![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Movie Review: My Bloody Valentine
So...My Bloody Valentine. It sucks. Sorry, but it does.
Jensen Ackles looks just as good on a 30ft screen in 3d as you would expect, and his performance isn't bad at all, though frankly he can do better. But the movie itself is a big disappointment.
The original My Bloody Valentine (1981) was famously cut by 18 minutes because it was too gory for the censors; this would have been back in the heyday of video nasties when a headline like that guaranteed sales in that market (videos were released uncut). A remake could take advantage of a much looser censorship environment: in the US very little by way of violence gets cut these days and in the European market it just gets you an adult cert. Which for a film like this, they were shooting for anyway. The decision to make it in 3D made me expect a lot more, because this story is perfect for the 3D medium as long as the director understands how to exploit that.
Sadly, Patrick Lussier does not. And that's why the film sucks. For starters it's shot in 16:9 instead of the full cinema aspect ratio. 16:9 shouts aloud to the audience that you're not after cinema attendance; you want the DVD sales. But though 3D on DVD has been done, the technology just isn't there yet for the small screen. The DVD audience is going to be watching the 2D version.
3D as it stands today needs a) a cinema screen and b) full cinema aspect ratio. This is because the fabulous thing about 3D is immersion. If it's done right, the audience is right fucking there, in the scene with the actors. If you do horror that way, and do it well, it would be terrifying.
And this story cries out for that kind of treatment. The plot, such as it is (slasher flicks don't need plot) centres around Jensen's character, Tom Hanniger. He's one of a small number of survivors of a horrific massacre ten years earlier. Though the story is pretty confused in the movie, as far as I could make it out, Tom was somehow responsible for an accident in the mine in which several miners died. But they didn't die in the cave-in: the sole surviving miner had killed them himself to preserve his own air. He ended up in a coma, but woke up, slaughtered several people in the hospital, then headed back to the mine where a bunch of teenagers were having a party. Why you'd pick an obviously dangerous mine for a drunken orgy is beyond me, but maybe that's just what teenagers do. Whatever. Said psycho proceeded to kill most of the teens before being stopped and shot by the local cops. That's the first ten minutes of the movie.
Ten years later, Tom returns to town in order to sell the mine. At the same time people start dying, horribly. There's a sub-plot involving Tom and his old girlfriend: I think there was supposed to be some sexual tension there but there's no real chemistry between the actors. And the script makes a fair attempt at developing the mystery of who the killer is. I'll admit I didn't see the twist coming, mostly because I wasn't expecting any twist; I guess I'm just too used to psycho-killers-who-don't-die and it didn't occur to me that the killer wasn't the same guy as ten years ago. The final showdown/chase happens in the same mining tunnels as the original massacre but in between there's plenty of blood, gore and gratuitous (female) nudity.
The horror scenes are set in a mine, in a trashy motel room, in a dark supermarket after-hours. With the right camera work and some attention to detail in the sound mixing, the audience could be drawn right into those settings, could really feel part of it. Unfortunately Patrick Lussier thinks 3D is all about pointing things and throwing things at the audience. Which he does with boring regularity.
Don't get me wrong: some of it is done very well. One of the early kills is a guy struck with a pickaxe in the back of his head - the pick comes out through his eye and the eyeball stays on the point as it shoots toward you - eugh, yeah, but a real jump-out-of-your-seat moment. There are other similarly good moments. It's just that for me, the good parts are overshadowed by the things that could have been so much better. There's way too much light in the mine tunnels, for starters, especially in the scenes of the original massacre. I mean, it's like daylight down there. Did someone forget to mention that dark=scary?
I'm also less than happy with the usual slasher-misogyny. To be fair, this film is better than many in that respect, but though the gory-deaths are an equal-opportunity affair it's only with the women that the camera lingers lovingly over hacked-to-pieces bodies. (Also, how exactly is the killer supposed to be doing the carving? He's armed with a pickaxe - it's not exactly a precision-cutting tool.)
If all you want is a gore-fest, I'm sure My Bloody Valentine will stand up with the best of them. But as a movie, it sucks. Sorry, Jensen, but it does.
