It's rare that I'll venture out to the theater anymore to see a movie. Not only because there's very little out there of substance, but because I hate dealing with crowds.
The moviegoing experience isn't what it used to be because the general public lacks common courtesy. Talking, using cell phones, etc has become so accepted in society that it's driven true movie fans away from the theaters totally or at least banished them to earlier day screenings where the throng is thinned out.
So when I say that it's rare I go to the theater anymore, I can back it up by saying that the last movie I went to see was Star Trek back in May...on a Sunday morning. Before that, it was the Watchmen prior to leaving Vegas...on a Friday morning. The last weekend night show I attended was the Simpsons movie and that was just to get out of the condo to leave my roomie and Yoko alone together (which was before the dark day of her moving in).
Last night, I went to see The Collector.
There's something about a horror movie that lends itself to seeing it with a bigger audience. It's somewhat nice to get that communal experience with a group of people in a darkened room and being jolted in your seat with every shocking twist and turn.
That said, I think I enjoyed the film more than I should have due to that fact.
When entering the theater, the ticket taker (who was probably about 80), told us our theater was back and to the left.
I stopped short of adding..."Just like Kennedy's head!"...because frankly, I think he would have been none too pleased.
It's still "too early" for some people.
Anyway, the experience with the crowd wasn't as bad as I expected, though I did see some cell phone lights all aglow like lightning bugs in the dark.
And that's distracting.
But what I found more distracting was the overall execution of the film (yes, pun intended).
The Collector was stylish and well shot with a great performance by Sean Penn lookalike Josh Stewart. The filmmakers spent some time setting up his character's plight and goal and led us into the action wherein he's breaking into a house to steal a valuable gem (I think) but ends up having to save the family from the maniacal titular character.
Here's where things go a bit screwy.
Yes, at first the "cat and mouse" scenario was riveting but when you see what the Collector does to the house by way of rigging it with booby traps, you'll probably find yourself wondering how he had time to all that in just a few hours.
I'm also not one to expect a full revelation about what motivates a psychotic killer (and that's the reason I didn't fully enjoy Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween and refuse to see the Black Christmas remake since I loved the original so much) but it would be nice to perhaps hint at why he does what he does instead of tossing in a line like "He collects people!". In the end, the lack of reasoning pretty much made no sense. For example, the killer in Jeepers Creepers had a reason...the Collector...not so much.
It kind of reminded me of a screenwriting class I once took where a fellow student had a premise whereby people are trapped in an old house and the darkness kills them as the night wears on. Just darkness...nothing else. When asked by the instructor why it just kills people, he claimed that we never know. She responded with "But YOU have to know".
That's where I think the filmmakers went wrong. They didn't seem to know and it shows. So for an hour and a half, we're first set up with an interesting character, a good premise and then given a lackluster second half that amounts to nothing more than torture porn ala Eli Roth's Hostel (a film I hated except for the scene in the locker room where you come to understand the motivation behind why people enjoy killing others thanks to one of the businessmen).
When filmmakers toss away a perfectly good idea for a horror film and abandon substance in favor of style, it disappoints me.
Then again, perhaps we'll see the Collector fleshed out in the inevitable fourteen sequels that will ensue.
Now THAT makes me want to throw my head back and to the left in exasperation!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
When asked by the instructor why it just kills people, he claimed that we never know. She responded with "But YOU have to know".
Ah! Yes, that's a great comment. I had a workshop professor (Tim Powers, sci-fi author, don't know if you've read him) who talked to us about knowing what a character keeps in his pocket at all times. Not that it's necessary to have the character whip out that pack of Trident peppermint gum during the course of the book, but as the writer it's necessary to know that the character has it.
I get into trouble in my writing sometimes by leaving loose ends or letting a character do something that I have an no explanation for. So this piece of advice certainly is a great one.
PS. I saw Star Trek opening day in the evening. o.O
Apparently I'm meant to stick to movies no more complicated than Diego or the Wonder Pests!
typo intended
>:)
~K~
Sarah,
I think the most important aspects of any story are that: 1)one has to know almost everything about the characters and if you introduce something new, you better go back and provide a hint as to why and 2) you really have to know the ending of your story. You can get there any way you want, but you have to know how it ends.
K,
Lol...well when they grow out of that, you'll get to watch more grown up fare. ;)
Post a Comment