Tag Archives: movies

“Stoker” – 4 STARS

by

23

STOKER POSTERThere are two things that you’ll instantly notice when watching “Stoker”. First, it’s clear that director Park Chan-wook is a true visionary. Second, there is something seriously not right in the Stoker household. “Stoker” is a twisted psychological thriller oozing with Hitchcockian influence and mixed with traces of classic horror. There’s a good reason for that. The script was written by Wentworth Miller (yes, the guy from “Prison Break”) who stated that he used Hitchcock’s classic thriller “Shadow of a Doubt” to help frame his story. But this isn’t a mere carbon copy. He takes things in a much darker direction which helps this movie stand on its own two feet.

Chan-wook is best known for his “Vengeance” trilogy and for “Oldboy” which is currently being remade by Spike Lee. “Stoker” marks his English-language debut and his fingerprints are all over this film. He takes Miller’s script and instantly incorporates his signature style which works to create a specific mood and tone throughout the picture. And if you’re familiar with his other work you know his films often incorporate uneasiness and brutality. Both are present here as well.

The story centers around young India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska). Her life is dealt a terrible blow when her father Richard is killed in a tragic car accident on her 18th birthday. India was very close with her father, something that can’t be said about her relationship with her mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). The two have a strained relationship resulting from Evelyn’s emotional instability and her jealousy of India’s affection for her father. After the funeral, both meet Richard’s brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) who has been traveling abroad for years. Evelyn takes to him instantly but India doesn’t trust him. He has the charm and good looks but there’s something unnerving about this guy.

stoker1

Uncle Charlie volunteers to move in to help the family out. Evelyn is thrilled which does more to strain her relationship with India. The story unfolds and we quickly sense Charlie is up to no good. But there’s a lot more going on than anyone realizes. Most of the film deals with the tension between India and her Uncle. Her suspicions of Charlie are valid but neither she or the audience can figure the guy out. But it’s not as if she’s completely stable. She’s a very dark and brooding recluse. She lives in her own little world which is made clear by a couple of scenes that take place at her high school. The contrast between home and away is profound. Her nature and Charlie’s creepiness make for some good, eerie conversations between the two. But there’s also an undeniable psychosexual tension that permeates each scene. It’s a key part of the movie’s overall weirdness that sometimes has you squirming in your seat.

Wasikowska is an young actress that I’ve always been impressed with. She gives another solid performance here although the material doesn’t require much in terms of range. Throughout the entire film she maintains the same blank expression regardless of what’s happening. It’s nothing that allows her to flex her acting muscle yet it’s strikingly appropriate for this story. I also thought Kidman was really good. She takes on a smaller role, but her strong performance brings more to her character than you might expect. But for me Matthew Goode is the real standout. From his first appearance in the cemetery overlooking his brother’s funeral service, Goode maintains an eerie presence. He slithers around the Stoker’s secluded two-story estate channeling his best Joseph Cotton from “Shadow of a Doubt”. I loved what Goode did with the role and for me he helped give the movie the creepy intensity it was shooting for.

Stoker2

But I think my favorite thing about “Stoker” was the undeniable style of Park Chan-wook. I loved what he was doing with his camera and I never grew tired of his perspectives. There’s such artistry at work as he uses strategic close ups, moving cameras, and specific framings of shots. Chan-Wook also left indelible images carved into my mind. He gives the film a real horror movie feel with chilling shots of things like a crawling spider, a hair on a bar of soap, or a pencil sharpener. He also gives the movie heightened senses particularly in the area of sound. It may be voices, buzzing house flies, or even the crumbling of a boiled egg’s shell. All of this contributes to letting us know everything’s wrong in their world. I mean even the end credits are backwards and scroll down instead of up.

All of the amazing visuals and strong acting really worked for me. But some will assuredly be turned off by the movie’s bloody and violent final act. In a way I can understand why but not necessary due to the blood. I’m just not sure that the ending works that well storywise. That aside, “Stoker” is a strong film, dark and unsettling but still wickedly entertaining. It’s most certainly not a film for everyone. But it should be seen even if only for Goode’s devilishly good performance and the stylistic visionary direction. Lucky for me, I found there to be more to like than just that.

