“People don't realise that there are killers among them"
This is, to put it mildly, a controversial film, in spite of the way its execution (er, no pun intended) seems to be widely praised. In the wake of, I think, #MeToo, our culture is currently rethinking the practice of using fictionalised biopics of serial killers, who are invariably killers of women, as entertainment. And there is, I think, a point there. Not that we should in any way ban or censor the use of this naturally dramatic subject matter, of course; it intrinsically says a lot about the human condition, and specifically male violence. Exploring this sort of thing is precisely what art is for.
All the same, though, we should be wary of how we treat the subject, where a straightforwardly lurid approach can show the male gaze at its most problematic. This biopic of Ted Bundy tries a different approach, framing the narrative from the point of view of his fiancee Liz, from the time they met in a bar (did Bundy at first mean to kill her, and relent only upon discovering her baby?) until his final admission of his guilt on the eve of his execution. We spend much of the film, unless we already know the facts, doubting Bundy's guilt. Only at the end do we unequivocally learn of his guilt. His persuasive charm allows Bundy to gaslight us the way he did to Liz, to Carol and to all those women who rooted for him during his trial. That's clever. It's also a treatment that doesn't need to focus on the spectacle of the murders themselves. We are also reminded, too, that those complicit in the use of capital punishment, from the judge to the bloodthirsty sheriff, are every bit as evil as Bundy himself.
The film is superbly structured, and everything looks very convincingly of the '70s. There's a smallish role for scarcely recognisable James Hetfield too, appropriate for a film shot by the director of Some Kind of Monster. Jim Parsons also valiantly struggles against his typecasting as the Florida prosecutor as The Big Bang Theory winds to a close. But it' is, in the end, al about the extraordinary performances of Lily Collins and a swiftly maturing Zac Efron. Highly impressive.
Welcome to my blog! I do reviews of Doctor Who from 1963 to present, plus spin-offs. As well as this I do non-Doctor Who related reviews of The Prisoner, The Walking Dead, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Dollhouse, Blake's 7, The Crown, Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, Sherlock, Firefly, Batman and rather a lot more. There also be reviews of more than 600 films and counting. Oh, and whatever I happen to be reading, or listening to. And Marvel comics in order from 1961 onwards.
Showing posts with label Joe Berlinger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Berlinger. Show all posts
Monday, 13 May 2019
Sunday, 23 February 2014
Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)
"You know, there are a lot of naysayers who say nay..."
Before I started blogging movies I tended to avoid films with bad reputations, as you do. But at least the prospect of reviewing a bad film after watching it offers the consolation prize of being able to administer a good spanking after the ordeal of watching it. This is one of those times.
I went into this film with predictably low expectations and, inevitably, this film slightly exceeded them- the ending, with reality shifting nightmarishly around our protagonists to make them guilty of terrible crimes that only they know they did not commit, is a good idea that would perhaps have worked well in a better film. Likewise, I enjoyed the metatextuality of the beginning, with all the characters having seen the first film and tourists flocking to Burkittsville as a result; it may be a trick as old as Cervantes, but it works.
Thing is, though, the only thing that works about this film, other than the snippet of Queens of the Stone Age's splendid Feelgood Hit of the Summer, is the meta stuff, and it should have been obvious why. The first film (itself arguably far less well-regarded now than at the time) worked, to the extent that it did, because of it's form, not it's content. If you took away the "found footage" aspect, you'd have a rather pedestrian film. So what do they so for the sequel? They do exactly that. The results are predictable. Literally the best thing about the film is the beginning, promising a metatextuality that doesn't materialise.
I suppose we have a slight commentary on the first film through the character of Tristen, a Wiccan, objecting to the idea of nature being evil, but the characters are generally annoying, forgettable and vaguely annoying all at once; it's hard to emphasise much with the film's protagonists, who are not particularly nice, charismatic or interesting. I didn't even like the female goth character, and that's saying something.
I suppose I enjoyed the sight of the tape of the missing hours, which rather resembled a music video by Tool or Marilyn Manson in its style, and the ending is moderately better than the preceding dullness, but this is very much a film worth skipping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

