and voices. The apparently gloomy castle is in fact a shelter from the seemingly happy outside world, which is in fact, much darker and sinister underneath its bright colours. The music is simply great, Danny Elfman being one of the most talented contemporary composer. His style is at times moving, soft, wild, silly, weird and crazy. He has worked on many musical soundtracks since, but this one is probably the most beautiful he ever created.

The film, lovingly directed by Tim Burton, is a darkly sweet (self) portrait of adolescent angst. We can all relate on some level to Edward’s social awkwardness, and Depp’s deer-in-headlights self-consciousness is adoring enough to soften the sharpest of pointed appendages. The pastel-colored township cuts a drastic figure against Edward’s looming mansion in the distance. Like the best of David Lynch, the film exposes the cynical underbelly of front porch Americana, forcing us to find beauty and truth in the grotesque when we allow what is “good” to run more than skin-deep.

Edward Scissorhands (Johnny Depp) has been created by a reclusive inventor (Vincent Price) who lives high above town in a chilly castle. Before the old scientist can replace the scissors he has substituted for Edward’s hands with the real thing, he dies. For a while, Edward live on alone in the castle. The ageless youth is rescued from this isolated existence by Peg (Dianne West), the local Avon lady, who brings him into her suburban home and immediately tries to treat the scars on his face caused by his cumbersome metal hands.

Although Edward finds it difficult to sleep on a waterbed, eat, or dress, Peg’s husband (Alan Arkin) and son (Robert Oliveri) are intrigued by the eagerness of this heavy-handed outsider. The bored housewives in the community are awed when Edward demonstrates marvelous creativity in sculpting fantastic objects out of suburban hedges including a bear, a dinosaur, a ballerina, a penguin, and even Elvis! He also cuts hair and fashions unusual ice sculpture. Edward’s innocence is revealed when he spurs the sexual advances of a promiscuous suburbanite (Kathy Baker). His unalloyed love of Peg’s daughter Kim (Winona Ryder) earns the ire of her jealous boyfriend (Anthony Michael Hall). Eventually both the creativity and the gentleness of Edward Scissorhands become offensive to the community. After making him into a celebrity, the town finds a reason to turn against him in hatred. Only Kim keeps the secret of his fate.

Whether he’s pitting Batman against the Joker or giving us an uncanny look at the afterlife, Burton has a way of both making our eyes pop and crafting a story with genuine feeling. Edward is the closest we’ve seen to Burton onscreen, with Ed Bloom as a close second. Without judgment or cynicism, Edward wants to embrace the world and his new family, but when he does he hurts them. Think of Burton with Hollywood: Every time he attempts to embrace them and give them a gift, they shun him and reject him (the miracle-maker has yet to even be nominated for an Oscar). Hollywood (aka The World) senses creativity and intuition as amusements that quickly turn into threats against the structure of life, and the Boggs’ neighborhood do the same thing to Edward. More than even his masterpiece, Ed Wood, Burton seems to be at his most socially aware in this film.

Depp’s gentle performance gives new dimension to the old Frankenstein monster, allowing for a more human connection since Edward was created by a crazy scientist (a killer cameo by Vincent Price) in the image of a son. What sells the film ultimately is the tenderness given to both the love story between Kim and Edward and the scenes at home with the family. Ryder and Depp have a dazzling chemistry and in the film’s climax, we see warmth that digs into what Burton feels about family and love, subjects he has spent his career reinventing. His gothic tones always mask a feeling of wonder and an endearing love for everything that is possible in life and death. We should all be so lucky to feel and find hope in his magic.

Share:
  • blogmarks
  • Facebook
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Intouchables“This film dates to the 1930s, when it was thought the black man has no culture and spends his time laughing at everything,” philosopher Jean-Jacques Delfour said after reviewing the film of  Intouchables for the French daily Liberation.