“Olympus Has Fallen” – 4 STARS

by

22

Olympus posterLet me preface this review by saying I grew up on the action movies of the late 1980s and early 90s. In some ways I cut my movie watching teeth on the films of Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Willis, and company – the same movies that Antoine Fuqua’s “Olympus Has Fallen” undeniably and unashamedly pays homage to. From the bullets and body count to the plot holes and conveniences, “Olympus Has Fallen” mirrors those old-school action pictures. But there is another much more important thing that it has in common with the older films. It’s one heck of a fun and entertaining time. “Olympus Has Fallen” knows exactly what it wants to be. It sets its target, aims for it, and hits it dead center. I’ve always appreciated when a movie does that.

Throughout the reviews I’ve read, there seems to be two main criticisms hurled at this film. The first is that it’s nothing more than a “Die Hard” knockoff. Others blast the film for its blatant flag-waving American patriotism. I find it funny that people have gotten hung up on these two things the most. “Olympus Has Fallen” has its share of problems both structurally and narratively. But these two stumbling blocks for some didn’t hurt my experience in the least. As a matter of fact in some instances they actually helped it.

Look, the “Die Hard” gripe has some merit. In fact you could call this “Die Hard in the White House”. A mysterious terrorist group with North Korean ties attacks Washington DC in broad daylight. It starts with an air assault from a modified C130 followed by a violent ground attack which leaves many civilians dead and the city in chaos. But their prime target is the White House which they manage to take control of in 13 minutes. So much for our impenetrable national security, right? The terrorists seem to have the upper hand except for one small kink – U.S. Treasury desk jockey Mike Banning (Gerard Butler).

Now you know how this works, Banning is much more than a pencil pusher. He was at one time President Asher’s (Aaron Eckhart) Secret Service head honcho and close friend to the First Family, but an uncontrollable tragedy cost him his job. But you can’t be a one-man army just by doing Secret Service work. Just like Arnie, Sly, and Chuck in so many of their films, Banning is also a former Special Forces Ranger. Like John McClane in Nakatomi Plaza, Banning is the lone eyes, ears, and muscle inside the enemy-occupied White House. The “Die Hard” comparisons are unavoidable but is that really a bad thing? “Olympus Has Fallen” is a much better “Die Hard” film than either of the last two “Die Hard” movies. And while this doesn’t do much in terms of originality, it nicely uses several of the key ingredients that made that franchise so great.

olymp1

Then there’s the patriotism criticism. I guess I missed the announcement. When did patriotism become a liability or a weakness in a film. I can understand it becoming a problem when a movie beats you over the head with it, but that’s not the case here. There isn’t an ounce of subtlety in this movie’s pro-American spirit presentation but I don’t see why there has to be. As long as it doesn’t drown us in it. At one time there was an overload of ham-fisted patriotism in movies but that was a while ago. This was one area where the movie did feel surprisingly fresh. In other words the patriotic angle worked.

“Olympus Has Fallen” is helped by its nice supporting cast. Morgan Freeman is rock solid as always. He plays the Speaker of the House who is elevated to Commander in Chief after the President’s abduction. Melissa Leo was good as the Secretary of Defense even though she’s given a few pretty corny lines to wrestle with. I also loved seeing Robert Forster as a grumbling Army General and Angela Bassett as the head of the Secret Service.

But this is an action movie and the action is the film’s bread and butter. After a rather slow moving beginning which serves more as table setting, the action kicks in gear when the terrorists attack DC. Now I’ve heard a lot of criticism over the special effects but I don’t see it. With the exception of a few small hiccups, I thought the visuals were quite good. Maybe I got lucky but the DLP digital screen at my theater was ablaze with furious gunfire and massive explosions. The C130 attack, while preposterous, looked great and sucked me right in. There’s also a fantastic shootout on the front lawn of the White House that’s nothing more than old-school, bullet-riddled fun. Shootouts and hand-to-hand throwdowns continue throughout the rooms and halls of the White House with the percussion-heavy score amping up the macho intensity. Once the action starts you rarely have time to catch your breath.

OLYP2

In an action movie like this one has to know it’s violent. But it should be said it’s really violent. Bodies drop at an alarming rate per minute and there’s no shortage of the red stuff. A lot of blood splatters through a huge variety of violent deaths. Be prepared for the numerous neck snaps, knife stabs, and head shots. Explosions are everywhere from jets and helicopters to buses and garbage trucks. Everything is fair game for Fuqua’s explosive experts.

