Jacob Destree’s Movie Blog

What’s the deal with vampire movies?

The subject matter is gripping, but the films never live up to it. With such a well developed mythology to draw from, vampire movies should be artful, scary, and engrossing. Instead, they give us recycled stories with bland heroes and generic blood sucking villains.

To be fair, “30 Days Of Night” does try its best to rise above the typical fare. The source material is a dark and atmospheric graphic novel that would seem the perfect starting point for a motion picture. And the basic plot device is an intriguing one. What if vampires planned a coordinated attack on an isolated Northern town? And what if the town was so far North that 30 days passed between sunset and sunrise?

Unfortunately, the end result doesn’t live up to its promise.

The main problem is the vampires. The filmmakers were trying to “reinvent” the vampires as quick and ravenous animals, rather than the suave and romantic vampires of yesteryear. Too bad for them, the animal-like vamps have been done before too. And the “30 Days” variation really adds nothing new.

Then there’s the problem of the heroes. They’re not nearly as interesting as the villains, and yet they dominate the screen time. We’d like to get to know the vampires better (and their leader is pretty cool, delivering the best line of the film), but they really only show up long enough to kill someone and then they’re gone.

Lastly, there’s just not enough surprises. Everything happens just as you expect it would. Like when the Sheriff’s ex-wife misses the last plane out of town, and she joins his group of survivors– is anyone expecting them NOT to reconcile? And how many times have you seen the mercy killing of someone who has been bitten but doesn’t want to “turn into one of those things?” But have you ever seen a child vampire before?

Yeah, you and everyone else. And “30 Days Of Night” plays that card too… At least the set design was nice.

Grade: C

What IS the best vampire movie? There has GOT to be something better than “Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” And I don’t think it’s “Interview With The Vampire,” either.
Post your thoughts.

“The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford” (2007) is easily the best western since Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven” redefined the genre in 1992.

Which is not to say that there have been no good westerns during the interim– “Tombstone” and the more recent “3:10 To Yuma” have plenty to offer. The trouble is, the western is a tough genre to work in artistically. Like horror films, westerns are defined largely by convention. Certain ingredients (saloons, gunfights on Main Street, and train robberies, to name a few) are considered indispensable. Working within the confines of the genre is therefore difficult, without the results coming across as cliched.

“Unforgiven” helped to change all that. It is the quintessential anti-western. Contrary to genre norms, the hero of “Unforgiven” is aging and isn’t exactly a sharpshooter. His sidekick is going blind, and shoots even worse. The sheriff is one of the bad guys. And a fiction novelist paints their stories larger than life, because real life isn’t fantastic enough.

“The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford” has the same rule-breaking attitude. The movie is thrilling because it doesn’t look like it’s trying to be thrilling. It takes its time to tell a story of people, not gunfights. There is gun play to be sure, but not at the expense of character driven dialogue. Thus, when the bullets do eventually fly, it is all the more effective.

Additionally, the movie doesn’t glorify Jesse James as a hero, but humanizes him as a historical figure. In most westerns, the characters are mere archetypes, painted in broad strokes to be one-dimensional symbols of good or evil, or strength or weakness. In “The Assassination of Jesse James” the characters are layered and true. (Especially Robert Ford, a memorable character played with great depth by Casey Affleck.)

But the real strength of “Jesse James” is not the characters or the acting, or even the story. It is the directing and the cinematography. The images feel at once “old-timey” and alive. Some shots use a technique to blur the edges of the frame, making you feel as if you’re peering through a thick pane of glass, or using an antique camera to take a photo. And the wide open landscapes will have you longing for a simpler time.

If you liked “Unforgiven,” see “The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford.” It’s the best titled film of the year and also one of the best pictures of the year!

Grade: A

I think “Unforgiven” is the best western ever made. It’s even better than “The Searchers,” which is about on par with “The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford.”
Post your thoughts.

The “Saw” Series has pumped out a new release annually, every year from 2004 – 2007. Viewed as works of art, these films are not very good at all. Viewed as a corporate product line– as exercises in style over substance, specializing in shocking moments rather than a cohesive whole– the “Saw” series is an exemplary exercise in its genre.

I do not recommend seeing any of these films. And yet, I have learned more about the film making process from watching the “Saw” DVD commentaries, and observing the films’ construction, than I have learned from many of the greatest art house films. If there is a way to approach this series, I think it should be treated as the villainous Jigsaw treats his victims. Keep it at arms length, and treat it like a guinea pig. Don’t empathize with the victim, and by the end you will see how it ticks.

What follows are some brief thoughts on each film in the series.

“Saw” (2004) is by far the best of the series. The strength of the first “Saw” movie is its premise. Its main weakness is the twist ending. As the film begins, we want to know why these two men are chained in a bathroom, and will they saw off a leg to stay alive. The various death traps are original and engaging, and we wonder who is the mastermind behind it all. But by the end, the answers are mostly unsatisfying. The twist feels obligatory, and opens up some plot holes that weren’t there before.

