ArisMichael Reviews

Temple (2017)

Expected much more

[2/10 · 1 September 2017]

The film had beautiful photography direction, but the plot was unacceptable. It is literally a composition of erratic and incoherent plot points. The transition between these points was rather 'normal' in the beginning. However, there was such a lot of time invested in it, that the middle point was extremely rushed. I have never watched a movie that does not have an end. This film had a beginning and a middle - it lacked a denouement.

Natalia Warner's performance was atrocious. All she did was smile exaggeratedly in a tone that was quite reminiscent of a valley girl (without the 'oh my god's). There was a lot of subtlety in the feelings she had to convey, and not once was I convinced that I was seeing her as her character.

Brandon Sklenar, on the other hand, was promising, but he was purely decorative thanks to the predictability of his role. For such a small cast, that had a strong impact.

Character development was nonexistent. A group of three is in Japan and they decide to go a temple. We only know why they are there. That is pretty much it. Next thing we know is a repressed passion surfacing - though it was pretty evident from the first scenes.

Additionally, the sound effects were clumsily put together and did not have any fade-ins and fade-outs.

Finally, the Japanese cast was far superior to the American, but Logan Huffman's performance was acceptable, albeit constantly wearing a face in which he looked lost. I suspect this was a direction issue.

I always tell myself that even a bad movie will have something memorable and will be able to evoke some thoughts or feelings. Now, I do not consider this a bad movie, simply far from being a complete piece. As such, I am not sure what the takeaway is.

Warcraft (2016)

Mixed feelings, excited about the beginning of a new era

[6/10 · 19 June 2016]

Here is what happens in the reviewing section: we have two factions (no pun intended with the Horde and the Alliance, but why not) of opinionated viewers, die-hard fans who have played WarCraft, and unrelated audience who were drawn because of the heavy advertising.

I belong to the first faction, yet I will try to be as objective as possible. Before my review, I want to mention that the argument of "not having played the game, thus you should not have any opinion" is terse at best. Blizzard, as we all know, is a video gaming company and they have spread their wings to film-making as well; why not, given that the cinematic trailers of their games are AAA quality. Although I feel compelled to actually use the previous argument against someone saying "it was a very mediocre movie", I am at the same time overwhelmed with rationality: Why do you have to be familiar with the game, in order to appreciate this movie?

Blizzard's responsibility, after having decided to take a stout venture in producing an actual film adaptation, was to immerse viewers in a world they have so elegantly and meticulously created. As with other movies, we do not need background story to acquaint ourselves with the movie's plot. That said, they should have found ways, given the abundance in narrative techniques, to bring naive viewers to a similar level of cognizance. Failure to do so implies that the narrative was mismanaged.

One of the first things you witness as a player in WarCraft is the insatiable loathing of humans against the orcs and vice versa. This part felt extremely rushed and undefined in the movie. The pace was so prematurely overtaken by the wicked and demigod Gul'dan, that before you know that humans are natural enemies of the orcs, you get to see them forming an alliance. This movie was destined to be an introduction to this universe - and it should intrinsically entail demonstration of races occupying the world, their relationship and some cultural idiosyncrasies.

It was pretty clear that humans thought of orcs being beastly, but we got to see a very emotional Durotan which inadvertently coalesced into a humane version of an orc - yet he was still mistreated by the humans with reluctance. I might suggest that the conspicuous humanity is linked to the World of Warcraft game (my arguments concomitantly enter this realm), where players can also create orcs and thus identify with them. However, I am not sure if they should assemble human-like traits; if the director and/or writer wanted to instill empathy to the viewer, they could have achieved it by giving focus on the injustice of the imminent events, not by turning naturally brutal warriors into weaklings. It is not explained why orcs, who grow in a society of the same standards, and are bound to obey their authoritative commanders like sheep, have such a deviating behavior. Thus, the fight taking place in the end, between Durotan and Gul'dan, was admittedly belated, for a sadistic and forcible ruler like Gul'dan.

Additionally, the voice overs were a huge disappointment. The voices of the orcs were very distorted and by no means reflecting the typical voices in the game. The game voices were much easier to understand and they did not sound like their pitch was exaggeratedly decreased by 20dB. They had a natural husky and roaring tone.

As for the acting, I did find it to be weak. It was Hollywood acting (and yes, this is derogatory): exaggerated facial expressions, overly dramatic with slow head motion, know-it-all attitude and shocking bravery (because let us recycle the stereotype that men are fearless). The actor who played Medivh felt completely out of place. His body- type would fit a barbarian or a warrior more than a wizard (we all know how wizards appear skinny or under-built in video games). Plus, I dare wonder, why did they choose a blond actor? I have not seen any depiction of the character with blond hair.

I will cast aside the fact that I have played the game. As a movie, it was entertaining, but it was not what I had envisioned. The only commendable part for me, the potential source of its entertaining value, was the CGI. I could never get enough of the spell-casting. Gul'dan was perfectly portrayed, very intimidating and demonic. I am also glad that certain "eggs" lied there for the fans: e.g. a Murloc standing in the middle of the river or Draenei used as prisoners. However, this is the problem; someone who is not familiar with the game will not pick up these details. These exact details are what constitute this universe and make it so unique. Draenei, Elves and other races made appearance, so that the viewer takes a glimpse of the forthcoming story in the sequel, but they are all redundant when they are not given enough focus. Plus, the assemblage of different races to make decisions on their role in the war, did ring a huge Lord of the Rings bell. However, Lord of the Rings achieved a better reconstruction, because racial conflicts were uncovered throughout. Warcraft's assemblage, on the other hand, was very generic, purposeless, and lasted what, one minute? I am not sure how naive viewers are expected to keep up and appreciate the glory, imagery and richness of this world, when they are bombarded with visual stimuli of little importance.