As I hinted at earlier, this type of movie mandatorily requires some suspension of disbelief. You also must be prepared to deal with certain gaps in logic, tons of action movie cliches, and a few gaping plot holes. These things didn’t take away from the fun I had with “Olympus Has Fallen” but they are the kinds of things that keep it from being a truly magnificent film. There are several head-scratching moments that will pull you out of the film if you allow yourself to dwell on them. Why would the entire White House security code system remain the same even though people with access to them have been fired for a year and a half? Why do these and most other action movie villains insist on dragging out their missions instead of quickly carrying them out before the heroes have time to get in their way? I could go on. There are several in this film but if you can put it aside you’ll have a good time.

For me “Olympus Has Fallen” was a trip back in time through both the film’s high-octane action as well as with its predictable shortcomings. This was the real key to my enjoyment. There was a genuine nostalgic satisfaction as well as an appreciation for a film that sets out to be a specific kind of movie and never deviates from that goal. Now those who find testosterone-driven action flicks with fast moving kill counters to be relics from an outdated genre will have a hard time digesting this film. I can understand that. But this movie really surprised me, certainly not for its perfection, but for its rousing fun factor. There are tons of bullets, loads of explosions, and pride in the American spirit. For me, that’s not necessarily a bad thing and at the end of the movie I left with a smile on my face. Mission accomplished Mr. Fuqua!

“Rust and Bone” – 3.5 STARS

by

25

RUST PosterThere are several things that attracted me to “Rust and Bone” but nothing more than seeing Marion Cotillard take on another challenging role. To me, Cotillard is one of the best female actresses working today and she has never shied away from a difficult or demanding performance. That’s certainly the case in “Rust and Bone”, a French language picture from director Jacques Audiard. Audiard’s last directed film was 2009’s “A Prophet” so I expected this to be a bit gritty. But in the end it was his grittiness and edginess that kept me from absolutely loving this movie.

Now don’t misunderstand me, I do like “Rust and Bone”. There’s such a harsh reality to Audiard and co-writer Thomas Bidegain’s script and the incredibly committed performances are essential to bringing us into the fragile and stained worlds of Alain (Matthias Schoenaerts) and Stéphanie (Cotillard). But as in real life, there are some things I don’t need to see over and over again and I felt Audiard’s desire to be edgy sometimes took away from the much better story at the heart of “Rust and Bone”.

The story revolves around two struggling people whose lives cross paths. We first see Alain as a single father with no money or home. He and his son Sam (Armand Verdure) end up crashing at his sisters house in a poor part of Antibes, France. He moves from one low-paying job to another while still holding out hope of reviving his kickboxing career. While working as a bouncer at a nightclub he has a brief encounter with Stéphanie. She works with killer whales at a Sea World type tourist park. Later during a performance there is a terrible accident which leaves Stéphanie as a double amputee. With her lower legs gone, she sinks into a world of deep depression. She reconnects with Alain and the two begin a peculiar relationship centered around two different sets of needs.

RUST2

“Rust and Bone” rarely offers the audience an opportunity to smile. It deals with tough issues and never adds an ounce of sugarcoating or melodrama. When it uses this approach to advance the plot the film is very effective. And that’s not to say the movie lacks heart. There are a few scenes that do lift your spirits and they drive you to root for these characters and their individual transformations. You find your self invested in Alain and Stéphanie even if you don’t particularly like them all the time. This is in large part due to the performances from Cotillard and Schoenaerts. There isn’t one bit of insincerity in these performances and you’ll never doubt them for a second. Cotillard continues to amaze me with her subtlety and ability to express genuine emotion through her expressions. Here she gives an intense yet grounded performance. The only distraction from the actor’s work comes from the movie’s persistent focus on the edgier part of their relationship. For me, Audiard goes to the proverbial well one too many times.

I also have to mention the insanely good CGI work and visual trickery used to make Cotillard look as if she has no legs. If you weren’t familiar with the actress you would never know otherwise. It’s that convincing. Of course I don’t have to explain how essential that is to making the story work. Much of the film deals with her struggling and dealing with her handicap and I was amazed at how visually impressive it looked.

“Rust and Bone” could be called an unconventional love story but that’s cutting it short. There’s so much more going on in this film and most of it works great. There’s some fantastic technique at work behind the camera and the performances are brilliant. But my overall experience with the film was brought down a bit by some pointless content that wasn’t just distracting but that caused things to drag a bit. A tighter script and a broader focus could have made this good film even better. Nevertheless there is some solid storytelling here and the raw emotion that it leaves you with says a lot about the movie.

