Wiz RECOMMENDS Star Trek: Insurrection

An improvement from the last two "Next Generation" films, Star Trek: Insurrection seems like it takes some of the best elements of the best "original series" films and inject it into this crew.

What are those elements? Humor and action.

Both Generations and First Contact seemed to be a little too serious, including having a scowling Picard and a Riker that seems to just do what he's told, for example.

In this film, the personalities seem to be more up front: Picard is more charming, debonair and worldly, Riker has a romantic streak...and hell, even Data seems to have more of a personality with his inquisitive nature.

Seriously, it's strangely such a plus to see a good amount of the crew just...smile more.

But when the action ramps up, the film is a good amount of fun. Insurrection has some good dogfights and shooting sequences that keep the action lively.

But in honesty, there's two problems with the film:

1. First, the villains are boring. Both the corrupt Federation Admiral Daugherty, played by Anthony Zerbe, and Ru'afo, played by Salieri himself F. Murray Abraham, are both not that interesting and Abraham cheeses up the overacting towards the end of the film.
2. The point where the Ba'ku are attacked leads to a end of 2nd/beginning of 3rd act that kind of drags the film down. It just seems like more is going on than is necessary....but in fairness, the end makes it worth the slog.

In fairness though, Star Trek: Insurrection is the best time I've had with the "Next Generation" crew thus far.

Which is odd considering that some think this is the worst of the four, but I honestly had a better time with Insurrection than the others.

It still doesn't even hold a phaser to any of the "Original Series" films, but I'm fairly sure nothing will at this point.

Zero and Wiz DO NOT RECOMMEND The Conjuring

If The Conjuring has made me think of one thing after watching, it's the use of the term "Based on a true story" when it comes to describing a film.

For this to really work with that, you would need to have definitive proof that the events in this film actually happened.

That means everything from the demon that possesses the mother to the visions to the ghosts that were throwing the kids across the house.

And if you are skeptical about the whole ghosts and demons thing (like Wiz is), having that could actually make the film much more scary and unsettling.

But even when Andrea Perron, one of the daughters from the family that was supposedly "haunted", even says that the events in the film didn't necessarily happen, you are left with a feeling of being hoodwinked by the film makers.

But honestly, if you have seen enough movies, seeing the words "Based on a true story" doesn't mean that everything in the film happened in the way it says: filmmakers take dramatic and artistic creativity in creating it's story.

But even keeping that in mind, The Conjuring is painfully boring. Both the heroes of the film, Ed and Lorraine Warren played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, are both bland and wooden. The family, led by Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor, aren't really that captivating either with their personalities sanded down to a nice descriptor of "loving family".

Even if you consider the scares, which are little more than cheesy jump scare sequences using camera movement and sound, they are more annoying than they are scary.

Only two things about this film kept me interested: the sound design is actually pretty well done with how they implement the directional sound and the focus on wind and creaking wood.

The other is the use of ghost photography and "evidence collecting". Basing an entire film on this aspect might actually be interesting to watch, but I don't think even having this would save this film from what it really is.

And what is The Conjuring? A cheap, shallow bore of a film that relies on two things from the viewers to enjoy: unquestionable belief that what has happened is real and enjoying jump scares above all else.

Wiz RECOMMENDS The Others

The Others leaves me in a bit of a critical quandary:

I can recognize that the film has some really good, even fantastic, elements that speak of a higher quality than most films.

The first is, undoubtedly, the performance of Nicole Kidman. Her performance as Grace shows the paranoia, unsettled nature and, by the end, what she truly is. Kidman embodies this performance throughout in a film that relies on her to carry it and she does swiftly.

The other is the inversion of the nature of horror and fear. For decades, film has taught us on thing: darkness equals unease and fear.

The whole concept of the kids being photosensitive and therefore can't have natural light shone on them leads to a weird comfort in the dark. Suddenly, light is where discomfort is and it plays with the expectations of unease in an interesting way.

But my main issue, and it's a big one, has to do with the twist of the film.

What's weird is that the twist is executed well enough for a first sitting.

But in my opinion, the point of a good twist is to encourage multiple viewings so you can see how the film pieces together and tell "the true story". And it's in this that The Others doesn't hit the mark.

------SPOILERS FOR The Others --------

When you learn that Grace, the kids and the housekeeping staff are all dead and are actually the ghosts that are haunting the house, there are two issues:

1. Before the first act even ends, it's kind of clear that is what's going on. This has mostly to do with the light/dark concept, but also the fogginess of the exterior and how everything feels so static and unchanging.
   On top of that, the eventual "big hint", the Book of the Dead, hints that there is a haunted element of the house for sure, but it doesn't really show it's relevance until the third act when it's revealed that the housekeepers are also in it.
   Now, the main housekeeper hints towards this already in the beginning with her familiarity with the house, but that doesn't feel that satisfying.
2. The other issue is what Grace has revealed to have done, which was the murder of her children and her eventual suicide.
   To put it bluntly, this feels like an exposition dump. Looking back through the film, it doesn't seem like the film really hints and prods toward that conclusion.
   Now, as a story, it's effective enough. But some of the best twists in storytelling is how it hints towards what the twist is throughout and encourages going through the story again to get what the story is truly about.
   Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think a second viewing is required to get what is going on. It's possible if the film didn't spell it all out so directly that it could have been hinted what Grace did. But would it have hurt the emotional resonance of the story to do so? I'm not quite sure.

------END SPOILERS------

Though I am going to recommend the film, it was still a fairly disappointing watch.

But the film is clearly a well constructed, visually striking film that deserves at least one watch. But it just feels like the eventual storytelling device and the twist isn't all that satisfying in the end.