I’m pretty sure I saw this movie in its last leg of showings in theaters. I had wanted to see it for a while (bar people hating on it for having Kristen Stewart) and was happy to finally see it. My overall impression was good of the film, but for different reasons other than the typical for liking a movie. But I’ll get to that in a second. On an average Friday, in an average theater, among other couples who seemed they wanted to do nothing
Ah yes, a Twilight reference.
more than make out for $10.50 at a poor film, I watched Snow White and the Huntsman.
The story is a bit different than your average Disney movie. Based more on the darker version of events from the Grimm Bros., this movie attempts to scare more than romanticize. I think that’s why people had a problem with the plot because they were expecting this all too romantic kissing scene, and they didn’t get it because that’s not what this movie was about. A strong female character is created to battle an even stronger female character, not really making it about the Huntsman at all (a character
Lookin’ pretty fierce there, Thor.
I developed a liking for from Rutger Hauer’s surprisingly good performance of it in The Tenth Kingdom). And for those of you out there who labeled this a Twilight-like movie from the start, you were wrong. Just because Kristen Stewart is in a film does not mean it has anything to do with Twilight. Shame on you.
So, plot. (As if there were those of you out there who didn’t have a semblance of Snow White.) So one day Snow White’s mom has a little inkling to go out in the garden when it’s snowing. Pricks her finger, 3 drops of blood, bam! You have a baby and a dead mother during
Maybe if I scream they’ll appreciate my performance…
childbirth. King Magnus (Noah Huntley, I thought I recognized him from 28 Days Later…) raises her and loves Snow White to no end. Then, after a cinematically striking 2 minute fight, Magnus finds his new Queen, Ravenna (Charlize Theron). Snow White (Stewart) grows up to be sooooo beautiful that the Evil Queen can’t stand it. Wanting to eat her heart for immortality (remember this is a fairy tale, you adults out there), Snow White escapes and the Queen sends the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) after her. Let the pursuit begin.
Oh, the wonderful textures…
The casting in this movie was really hit or miss. Kristen Stewart did what little job she could to hold the lead role together, putting on a weak English accent. I can’t blame her when other lesser known actresses were up for the part and they weren’t given it. Sadly, that’s what happens when you’re popular, you steal all the roles. Charlize Theron thought screaming for no reason at certain points would get her acting across more powerfully. That childlike antic won’t get you far, I’m afraid. She was constantly trying to create this Shakespearean demon witch that just came across as weak and sad. Chris Hemsworth was as macho and boring as usual (sorry Thor, but if you are in every movie with a cleaving/hammering device of some sort, you’re typecast. Just like Orlando Bloom as Legolas. Has anyone seen the archery scene in the Musketeers remake?) as the Hunstman. Sorry, that was a long side note. Okay, let’s go through the list of people they chose before they decided on Hemsworth.
A Viggo Mortensen stand in? Perfect!
Tom Hardy. I can see him in the role after the trailers from the new Batman movie. Not a huge fan (he has the Christopher Nolan brand all over his ass. Of course he’s gonna get work…) but he would’ve done the job. Johnny Depp. Never appropriate for an action role. He did well in the POTC movies, but what the Hell kind of offer is that? As Daniel Tosh said, “Cool should have a cutoff, and my vote is 48.” Sorry John Depp, you’re out. Then there was Viggo Mortensen. Now there’s a fantasy actor. The quintessential Aragorn. He has been looking for a reason to come back to fantasy/action films, I’m sure. But he turned it down as well. Maybe the age difference when it comes to Stewart? Who knows… Hugh Jackman. The last one asked before Thor. Wolverine? Sure, he’s pretty ballin. But he declined as well. So, after all these turn downs, the studio turned to a man who’s good with hammer like objects. Great goin’ there, Chris Hemsworth.
But there is a silver lining to this movie. The dwarven cast. The second I saw who they cast as the Seven Dwarves, I was in Heaven. You couldn’t pick a more perfect English cast to play all 7! You got Bob Hoskins leading the group. Elderly and
Mayhem while you work.
blind, he’s good no matter if he’s Smee or Roger Rabbit’s partner. Ian McShane, the Deadwood master. I was surprised he was pretty damn good. Johnny Harris from Black Death. Word. Toby Jones, the infamous voice of Dobby the House Elf. I’d rather remember him from other roles, but he was great as well. Eddie Marsan, another great English actor. I like his smaller roles in V for Vendetta and The Illusionist. People will know him from Sherlock Holmes. Ray Winstone, the gruff talking Mr. French from The Departed. Now he’s a good actor. And Nick Frost of the Pegg/Frost duo. Need I say more? And I’d also like to give a little nod to Brian (pronounced Breen) Gleeson. He’s an up and coming English actor who actually made me shed a tear in this one. Wow, that paragraph was a mouthful of excited English actors.
I like touching silky things.