REVIEW: “Oz: The Great and Powerful”

by

31

Oz poster

Talk about a daunting task. You had to know at the outset that anyone attempting to make a prequel to the “The Wizard of Oz ” had to be prepared to face their share of analysis and scrutiny. The 1939 Victor Fleming film has long been revered as a timeless classic. So many hold dear the story of a homesick Dorothy and her little dog Toto who are whisked away to the magical land of Oz. So my big question going in was if “Oz: The Great and Powerful” could recapture the fantastical look and charm found in the original film? My biggest concern? Was this going to be another monotonous CGI-laden snoozer in the same vein as Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland”?

First off I think the approach taken by “Oz: The Great and Powerful” was a smart one. Director Sam Raimi and company didn’t try to reconnect with the beloved classic characters of the first film. Instead they focus on Oscar Diggs and how he went from a ragtag traveling circus magician to being Emerald City’s Wizard of Oz. That idea offered plenty of potential for me and eventually I found myself attracted to this film. But as I sat down in my comfy theater seat, bookended by my two excited young children, I was once again faced with the same creeping concerns. Could Raimi actually pull this off?

OZ3

Most of the reviews I’ve read have been positive but not really enthusiastic. To be honest I’ve struggled gauging my own enthusiasm as well as deciding how many passes to give the film for its shortcomings. But in the end I found myself appreciating a lot more of what the movie accomplishes and the measurement of fun I had outweighed any of the film’s flaws for me. I would never be silly enough to put it on par with the 1939 movie, but I can gladly say there’s more to this film than you may think.

James Franco plays Oscar Diggs, a struggling small-time magician for the Baum Brothers traveling circus (a fun tip of the hat to L. Frank Baum, the author of the original “Wizard of Oz” children’s book series). Oscar is a self-centered huckster who’s more focused on fame and his warped view of greatness than what really matters in life. We quickly see that the trail of deception he leaves in his real life mirrors that of his performances on stage. He’s a scoundrel and there’s not much to like about him. Of course considering the type of movie this is, it becomes pretty obvious that his redemption lies ahead. But the real interest is in following him on the journey he must take to get there.

la_ca_0226_oz

After some mischievous trickery during a stop in Kansas, Oscar ticks off the circus’ strongman and has to make a run for it. He hops in a hot air balloon and takes off but as luck would have it he’s sucked right into a tornado which transports him to the wonderful land of Oz. Sound familiar? Once there he finds out that Oz is facing a dark and dangerous threat. Oscar is perceived to be the fulfillment of a prophecy stating that a wizard would come to rid Oz of an evil wicked witch. It’s here that Oscar must choose whether to follow the path of his own self-indulgence or be willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the people. It’s a familiar struggle often seen in movies, but I love the way it works here especially considering this is a family film. It doesn’t bury or sugarcoat his moral dilemmas but it makes him face them in a way that’s satisfying for me as an adult as well as for my two kids.

Of course Oscar meets a variety of characters along the way including a winged monkey named Finley (Zach Braff) who becomes his comedic but tender sidekick and three witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and Glinda (Michelle Williams). His biggest challenge with them is figuring out who he can trust. Perhaps my favorite character he encounters is China Girl (Joey King), a china doll whose legs have been broken. It’s her story that I found to be the most moving of the entire picture. Oscar comes across her in the remains of her porcelain village. Everyone and everything is broken after a vicious attack by the wicked witch and she’s left alone. There’s a wonderful scene where Oscar fixes her legs with what he calls “magic in a bottle” (it’s simply glue). What makes the scene so good is that it mirrors an earlier scene at the circus where a young handicapped girl, a believer in Oscar’s magic, asks him to make her walk. Of course he can’t but this time he gets a chance to. It’s one of the first moments where we see a bit of the good in him.

OZ2

The story progresses and maintains a fairly predictable narrative. But it always provided an interesting turn and never allowed itself to get weighted down. But the story is just one component of the film. Many people were just as anxious to see how the film works visually. There are several techniques used to bring Oz to life. One of the best involves the shift from the black-and-white 4:3 ratio during the early circus scenes to the vibrant widescreen color we see when Oscar arrives in Oz. Both are extremely effective especially the earlier sequence which really captures the time period. But it’s in Oz where the visuals both wow and sputter.

Most of the time Oz looks tremendous with its profound colors and fantasy landscapes. But there were moments where the heavy coats of CGI were just too much. There were also a few CGI animations that were glaringly obvious. And then there’s the makeup. I was really anxious to see the wicked witch especially after being teased by her in the trailers. The first glimpse we get of her is a shadow on the wall. We get the classic hat, the pointy nose and protruding chin – everything I wanted. The problem is the shadow doesn’t match the face we get later on. During the close-ups she looks off. Her round face and silky-smooth green skin resembled something off of “The Mask”. On the other hand some of the effects were stunning. The best example is China Girl. From the way the light bounces off of her to her fluid motions, she’s a sight to behold. And for me that’s the case with most of this movie. It’s looks pretty amazing.