The film begins at night in Paris. Driss is driving Philippe’s Maserati Quattroporte at full speed, with Philippe in the front passenger’s seat. They are soon chased by the police. “I bet you 100 euros I shake them off,” Driss tells his passenger. Yet they are caught. Unfazed, Driss doubles his bet with Philippe, convinced they will get an escort. In order to get away with his speeding, Driss claims the tetraplegic Philippe must be urgently driven to the emergency room; Philippe pretends to have a stroke and the fooled police eventually escort them to the hospital. The two men are jubilant. As the police leave them at the hospital Driss says “Now let me take care of it,” and they drive off.

Philippe, a rich quadriplegic who owns a luxurious Parisian mansion, is interviewing, along with his assistant Magalie, to recruit a live-in carer to help him. Driss, a candidate, has no ambitions to get hired. He is just there to get a signature showing he was interviewed and rejected in order to continue to receive his welfare benefits. He is extremely casual and shamelessly flirts with Magalie. He is told to come back the next morning to get his signed letter. Driss goes back to the tiny flat that he shares with his extended family in a bleak Parisian suburb. His aunt, exasperated from not hearing from him for six months, orders him to leave the flat.

The next day, Driss returns to Philippe’s mansion and learns to his surprise he is on a trial period for the live-in carer job. He learns the extent of Philippe’s disability and then accompanies Philip in every moment of his life, discovering with astonishment a completely different lifestyle. A friend of Philippe’s reveals to Philippe Driss’ criminal record which includes six months in jail for robbery. Philippe states he does not care about Driss’ past as long as he does his current job properly. Over time, Driss and Philippe become closer. Driss dutifully takes care of his boss, who frequently suffers from psychosomatic pain. Philippe discloses to Driss he became disabled following a paragliding accident and that his wife died without them bearing children.

It shattered records to become the second most successful French film of all time, The Intouchables tells the fact-based story of the unlikely friendship between a handicapped white millionaire and his unconventional Senegalese caretaker. Paralyzed from the neck down in a paragliding accident, Philippe (Tell No One star François Cluzet) has grown weary of the pitying attentions of his live-in help. So he hires Driss (Omar Sy, in a breakout performance), a recently paroled convict who only applied for the job in order to continue receiving his welfare payments. Gradually, these two men from very different worlds grow close, sharing in the joy and pain of each other’s lives in this hilarious and heartwarming crowd-pleaser from directors Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano.

The hit comes after a good run of French films inspired by real-life stories in recent months, notably La Guerre est déclarée, the acclaimed story of a young couple facing the cancer of their child, and Polisse, a Cannes film festival success about the daily life of a police brigade dealing with the protection of young children. Christophe Narbonne, a film critic at the French magazine Premiere, said Intouchables was a sensation because of good writing, acting and directing but also its subtle, British-style humour.

“In France we’re used to popular homegrown French comedy, specific French gags and easy laughs. This is very Anglo-Saxon slapstick, a humour which is both absurd and subtle, something which is working more and more in France today,” said Narbonne.

Share:
  • blogmarks
  • Facebook
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Apollo 18Ever since the Blair Witch Project debuted back in 1999, found-footage films have been a major source of income for movie studios due to an extremely low budgets and remarkably high returns. For example, Paranormal Activity 2 cost $3 million to make and raked in $177 million worldwide. While larger productions may make a significantly higher net-income for a studio (Transformers: Dark of the Moon), they also carry a greater risk of financial failure (Green Lantern). As a result, low cost found-footage productions, with unknown actors, small crews, and low production values are a no-brainer for movie executives.

As a result, it should come as no surprise that after exploring supernatural subjects such as witches and demons, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood added aliens to the genre with Apollo 18. However, has the found-footage movie genre finally discovered a frontier that it cannot conquer (i.e. make money from) or does Apollo 18 open up a whole new potential franchise?