Additionally, I like this film because of the casting. Seeing Danny Glover and Carey Elwes in a popular horror film is gratifying. Ken Leung and Michael Emerson add to the mix, prefacing their participation together in the new season of “Lost.” Tobin Bell (Jigsaw) is unfortunately underused.

Grade: B-

“Saw II” (2005) really focuses on where the entire series gets its popularity: the death traps. In the first “Saw,” the traps were novel, a good reason to see the movie. With the sequel, the traps immediately feel like part of a “formula,” the recipe used to duplicate the success of the first film over and over.

The traps in “Saw II” are admittedly more entertaining than in the first “Saw,” but the premise feels forced because its all written around the traps. Imagine the sheer amount of time, effort, and planning to make a house full of traps, and to try to predict how the victims will deal with it all. What’s more, it all has to be automated, because unlike the first film, there’s no one there to supervise the game. Jigsaw is captured by the police in the very first scene (one of the few times this movie really goes against genre expectations).

The best trap? The one where the girl has to dig out a key from the bottom of a pit filled with hypodermic needles. It’ll make you cringe. But there’s really no other reason to see this mess. It’s “average” in every sense of the word.

Grade: C

“Saw III” (2006) shows serious signs of franchise fatigue. Like many horror franchises before it, it entices the viewer with promises of resolution, only to set up still more sequels. The characters, save Tobin Bell as Jigsaw, are uninteresting. Maybe that’s why the best scenes in “Saw III” are not the elaborate (and unbelievable traps), but the scenes where Jigsaw’s life is on the line (like when he undergoes makeshift brain surgery).

Grade: C-

With Jigsaw now dead, “Saw IV” (2007) has its work cut out. The result is the worst film in the series, although the idea for the story is not entirely bad. Jigsaw appears in numerous flashbacks, which try to enhance the series “mythology” by showing us how he got started as a serial killer, and answering such questions as where the doll and pig mask came from. That’s the good part. The bad part, again, is the inevitable series of traps. This time, it is revealed that all the trap scenes run concurrently with “Saw III,” thereby sidestepping the issue of how Jigsaw sets up more traps while he’s dead. Of course, this only further enhances the implausibility of the third film, and begs the question of how the traps will originate in “Saw V.”

Speaking of traps, the traps in “Saw IV” really, really test the viewer’s suspension of disbelief. In the earlier films the best traps are always the simple, plausible ones: one person trying to escape one death machine. But “Saw IV” ignores this fact, instead offering up numerous traps spread throughout the city and involving usually two characters per set piece.

In one example, the protagonist is supposed to lure a hotel clerk into a pre-rigged room and force him into the trap mechanism. What if the clerk wasn’t there that night? How long was the room set up that way? What if someone had entered the room beforehand? And how does the television turn itself on to play the videotape that explains the clerk’s back story? Where did Jigsaw acquire the footage for the tape? Why is the tape edited for dramatic effect? Did Jigsaw do that himself? It seems like Jigsaw benefits endlessly from dumb luck as so many circumstances work out just right, at just the right time…

And so it goes. For 95 minutes.

Grade: D+

There will be a “Saw V” too. They mention that little nugget in the director’s commentary for “Saw IV.”
What does it say about a franchise, that they promote an as-yet-unmade sequel in the special features of the movie preceding it?

Has Jigsaw already become a classic villain?
Post your thoughts.

“Murder By Death” (1976) is one of those lost and little seen gems that somehow got swept under the dusty rug of mid-seventies comedies. This is the sort of movie that should be played on Comedy Central on Friday afternoons (alongside “Clue”) but isn’t. It would fit in well on AMC too, Saturday at midnight perhaps, right after “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.” Like “World,” the main reason to see “Murder By Death” is the stellar cast. It features Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers, David Niven, Truman Capote, Peter Falk, a young James Cromwell and Maggie Smith.

Peter Sellers is always watchable, no matter how poor the material, and here the material suits him well. Sellers plays master detective Sidney Wang, complete with Oriental makeup and fake accent. Fans of the old radio program The Goon Show, in which Sellers got his start, will recognize he has a lot of practice with this type of character. It is, frankly, astounding to see this was still acceptable in the seventies. But in Sellers’ defense, we must remember that this is a comedy, and for good reason comedies get a pass when it comes to racial impersonation. (Case in point: the Wayans Brothers’ 2004 disaster “White Chicks”).

The role is also rather satirical, as it is clearly a send-up of the old Charlie Chan mysteries. In fact each actor is spoofing a famous movie detective. David Niven is the British womanizing type detective, similar to James Bond. Peter Falk, on the other hand, is a cross-eyed variation on Humphrey Bogart.

They have all been called to the mansion of the enigmatic criminal mastermind Lionel Twain (Capote) to solve a murder. The murder is to be committed in the mansion, precisely at midnight, with all detectives present. Twain offers a million dollars to the detective who cracks the case first. But if no one can solve the mystery, Twain will have outsmarted the greatest detectives in the world, and proven himself their superior.