OZ4

I also have to mention the performances. I was pretty impressed with most of the work we see. James Franco was an interesting choice as Oscar but I think he does a good job. There were some scenes where he didn’t quite fit but there were others where I couldn’t imagine anyone handling them better. Overall I felt Franco was the glue that held everything together. If his performance fell short, so with that movie. Thankfully that wasn’t the case at all. Williams and Weisz were quite good and there are several fun familiar faces in smaller roles. But I have to admit I struggled with Kunis’ performance. I really felt she was all over the map and this was a role that was too big for her. Not big in terms of weighty, but it’s clearly something outside of her comfort zone and she’s unable to keep a level of consistency.

There are several other things I liked about the film from different nods to the 1939 movie to Sam Raimi’s own unique touches. For example his affection for horror is shown in a couple of scenes plucked straight out of “Evil Dead”. And of course there’s the great cameo by Raimi’s best buddy Bruce Campbell. All of these things help make this an enjoyable picture. It doesn’t completely cover up the movie’s predictability, Kunis’ sketchy performance, or the visual hiccups, but I was thoroughly entertained. Even better, “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a rare family film that doesn’t strictly cater to one group or another and doesn’t fall into the trappings of so many of these movies. That alone makes it worth my money.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Roman Holiday”

by

36

Classic Movie Spotlight

roman_holidayI don’t mean to be repetitive. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, they just don’t make romantic comedies like this anymore. This 1953 classic from director William Wyler is a beautiful blueprint for a genre that seems to struggle with making quality movies these days. “Roman Holiday” brings together the always good Gregory Peck and the adorable Audrey Hepburn in a film that could almost be considered a fairy tale story. But while the film embraces some of the elements that make a good romantic comedy, it dodges a few of the conventions which have become all too familiar.

“Roman Holiday” was the star-making role for a young Audrey Hepburn. After appearing in several smaller roles this was a bigger performance that caught the world’s attention. A lot of that attention is because of Gregory Peck. Peck was instrumental in getting Hepburn’s name out there after realizing she was going to be big. Interestingly enough Peck wasn’t Wyler’s first choice. The director first sought after Cary Grant but Grant turned it down after reading the script. Peck once said that anytime he received a comedy script he knew Grant must have turned it down first. Well I don’t think anyone is griping about how things turned out. Peck and Hepburn have a charming chemistry as they explore the unique relationship between their characters.

The story for “Roman Holiday” was written by Dalton Trumbo but it was credited to Ian McClellan Hunter. Trumbo was one of the Hollywood Ten and was blacklisted for his communist ties and failure to cooperate with Congress. It was during that time that he penned the story. To make things even more interesting, “Roman Holiday” won the Academy Award for Best Story (as the category was known at the time). Hunter would accept the award but it was Trumbo who earned it. Only in 2011 was full credit given to Trumbo was his work on the film.

ROMAN1

His story follows Ann (Hepburn), a princess of an unmentioned country who is on a European tour stop in Rome. Ann is young and adventurous and she wants to experience the life outside of her closed in ornate walls. She’s tired of the strict itineraries and stuffy hobnobbing so one night she lets out her frustrations. The royal family doctor gives her a sedative to calm her down but before it can kick in, she sneaks out of the embassy to experience the sites and sounds of Rome. An American reporter named Joe Bradley (Peck) stumbles across Ann sound asleep next to a fountain. He doesn’t recognize her at first but after a comical series of events he learns her identity and sees her as a big story that could eventually land him back in New York.

Joe doesn’t let Ann know that he recognizes her and Ann tries to keep her identity secret. He calls a photographer friend of his Irving Radovich (Eddie Albert) to secretly capture some photographs of Ann for their big story while the three of them spend a playful day exploring Rome. Of course Joe begins to have feelings for Ann. I mean who wouldn’t? This is Audrey Hepburn were talking about. He’s faced with the decision of caring for her or cashing in his feelings for a big payday. It’s such a wonderful story filled with good humor and a lovely romance. Hepburn and Peck light up Rome with Albert playing the tag-along who gets in some good laughs.