In my opinion, the movie did not feel like the game. I have seen others stating that they had tears in their eyes because of the consistent resemblance to the game. Unfortunately, I did not have this feeling - it did not even manage to echo the magnificence of the game's cinematic trailers or even the in-game cut-scenes. Good movie, but not the perfection I expected from Blizzard.

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

Horror genre lived up to its name

[10/10 · 15 June 2016]

I am pleasantly surprised by the current rating of the movie. I honestly believe it is worth it. Personally, I gave it a 10, because I want to encourage other studios to scrutinize and study this film, in order to prevent themselves from making unworthy movies.

The plot itself is not the most original piece out there, but it features great atmosphere, a couple of laughs here and there, an unexpected exorcism and a haunting (literally) presence.

I am a fan of the horror genre. It has been quite disappointing to see studios being utterly insensitive to change and to always toy around with the same concept: a remote house with a dark past and a family tortured by an entity.

What I like in Conjuring is that seemingly third-person actors become the protagonists. It is not only about the family's suffering anymore. They are represented as the saviors, spreading their glimmer of hope. The second installment did not fail my expectations. Several jump scares and a fey presence which you can carry with you in your memory. A few movies have managed to accomplish that, especially to a fan of the genre, like myself. To date, it was the Grudge, the Ring, Drag me to Hell's gypsy woman and Dead Silence's Mary Shaw. I do admit, however, that the resemblance of the ghost to Marilyn Manson was uncanny. That is not to say that the ghost does not remain scary. Its portrayal is complemented with an assertive look, symmetrically outlined from the nun's outfit. For those who have watched the movie, they will know that I am currently misusing the "ghost" word, but I do not wish to spoil anything.

Additionally, I really liked the addition of a twist; it did not ruin the pace of the plot nor did it bring any confusion. Rather, it was a twist that motivated certain actions. I will use one word to explain this, again, primarily directed to the ones who have watched it: pawn.

One thing I disliked was two scenes with CGI, the exorcism and the Crooked Man. The crooked man was an unnecessary addition - it would have been better if the actual entity was used instead. Plus, the artistic look was quite poor and I could occasionally discern motion capture exaggerations - this might probably come from the fact that I develop video games and have thus been exposed to lots of CGI, animations, and special effects.

Overall, an enjoyable horror film and with a worthy placement in my list of recommendations. I do wish the same entity is reused somehow in upcoming installments - it appeared too powerful to be cast away like that. Plus, it was very well made, so it would be a waste if it does not get recycled at some point.

The Caller (2011)

Very intricate plot and highly incisive

[9/10 · 21 August 2014]

This movie has a genuinely great plot and to my surprise (and disappointment), I see many theories floating around the ending, when it is much clearer and simpler to comprehend.

My personal view on the flaws of the movie are the following: • The characters lacked depth, especially for the main actress, Mary, who was a typical young woman, moving in a new apartment. There are some bits throughout the movie that I was convinced of her escalating fear, but I did not find her acting astounding. • The cast was pretty limited and solely served the plot's ending. Other than that, each presence was marginally useful. • The setting was also limited; everything was taking place in a house and its yard. I would like to see Mary's life and routine and how truly was she disoriented by the calls. The usual empathy that arises to the viewer did not occur to me, as I was unable to witness the struggle of hers to survive a scary voice. This is exactly why I think we should have more scenes of her life introduced to us, which would, by extension, elaborately enhance the character's traits and personality. • I would expect more scenes with Rose's presence, as if she haunts Mary's thoughts; this would have an eerie feeling that was admittedly missing from the movie. Shadow passing while she was sleeping, waking up by the tormentor's voice (Rose's), etc. These may be typical, but I would enjoy the film a lot more.

I have rated the movie with 9/10 for its fantastic plot.

I shall now hint out the ending and its interpretation:

The people Mary met were not ghosts, whose bodies were recovered after years. Remember how Rose was calling from the past: this means that Mary's friend (John) was a child back then (Mary as well). Once Rose realized that she was threatened by John, who, without any hesitation, talked her out on the phone, she took him (in her time) as a child and killed him. Through this action, she changed the future. If she killed someone in the past, that person no longer exists in the future. Thus, he was not a ghost, it was that Rose changed the past and consequently, the future. This is why John's body was a child's, because if he was killed in Rose's era, he wouldn't grow up to be the person Mary met.

There is also a question about how the past met the present (how did Rose break into Mary's house). Given Rose's resentment to Mary's behavior and persistent lies, she reached out to find Mary when she was a child (because Mary was a child in the year Rose was calling). Rose then made her suffer, which would in turn cause a trauma to Mary. She also spilled boiled water on her and this is why the marks started appearing on the adult Mary - because if Rose did this in the past, the present Mary would already have these marks on her. Since she bore this traumatic experience, she started reliving her past, when she was hearing her younger self on the phone. It was because Rose took her as a child and inflicted all of this psychological trouble on her that Mary would suddenly see Rose busting through the door, the way she did when Mary was a child. Obviously, as a child, she was indeed talking to her adult self, who guided her into locking herself in the bathroom.

Finally, it has also been asked why she killed her ex. The explanation is pretty much answered above. Since Rose took her as a child and, as a consequence, changed Mary's today's mental state, the traumatic experience was channeled as aggressive behavior and psychological instability. This enabled her to engage in a criminal activity without a second thought (something that would never occur, if she had never answered the phone or had not provoked Rose).

Even though the matter of how the subsequent calls from the past were achieved (as in how was the past bridged to the present) remained somehow transparent, a theory was still addressed by John, when he drew the curved line of time, with a break point on top, to give Mary an explanation.

All in all, this was one of my favorite movies. It is rumored to have an open ending, but frankly, it is not as ambiguous as it is thought to be.