Showing posts with label Juliet Rylance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Juliet Rylance. Show all posts
A DOG'S PURPOSE Review
In the opening moments of the latest sun-drenched melodrama from director Lasse Hallström (Chocolat, Hachi: A Dog's Tale) a dog is born and just quickly a dog is euthanized. It's a strange way to open a PG-rated family film about man's best friend, but was apparently the best way to set the stage for a film whose premise is that of dog reincarnation as narrated by Olaf from Frozen. Sound strange? It is, a little bit, but not nearly as bad as you might think though not nearly as effective as it should be either. This is taking into considering the fact the writers/producers and Hallström don't shy away from exploiting what is arguably the easiest way to elicit tears from your audience-a dog dying. They do this at least four times. And yet, through each of these segments, each of these lives that we see different breeds and genders of dogs lead (all voiced by Josh Gad) there is never that moment that just breaks you in the way you expect a movie like this to do. It seems there was no hesitation in doing what it takes to get the audience to that point, but the execution never matches the intention thus making A Dog's Purpose more of a sleeper than the quickly euthanized pup we met in the first scene.
Of course, Universal knows what it's doing and who the audience is for this type of movie and up until a few weeks ago were no doubt counting on cashing in on the countless dog lovers that flood this great land of ours. It's possible, but is now rather difficult to watch the film without the experience being at least somewhat tainted by the set footage that was released in which a trainer is forced to place a dog in water the canine clearly doesn't care to get in for the sake of a shot. Does the footage strike concern for how movies such as A Dog's Purpose are made? Potentially, sure. Is a bigger deal being made out of what footage we've seen than necessary? Absolutely. Sure, the dog clearly doesn't care to go in the water, but the trainer seemed especially sensitive to this hesitation and we only know if we don't like something by trying it first and that could just as easily be the other side of the coin in this case. I stayed through the credits to see that the film received its seal of approval from the American Humane Society and indeed it did. That's enough for me to trust that what video has been released was likely largely taken out of context if not a massive PR stunt to get more people talking about the movie. Needless to say, dog lovers will likely still flock to A Dog's Purpose and have no reason not to-it's made especially for them anyway.
Of course, Universal knows what it's doing and who the audience is for this type of movie and up until a few weeks ago were no doubt counting on cashing in on the countless dog lovers that flood this great land of ours. It's possible, but is now rather difficult to watch the film without the experience being at least somewhat tainted by the set footage that was released in which a trainer is forced to place a dog in water the canine clearly doesn't care to get in for the sake of a shot. Does the footage strike concern for how movies such as A Dog's Purpose are made? Potentially, sure. Is a bigger deal being made out of what footage we've seen than necessary? Absolutely. Sure, the dog clearly doesn't care to go in the water, but the trainer seemed especially sensitive to this hesitation and we only know if we don't like something by trying it first and that could just as easily be the other side of the coin in this case. I stayed through the credits to see that the film received its seal of approval from the American Humane Society and indeed it did. That's enough for me to trust that what video has been released was likely largely taken out of context if not a massive PR stunt to get more people talking about the movie. Needless to say, dog lovers will likely still flock to A Dog's Purpose and have no reason not to-it's made especially for them anyway.
SINISTER Review
It has become like a bad joke to get hooked into horror films rolled out by the studios no matter what time of year they come out, but the ones looking like nothing more than cash cows usually show up around this time of year. They never live up to much and if anything inspire more laughs and mocks at the bad acting than they do provide authentic fear or at least a few jump scares. I like scary movies though, and I love the atmosphere they can provide when done right. Thus, I get suckered into them more often than I probably should. In 2005, after becoming pretty well acquainted with the tricks of the trade it was a refreshing piece of contemporary horror mixed with the tired genre of the exorcism films that made me trust in modern horror movies. In The Exorcism of Emily Rose watching the scary stuff mixed with the courtroom drama inspired a new sense of investment in the material and I was surprised to find a first time director behind such well developed characters and a story that explored a very effective way of getting across a very scary situation. Needless to say, when I heard that same director, Scott Derrickson, was returning to the horror genre after a disappointing follow up in The Day the Earth Stood Still remake I was hoping for something that would again rejuvenate the failing genre. Though I will say 2012 has been pretty steady when it comes to its scary movie offerings (Woman In Black, Cabin in the Woods) I was looking forward to Sinister the most and it certainly didn't disappoint in being one of the best modern horror movies of the past few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