“Roman Holiday” was shot in Rome, something that you didn’t see a lot of during that time. Unlike now where on location shoots are the norm, then it was a pretty special thing to have such an extensive shoot especially I’m a city like Rome. It was a brilliant decision. The city and all its beauty is on display throughout the film and Wyler treats Rome like one of the film’s characters. But it’s a supporting character. The city shows itself often but always as a support for the bigger love story. There are several magical scenes with Ann and Joe at some of the city’s major locations. One of my favorites is a playful moment at The Mouth of Truth monument. Peck pretends as if his arm is stuck in the mouth of the monument and he lets out a scream. Hepburn new nothing of this little gag. Only Peck and Wyler were in on it. It genuinely startled Hepburn who let out a loud scream of her own. It was completely spontaneous and Wyler was able to capture it therefore requiring only one take.

ROMAN2

“Roman Holiday” ended up with 10 Academy Award nominations. I mentioned Trumbo’s win but that wasn’t the biggest story. Audrey Hepburn, a relatively unknown actress at the time, would take home the Best Actress Oscar. This catapulted her into the spotlight and opened the door for her to star in several of my favorite classic films. Peck was right with his appraisal of the young beauty and she was always appreciative. They remained close friends for the rest of their lives. Their admiration for each other and their friendship translated into their performances and they give us a truly memorable screen couple.

I still love “Roman Holiday”. It’s a beautifully filmed movie that tells a wonderful story through some top-notch performances. The Rome locations provide such a pleasing sense of place and even in black and white Wyler gives you a very real feel for the city’s allure and vibrancy. It’s also one of those movies with several scenes that you’ll never forget. It’s easy to get lost in “Roman Holiday” and as an avid movie watcher that’s what I want. I want to be swept away by an interesting story about interesting characters. And in a romantic comedy I want to care about what I’m seeing. I want the story to be smart, the humor to be sharp, and the romance genuine. We get all of this and more in “Roman Holiday” which is one reason this great film has stood the test of time.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

THE END

“The Raven” – 2 STARS

by

26

THE RAVEN POSTER

Have you ever had a movie that you didn’t really respond to but you had a hard time pinpointing why? This is the case with me after watching the 2012 period thriller “The Raven”. This is a movie that intrigued me from the start although I did keep it at an arm’s length. While the components for a unique crime thriller seemed to be there, I still never felt myself drawn to hurry up and see it. So as you can see, my fence straddling with “The Raven” started early. Well now I have seen this widely slammed movie. Is it as bad as the vast majority of critics made it out to be? I don’t think so. But unfortunately it’s missing some major pieces that are vital in making this kind of movie work.

In case you don’t know the story, it’s set in 19th century Baltimore, Maryland. A brutal and grisly double murder puts the police on the trail of a serial killer who patterns his crimes after the short stories of Edgar Allan Poe. Lead Detective Fields (Luke Evans) at first suspects the eccentric Poe (John Cusack) but eventually calls on him to help in the investigation. It’s a cat and mouse game as the two sift through the clues left at every new and horrible crime scene, each tied in to Poe’s writings.

The stakes are raised for Poe after his fiancé Emily (Alice Eve) is kidnapped and used as a pawn by the killer. Now this is a direction the story takes that should give the movie some emotional kick but that’s not the case at all. Poe and Emily’s relationship is cold and lifeless. They try to throw in some tension with Emily’s father (Brendan Gleeson) who despises Poe, but that does little to liven things up. Emily’s capture does lead to some of the movies most intense moments. But the underplayed romance between her and Poe strips the movie of a genuine and much needed sense of urgency.

RAVEN 2

I guess that leads into where my real problems lie with “The Raven”. It moves at a sharp pace. It captures the dark and moody tone that it’s going for. The crime scenes are perfectly unsettling. But in the end so much of the story feels manufactured. The relationships feel manufactured. The urgency feels manufactured. Even the ending feels manufactured (and a bit unsatisfying as well). But perhaps the biggest sin this movie commits is its overall lack of suspense. It’s hard to call a thriller a success if it lacks suspense. “The Raven” desperately tries to muster some but I don’t ever remember feeling it at any point in the movie.

I think “The Raven” is a movie that has some good ideas, but it doesn’t do much with them. It’s not a sloppy or lazy picture. But it also fails to step outside the bounds of conventionality, something that the material afforded them the chance to do. Now it’s decent enough to keep you in your seat, but it never does anything to put you on the edge of it. Again, I guess that’s where my biggest problem lies. There’s nothing suspenseful that grabs you and keeps you glued to the screen. That’s what I want from a thriller and I just didn’t get enough of it here.