_poster.jpg)
1. People
who (with a vengeance) dislike found-footage movies.
2. People
who were expecting a blood-soaked horror-movie.
3. People
who have developed such an unrestrained hatred against the director that the
guy –basically- can’t make them happy ever again.
4. "Oh no, not
another twist-ending".
Now, I’m
absolutely fine if one of these four arguments are reason enough for you to
dislike the film. What I don’t understand, however, is why somebody would
therefore rate a movie with the absolute minimum of one star out of ten on
imdb.com?
I mean
there are hardly any movies in the world worthy of one star. Let alone that
there are movies in the world worthy of ten stars (I equally distrust those review). So I think those reviews
automatically disqualify themselves by being too harsh/pathetic in their
judgment. There are some reviews that
rate this movie with three or four stars and even though I don’t fully agree
with their arguments I can at least accept and respect it. Now, before I
delve into my own little review of the movie I want to tackle these
aforementioned four points.
1. "I hate
found footage movies".
For
starters the Visit isn’t a found-footage film. But that’s an easy argument.
The main critiques of these hand-held camera movies are (again) threefold: (1.)
it’s been done to death by some abysmal movies. (2.) It is a cheap way for a
movie studio to make a movie (“pull out your wallet and give us some real
entertainment”-as it were). (3.) "Those shaky-cams make me sick".
Number
three is simple, I never suffer nausea from watching shaky-cam films. But some people do. Now I understand the pain these people have when all they are offered are those shaky-cam films that they can't watch. But really, 'one star' because you don't like the presentation?
Has the
found-footage genre been done to death? Yes. But I still like most of them and
I never really saw one that I truly disliked because of the shaky-cam stuff.
True, some movies could have been better if they just presented it as a
‘normal’ movie, but I honestly don’t mind if directors want to try something
new.
The fact
that shaky-cam-movies are tremendously cheap to make…well, I can’t really do
anything but applaud it. Yes, the notion exists that movie-studios keep forcing
those cheap movies down our throats. But, then again, the cheaper the movie the
more freedom a moviemaker has to ensure his/her own vision. Remember, the
average summer blockbuster film costs enough money to feed a small country. So
naturally the movie studio has a lot of influence on the film. Making the cost
of a movie cheaper allows more artistic freedom.
2. "The
visit isn’t a blood-soaked horror".
No it
isn’t. Somehow horror-fans (I’m one of them) have divided themselves in two
groups. Group one believes a good horror is like Hostel and Saw (parts 3 to 7).
Or: traps, chainsaws and all the bloody mess.
And group two who just wants a scary story. I’m group two.
The visit
is a (slightly) scary story. But no it is definitely not horror in the first
sense. Now, if you looked at the trailers you would have known that this is
more a slow burn ‘ghost’ story than full-out nightmare fuel. So I basically
blame the people who go to this movie expecting one thing but getting another.
Do your homework and don’t blame the moviemakers on your mistake.
Sometimes,
however, you are allowed to. Bridge to Terabithia was totally promoted as the
next Chronicles of Narnia but turned out to be a (very) dramatic
children’s/young adult movie. Yes, then you can rant.
3. "I hate
the director".
This is
something we can all understand.
But I
honestly wonder; If this movie was made a few years back -(let’s say) right
after Signs- I think people would have applauded him for another strong entry
on M. Night's resume.[1][2]
But he
didn’t. He made his bad quadrilogy (Avatar, Lady in the water, Happening and
After Earth) in between. Three of those are high profile movies with a lot of
studio influence. Lady in the water was his little pet project while he was
fueled on arrogance and self-importance.[3]
Scorcese
made a bad movie or two. Spielberg famously made 1941. But after that they were
back in the game with a success. M. Night…took a while. Maybe he’s learned from
past mistakes, maybe he hasn’t.
The problem
is -after those bad movies: To a lot of movie lovers out there he’s become “The
guy with the great ideas but with the terrible execution”.
Anyway, I
think M. Night is way better off making smaller movies. He should stay very far
away from those summer blockbusters because they don’t work for him. Producing
movies like Devil –that’s what he should do.
Now, I must
admit, I was rather amazed at how much I hated Lady in the water (still no one
star though) and each time after that I gave him ‘another chance’, only to be disappointed.
Like the
great stand-up comedian Bush once said: ‘fool me once…shame on you…fool me twice…’
I’m still
willing to give second chances. But somehow I understand that M. Night has
wasted his second chances with some people.
4. "The
twist is bad so the movie is bad".
This is a
weird (final) entry on the list. For starters I would argue that M. Night
should stop using twists in his movies. He’s now pretty much gone down in history
as the twist-guy (next to Chubby Checker). But the fun part is he did just this
several movies ago. And besides, his movies are never just about the twist in
the end. They are character studies every single one of them.
Moreover, the
twist in the Visit isn’t really a twist at all (like the revelation at the
end of Sixth sense or Unbreakable)[4]. Like M.
Night knew that he should stop doing it. This ‘twist’ is a fact the characters
learn along the way that increases the tension later on. People just assume it
is M. Night, “so I’d better be looking out for a twist then”.
But still
there are people who guessed this ‘twist’ early in the film. That’s fine. But
does that make the movie a bad thing?