The script is by the immensely talented Neil Simon, but it never really rises above what you’d expect. For some reason, too much talent involved with a film project always seems to spoil the outcome (e.g. “Mars Attacks”). “Murder By Death” is a good way to pass ninety minutes, but you won’t be in any rush to see it again. It isn’t bad, but then again, it isn’t exactly good either.

I think “Murder By Death” is the perfect definition of an “average” movie.

Grade: C

P.S. This movie is available for instant viewing online if you have a Netflix membership.

Isn’t this cast amazing?
Post your thoughts.

“The Ten” (2007) is like the poor man’s “The Kids In The Hall: Brain Candy.” It features the sketch comedy ensemble from “The State” in a series of short vignettes, each based on one of the Ten Commandments. The results are both mixed and memorable.

It works mainly as one of those so-dumb-it’s-funny movies. Most of the jokes won’t make you laugh out loud, but it does seem like the kind of movie that gets funnier with repeat viewings– if for no other reason than to quote the best lines to your friends.

The film uses narrator Paul Rudd to introduce each vignette, and this linking device is easily the film’s greatest shortcoming. It’s as if the writers used all of their choicest bits in the vignettes, and how to piece it all together was an afterthought. (Which it probably was.) The narrator’s scenes are all about him arguing with his girlfriend, which is unfortunate because we simply don’t care about these characters. They are the least interesting players in a film full of interesting, absurd weirdos.

Weirdos like the skydiver with no parachute who gets stuck up to his chest in dirt. Or his girlfriend, who falls in love with a ventriloquist puppet. Or the ventriloquist’s drug dealer, called the Lying Rhino, whose back story is animated.

“State” alum Michael Ian Black shows up too, but is criminally underused. His part is so small it’s a cameo, which is downright disappointing.

The best sketch depicts the commandment “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” It is a hilarious spoof of the “keeping up with the Joneses” syndrome in which a pair of neighbors compete to see who can buy more cat scan machines for their home. Having so many cat scan machines seems pretty useless, but the plot thickens when a nuclear reactor leak exposes a group of school children to radiation poisoning…

Maybe “The Ten” wouldn’t feel like such a let down if it hadn’t been preceded by a better movie with many of the same actors. That film was called “Wet Hot American Summer.” If you liked that, you’ll like this too. But “The Ten” does feel like a step in the wrong direction.

Grade: C+

Did you like “Wet Hot American Summer” better?
Post your thoughts.

In the months leading up to the release of “There Will Be Blood” (2007), the online film community was buzzing with controversy. Fans of director Paul Thomas Anderson had major concerns: Would there be blood? How much blood would there be? And what if there wasn’t any? Reputations were on the line.

According to conventional wisdom, P.T. Anderson was a director who delivered the goods. “Hard Eight,” “Boogie Nights” and “Magnolia” were evidence of a genius auteur in the making.

But there were clear reasons for concern. Based loosely on Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel “Oil,” the title of Anderson’s new picture was clearly allegorical. Would he really entice viewers with the promise of blood, only to deliver oil in spades?

The answer is unequivocally, “no.” The film delivers on all fronts. Anderson has made his best film yet, a tale which mixes timeless themes with stylized Americana.

His directing prowess is on display in every shot, but especially in the first twenty minutes of the film. These scenes have no dialogue, but the striking images and musical score let viewers know they are in for a real treat.

The score is courtesy of Jonny Greenwood, guitar player for rock band Radiohead. The compositions are masterful, and a major asset to a film brimming with assets.

Most notable is Daniel Day-Lewis’ portrayal of tycoon Daniel Plainview. It’s a good thing he won the Oscar for Best Actor at the recent Academy Awards ceremony, because anything less would have been downright criminal. This is a towering, epic performance with parallels to Orson Welles’ Charles Foster Kane. You will not see better acting in any film this year. Fans of director John Huston will also find plenty to enjoy, as Day-Lewis’ vocal inflections are a memorable homage to the late director and his distinctive pattern of speech.

Plainview’s determination for wealth and hate for humanity are the engine which drive this story forward. His main competition comes in the form of a frontier preacher and false prophet, played with great zeal by the young Paul Dano. Their clash of wills leads to a bizarre and violent confrontation in a bowling alley, the scene in which the film ultimately makes good on its title. While many critics feel that this scene is “over the top” or perhaps a contrived addendum of sorts, it brings a needed resolution to the arcs of both main characters.

See for yourself, and you will not be disappointed. Like “No Country For Old Men,” this is a literate film with the breadth and depth to look meaningfully at greed and evil in America.

“There Will Be Blood” is a film that delivers on its promises. It is surely one of the ten best films of the year.

Grade: A

In the battle of “No Country For Old Men” vs. “There Will Be Blood,” which do you like better? I vote “Blood.”
Post your thoughts.