And now I come to my main point of why I liked this movie. It was pretty to look at. Every scene had some special effect or interesting texture that I wish I could’ve reached out and touched in the film. As it is Rupert Sanders first film, it is understandable that it looks this way. He started off as a English commercial director. He has to sell a product based on look. That’s why this movie is so visually appealing. The fur, the white paint you see in the film, the forest scenes, everything looks so good you could eat it in Willy Wonka’s candy room. And that’s something you don’t always see in every movie. So a bit of a bravo for that.
So you may not be able to see this movie in theaters now, but check it out when it gets its DVD/Blu-Ray release in September of 2012. It was an enjoyable watch for the sights and sounds, but always remember that can only take you so far in a film. 6.4 out of 10.
In a different approach that I’ve never done in my blog, I’m going to debate the documentary created by Kirby Dick, This Film is Not Yet Rated. While watching this, a lot of questions and refutes came to mind that I wanted to deal with rather than just reviewing the movie. I gave this film my full attention and open mind, so I’m going to talk back.
This Film is Not Yet Rated deals with the issue of the warped way in which independent and Hollywood films are treated and rated according to the MPAA (Motion Picture Assoc. of America). With the issues of homosexual vs heterosexual relations, male vs female sexuality, and violence, vs sexual content, Kirby Dick handles this and the board behind which these issues are debated and rated on. It is quite controversial and sexual in nature, with interviews from people all across the movie making business and their thoughts behind why this secretive establishment was ever put into place. And a lot of attacking of Jack Valenti, the man that started it all.
I have to concede a lot of points to Kirby Dick and the creators of this documentary. It is rather disturbing that an organization is given this much power and allowed to be kept secret and confidential on its workings. To not be allowed to know the peers who judge you (as you are in the court of law), is downright un-Democratic. The board that represents “average American parents” is warped and not accurate in the slightest. And any sort of appeals board that is put into place is just ludicrous.
But I think where a lot of the confrontation comes from is the business world. Hollywood and the movie making machine is a business. A lot of business (especially big businesses that make billions of dollars) are run by the elite “conservatives” that wouldn’t look kindly on the liberal views of sexuality and experimentation. With the movie makers butting heads with the owners who rate the films and distribute them, documentaries like this are going to arise that fight the backwards system they’re involved in.
What I didn’t understand is why there’s such a conflict. If the MPAA rates movies as R or NC-17, that restricts the amount of people who can see the film. And by restricting a demographic from seeing a film that may not be so restricted content heavy, that loses money to a particular age group. Why would the big businesses who run the showing of films do such a thing? It seems backward, and could only be because they feel it is necessary to keep the status quo morals. I applauded this film for fighting “the man” and the “big machine”, but there were things I had problems with.
Coming from someone who loves a lot of different films, I have to be honest. I don’t think that, in 90 out of 100 cases, that sex scenes are necessary in film. What do sex scenes do? They reaffirm a “loving” relationship between two people, be it straight, gay, or whatever. It’s for lust, for some form of artistic representation. But how often does it actually move a plot along? Not often. Sexual scenes of any sense that actually further plot are usually scenes of rape or procreation. If someone’s having a baby or having their lives changed by a terrible experience, those are depicted harshly or beautifully. Sex scenes to “seal the deal” come across as eating up screen time to me.
Let me give an example so I just don’t seem prude. I tried to watch a film recently titled, A Room in Rome. I thought, hmmm, I’ll expand my knowledge in films with this liberating and artistic foreign film about lesbians. It started off okay. They had some thought provoking conversations. Then they hit the showers and I was exposed to sex scene after sex scene. At that point, I realized what sex scenes are to me. They are invasions of privacy, voyeuristic looks into someone else’s private time, be it onscreen or not. They, for the most part, bore me and make me feel uncomfortable. And for a film to claim it’s an arthouse film and just show 90 minutes of nonstop sex scenes? That’s a total load of bullshit. Don’t tell me that. That’s not some form of art that I would never understand. “It’s symbolic.” Are you f$%^&ing kidding me? Hell no.
I’m not ashamed to exasperatedly voice my opinion, and it’s about to get worse. Call me a typical dumb male, but I would rather have a scene of violence in a film than a sex scene. It’s more entertaining and adrenaline pumping than two people doin’ it in front of my eyes. And it furthers plot. Steve Carrell as Michael Scott on The Office said it best when he said that what’s more exciting than a gun? What is more exciting and threatening to a character than a gun onscreen? There’s a point to be had there. Martial arts films that depict the grace, discipline, and brutality of fighting really inspire me to be better than myself and protect and defend others. It’s all a matter of perspective, I guess.
There was one point in the film that made me pretty mad in particular. It was quite a leap and a wrong one. To say that violent films and video games inspire more kids to shoot up schools than anything else is not the truth. It is an access to firearms at a young age. It’s those kids who are mentally unstable, picked on, not listened to, those kids who feel the pressures of the world before they even get out of college. The outcasts, the rejects, those kids nobody would ever dream of talking to or hanging out with. In some particular cases, I’m sure violent acts have been done because of what someone saw on T.V. or in movies. But not a majority or a large portion of the time at all. Marilyn Manson said it best in Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine documentary. When asked what he would have said to the two young male shooters to try to dissuade them, he said, “I wouldn’t say a single word to them, I would listen to what they have to say, and that’s what no one did.”