Jensen Ackles looks just as good on a 30ft screen in 3d as you would expect, and his performance isn't bad at all, though frankly he can do better. But the movie itself is a big disappointment.
The original My Bloody Valentine (1981) was famously cut by 18 minutes because it was too gory for the censors; this would have been back in the heyday of video nasties when a headline like that guaranteed sales in that market (videos were released uncut). A remake could take advantage of a much looser censorship environment: in the US very little by way of violence gets cut these days and in the European market it just gets you an adult cert. Which for a film like this, they were shooting for anyway. The decision to make it in 3D made me expect a lot more, because this story is perfect for the 3D medium as long as the director understands how to exploit that.
Sadly, Patrick Lussier does not. And that's why the film sucks. For starters it's shot in 16:9 instead of the full cinema aspect ratio. 16:9 shouts aloud to the audience that you're not after cinema attendance; you want the DVD sales. But though 3D on DVD has been done, the technology just isn't there yet for the small screen. The DVD audience is going to be watching the 2D version.
3D as it stands today needs a) a cinema screen and b) full cinema aspect ratio. This is because the fabulous thing about 3D is immersion. If it's done right, the audience is right fucking there, in the scene with the actors. If you do horror that way, and do it well, it would be terrifying.
And this story cries out for that kind of treatment. The plot, such as it is (slasher flicks don't need plot) centres around Jensen's character, Tom Hanniger. He's one of a small number of survivors of a horrific massacre ten years earlier. Though the story is pretty confused in the movie, as far as I could make it out, Tom was somehow responsible for an accident in the mine in which several miners died. But they didn't die in the cave-in: the sole surviving miner had killed them himself to preserve his own air. He ended up in a coma, but woke up, slaughtered several people in the hospital, then headed back to the mine where a bunch of teenagers were having a party. Why you'd pick an obviously dangerous mine for a drunken orgy is beyond me, but maybe that's just what teenagers do. Whatever. Said psycho proceeded to kill most of the teens before being stopped and shot by the local cops. That's the first ten minutes of the movie.
Ten years later, Tom returns to town in order to sell the mine. At the same time people start dying, horribly. There's a sub-plot involving Tom and his old girlfriend: I think there was supposed to be some sexual tension there but there's no real chemistry between the actors. And the script makes a fair attempt at developing the mystery of who the killer is. I'll admit I didn't see the twist coming, mostly because I wasn't expecting any twist; I guess I'm just too used to psycho-killers-who-don't-die and it didn't occur to me that the killer wasn't the same guy as ten years ago. The final showdown/chase happens in the same mining tunnels as the original massacre but in between there's plenty of blood, gore and gratuitous (female) nudity.
The horror scenes are set in a mine, in a trashy motel room, in a dark supermarket after-hours. With the right camera work and some attention to detail in the sound mixing, the audience could be drawn right into those settings, could really feel part of it. Unfortunately Patrick Lussier thinks 3D is all about pointing things and throwing things at the audience. Which he does with boring regularity.
Don't get me wrong: some of it is done very well. One of the early kills is a guy struck with a pickaxe in the back of his head - the pick comes out through his eye and the eyeball stays on the point as it shoots toward you - eugh, yeah, but a real jump-out-of-your-seat moment. There are other similarly good moments. It's just that for me, the good parts are overshadowed by the things that could have been so much better. There's way too much light in the mine tunnels, for starters, especially in the scenes of the original massacre. I mean, it's like daylight down there. Did someone forget to mention that dark=scary?
I'm also less than happy with the usual slasher-misogyny. To be fair, this film is better than many in that respect, but though the gory-deaths are an equal-opportunity affair it's only with the women that the camera lingers lovingly over hacked-to-pieces bodies. (Also, how exactly is the killer supposed to be doing the carving? He's armed with a pickaxe - it's not exactly a precision-cutting tool.)
If all you want is a gore-fest, I'm sure My Bloody Valentine will stand up with the best of them. But as a movie, it sucks. Sorry, Jensen, but it does.