I mean, I
guessed the trick of Christian Bale’s illusion in the Prestige early on. Does
that make it a bad film? Nope. In fact, the prestige –to me- feels like Nolan
telling me:
NOLAN: “Great
you figured out how this trick worked…good for you. Now how about this one
(that fish tank-warehouse).”
ME: “Er…”
The same
goes for ‘the Visit’. M. Night telling me:
M. NIGHT:
“great, good, you guessed it. Now you understand what deep sh*t our characters
are in.”
Is a
detective story a bad story if I figured out who the killer is before the
detective does? No, it’s part of the fun. When Poirot pinpoints the culprit and
you find out that you were right all along you pat yourself on the shoulder. When
you were wrong, well you might try to chicken out by saying that the clues were
too hard to find or just accept it.
Why should
I hate a twist-movie if it does exactly the same thing?
Now for my
review:
Two siblings decide to let their mother take a holiday cruise with
her new boyfriend whilst they stay at their estranged grandparent’s house in
the country. For the older sister the perfect moment to apply her amateur
filmmaking skills to reconnect these grandparents she never knew with her
mother. But these grandparents are quite the quirky bunch and darkness ensues.
A lot of
the positive reviews of the movie the Visit state that M. Night is reacquired
his mojo/got his footing back/ is back at his former level or (the more
conservative) is heading in the right direction.
I agree
with the last one. I have to admit that M. Night has made so many bad films the
last few years (one or two due to his own arrogance) that the stain isn’t erased
that easily. But, like his story for the movie Devil, he appears to be heading
in the right direction again.
Now the big problem with M. Night’s failures was
twofold. The big studio movies he made were not for him. He’s not the kind of
guy to film clashing spaceships and water dancing bald-boys. Second, of all his failures it was the script
that s*cked on an amazing level (nor can you get any believable performance out
of the greatest of actors if they have to tongue-twist with atrocious dialog).
The visuals were often fine.
The Visit
is a fun ride mainly because of its outstanding cast. M. Night has always been
a people’s director. Let him direct (and or write) two people in a room talking
and the movie elevates.[5]
And in the
Visit the writing supports the actors to shine. The boy and girl protagonists
really come across as brother and sister with a script that gives them
emotional depth, fear and goofiness to play on.
The older
actors (grandma and poppa) are equally impressive as the weirdest grandparents
of them all. And even the small part for the mother shines as a woman who loves
her children. This general affection is quite hard to fake when you look at
movie-mothers in general. They usually act like babysitters waiting ‘till their
boyfriends arrive. No, this mother cares for her children and makes the one logical
deduction after the other.
Because
that’s the second thing I like about this movie: the plot works like a charm.
No silliness like the plants did it ([6]) or
aliens invading that one planet with a high concentration of elements they are
allergic to. No here the plot tells a simple a to z story and every action the
kids take in this movie is logical. True, if you really put it under a
microscope you will find some flaws, but (hey!) every script has flaws. Here
the plot is well put together and topped off with a well written script with
believable characters and workable dialog.
Now, I was
a bit worried about the whole hand-held camera thing. But what I liked about
this movie is that in both works in the story/plot as that it showcases M.
Night’s skill as a director.
For the
story it gives it a much needed mystery slash detective kind of vibe that helps
the tension and the audacity. Plus it gives the audience a look into the
mindset of the two main protagonists by interviews or general goofiness with a video
camera.
On M. Night’s
skill. Well he is a moviemaker in the traditional sense so he knows how to
compose a shot. Now, instead of handing the camera to the actors to wave around
all the time he places the camera somewhere strategic a lot of the time.
Several times even, during the film, he pulls the trick by letting the camera
be put down by a character randomly that –magically- creates the perfect composed
shot to show the action.
So no this
isn’t a movie with shaky-cam and ten minutes of ceiling-shots. This is a movie
that uses the hand-held camera device to get us even more connected with the
characters and the story whilst composing great shots. And, of course, as it is
almost a requirement for the found-footage genre (which again this movie isn’t)
tension increases tenfold the minute a villain picks up the camera.
Is there
anything bad to say about this movie, of course there is, it isn’t Lawrence of
Arabia. Camera’s appearing out of nowhere. A finale that didn’t quite make it
(I blame the lack of music but I’m still thinking about it…Maybe somebody
cracks it). But if you accept it for what it is -a well made comedy/thriller– you will have a blast.
[1] A quick note about Signs. I
honestly believe if he changed water into milk or something the movie would be
considered a classic (or the popular theory of ’blessed water’).
[2] Also the fact that
found-footage back then was still pretty much the hype. Those shaky-cam haters
would be much more polite.
[3] Any movie fan should know the
existence of this book by now: "The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night
Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale"
[4] A bit of movie trivia: M.
Night –whist writing the Sixth Sense- only came up with the ‘twist’ ending
after several drafts. He never set out to make a mind-f*ck of a movie. He just
wanted to tell a story about a friendship between a psychiatrist (with mortal
issues) and a boy.
[5] Much like Colin Trevorrow
who’s Jurassic World –I argue- truly became his movie the minute there were no
dinosaurs present, only two people talking. Once the dinosaurs were released
the directing became a bit generic. The fact that the script didn’t really
allow a lot of emotional depth is another story.
[6] I had to mention this hadn’t
I.
No comments:
Post a Comment