Unfortunately Apollo 18 proves that not every found-footage scenario can deliver an entertaining time at the theater. Whether due to an overly-long set-up, a predictable plot progression, ho-hum reveals, as well as an idiotic and mostly familiar threat, Apollo 18 fails to build tension, deliver legitimate scares, or introduce an intriguing sci-fi mythology.

Instead, the basic premise of the film borrows from other sci-fi horror space films – and proceeds to execute them in less interesting ways. The story follows three astronauts in December of 1974 who are sent on a top secret mission (Apollo 18) to the moon, in order to deploy a series of transmitters designed to intercept Soviet signals… or so they think. As is apparent in every aspect of the film’s marketing, two of the astronauts land on the moon (while the other orbits, piloting their ride home) and soon discover that something is amiss in one of the craters. As the days tick down on the mission, the situation becomes increasingly unusual – and the astronauts begin to suspect that they weren’t actually sent on a mission to monitor the Soviets, but were sent to the moon to draw out a dangerous threat to humanity.

Cory Goodman (who also penned Priest) had a hand in the script and the dialogue – and subsequent performances are adequate. However, found footage movies aren’t about believable acting or relatable character interactions – they’re about captivating tension and cathartic scares. There’s no doubt that on paper, the Apollo 18 story sounds like a sure-fire success at the box office – however on the screen, the film fails at nearly every single element that made prior found-footage stories enjoyable.Apollo 18

First thing: Surprises. There are next to no surprising developments in the film – with the exception of how surprisingly uninteresting the alien threat turns out to be. Nearly every would-be jump-scare is telegraphed by an overly-familiar set-up: i.e. a close-up shot of one of the astronauts snoring. As a result, there are very few legitimately unpredictable moments in the film, and even when the “action” picks up, Apollo 18 has already failed to build substantial tension – so the closing minutes mostly bump along as expected. The scares, and over-arching storyline, will be especially flat for anyone who has seen one of the Apollo 18 trailers – which give away nearly every would-be shocker in the film.

Second thing: Fear of the unknown. As mentioned, the alien threat in the film is especially lazy. Unlike similar films, which successfully educated audiences on some unknown entity such as the paranormal (before subsequently unleashing their respective “monsters”), the filmmakers do very little to establish any kind of mystery or mythology around the film’s antagonist – withholding everything but face-value info. At no point in Apollo 18  does an “expert” or more informed character crack open the core set-up to ground the flat series of events in something more interesting. There’s something to be said for a film that throws the audience into an inexplicable scenario and creates tension by showing the unfolding events through equally clueless characters; however, that only works when there are worthwhile layers of mystery to uncover. Instead, when it comes to Apollo 18, viewers are forced to watch a series of unscary and uninteresting events unfold, without ever becoming privy to a worthwhile context.

Third thing: Competent camera work. By far one of the least successful aspects of the film is the actual implementation of the cameras that recorded the found-footage. As in similar films, heavy suspension of disbelief is required (i.e. the camera is, for some reason, the most important thing imaginable – even when you’re running for your life); however, unlike similar films, the camera work in Apollo 18 is boring at best – and more often than not, flat-out nauseating. Where the scares in a film like Paranormal Activity play out through static shots of creepy events unfolding, Apollo 18 tends to skew toward a collection of blurry and/or frenetic images that, with the exception of a frame here or there, show nothing of interest while presenting the empty story in the most uncomfortable way imaginable.

As a result, it’s nearly impossible to recommend Apollo 18 to anyone but the most staunch found-footage genre fans – as the film fails nearly every requirement of a tense and enjoyable time at the theater. If nothing else, the movie stands as a stark example that not every premise is ripe for the found-footage treatment. That said, it’s hard to imagine Apollo 18 will not be a money-maker for the studio – even though the film cost nearly twice as much as Paranormal Activity 2 (a “whopping” $5 million) – meaning, despite being one of the sloppiest films of 2011, we’ll probably be seeing an Apollo 19.

Share:
  • blogmarks
  • Facebook
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • RSS
  • Twitter