This film makes valid points about a world I am not a part of, but would one day like to be a part of. The movie world scares me now after seeing this documentary. How much freedom is taken away when you want people to see what you’ve made and how a movie can be banned or censored is against our rights. But the way that sex is seen as something that should be above anything else (drugs weren’t talked about in this film), I falter in my support. I find that to be assuming too much of an “open-minded” America. For parents to have to talk to children about sex, who wants that conversation? (Daniel Tosh paraphrase from a telling joke about Mormons and gay rights.) As a whole, America is a prude machine that doesn’t want to move from where its standing. I stand among those in the action film/horror movie/all around whatever the hell genre it is community and say, “I don’t need sex in my films.” I know it is backwards to say violence above sex, but aren’t movies fake? Don’t they depict things that, for the most part, are an interpretation/exaggeration of the real world? Sex scenes hit too close to home and come from a person to person basis on what is acceptable sex.
So coming away from this with one thing, you should remember I said this. I don’t find sex to be entertaining or necessary in movies. That’s just me, my opinion. You could think I am absolutely stupid and ignorant for thinking that. That’s your choice to think that. But if my voice has any say in the matter, this is what I think. Plain and simple. Let me know what you think, and, as always, I’ll be writing from The Abyss.
Wow. This movie blew me away. With its intense gore scenes and heavily emotional acting, coherent, flowing plot line and twisted characters, nothing could be better from IFC. Tom Six has created a movie everyone can enjoy, young and old alike. This movie deserves any award it can win…
Alright, can’t lie anymore. This movie was poop in the pants. A complete shit (pun completely intended). I thought, hey, I’ll watch this. I love horror movies and I would like to think I know quite a bit about them. I was not prepared for this.
This crazy old bastard wants your butt.
At all. If there is anyone who watched this and considered it a decent horror movie, you don’t really know much about horror movies, do you? (Not trying to insult, trying to inform you of your mistaken choices in life as a whole.)
Now I know Daniel Tosh did a decent trashing/good summary of this movie (quite accurate), but I need to sum it up in my own words. Okay, two women, Lindsay (Ashley C. Williams) and Jenny (Ashlynn Yennie, wtf?) are two classically slutty girls on a German sex trip? (There is no real explanation/reason for these to American women to be in Germany.) But these two are just about to slut it up! But, oh no, these two interchangeable girls (could be twins, I can’t/don’t care to tell them apart) are riding through the damn woods, rolling hard like pros to God in Heaven knows where. Basically, their mentally challenged minds decided not to use any form of decent maps to direct them in the right direction, and this, surprise! ends in disaster.
What a quality trio of roofied actors.
What should these bimbos do? Let’s get car molested by one of millions of German rapists, and then proceed to walk through a forest that should be NOWHERE NEAR a club they’re going to to get molested by tools, other than the man in the car who freaked all over them. They come upon the witch in the woods, aka the most frightening German actor I’ve ever seen in my life. And by that, I mean most frighteningly bad and creepy. Thank you Dieter Laser for haunting my dreams with your rape drug. Incidentally, this creepy guy, who never sets off any red flags for these girls, drugs the shit out these women and hides them in his furnished gaming room basement turned surgery lab. Thrown into the mix is a babbling Japanese man (Akihiro Kitamura), and two German detectives (were there subtitles for this movie?) and this Oscar caliber film has every element it needs.
These movie has no scenes of jump out of your seat horror. This movie has one gore scene of surgery
Looks like the German guy likes his dog.
on an anus. This movie, according to my download, has no subtitles, leaving 30 minutes in the movie with a screaming Japanese man and two inquisitive yet incompetent detective asses. Great job on that one. With only the suggestion of horror by three people sewn ass to mouth with the love and care of a man who sexually abuses his dead canines, this movie is completely believable. Other than the fact that this movie exists, I completely believe the crazy German doctor could’ve done this. I mean, this movie does set back the German community 60 years to the Nazi testing of old, but, you know, Tom Six handled it with pride, I’m sure of it.
Great job Akihiro. Looks like you were done in by the rape drug.
So, overall, if you’re looking for a horror movie that tries to take a real situation and extend it to such an awkward and unrealistic extent, then yes, this movie is for you. With a disappointing amount of horror and more of a painfully long movie about a sexual fetish, then clearly this movie of actors with next to no experience other than avant garde pieces of crap (I can’t believe the amount of work Dieter Laser has been doing. It saddens me.) was meant for nothing more than a joke. This movie was worse than The Room. Hands down. Definitely a 0.1 out of 10. As close to a zero as possible.
I’m pretty sure I saw this movie in its last leg of showings in theaters. I had wanted to see it for a while (bar people hating on it for having Kristen Stewart) and was happy to finally see it. My overall impression was good of the film, but for different reasons other than the typical for liking a movie. But I’ll get to that in a second. On an average Friday, in an average theater, among other couples who seemed they wanted to do nothing
reviewsfromtheabyss 