As Above, So Below
2/4
Starring: Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, Francois Civil, Marion Lambert, Ali Marhyar
Rated R for Bloody Violence/Terror, and Language Throughout
The element of suggestion is paramount to a horror movie. A movie will not scare its audience without it. Paraphrasing Roger Ebert (again), what we see is never as scary as what we think we see (the lone exception, of course, is "Alien"). This is why, done well, shaking the camera or cutting quickly can up the scare factor ("Cloverfield" and "The Descent" are two masterful examples). Sadly, it's not done well here.
Scarlett (Weeks) is a young graduate student looking for the fabled Philosopher's Stone, which, as anyone who has read or seen the first "Harry Potter" book/movie knows, will turn whatever it touches to gold and grant you immortality. She thinks she's found where it is, and is going to the Paris catacombs to find it. With her is her cameraman, Benji (Hodge), and their guides, Papillon (Civil), Souxie (Lambert) and Zed (Marhyar). Her friend George (Feldman) doesn't want to be there, but is forced into it. It doesn't take long for things to go dreadfully wrong, and soon finding the stone becomes of secondary importance to staying alive.
It is impossible to watch this movie without thinking of Neil Marshall's 2005 masterpiece. Both films feature enough similar situations (getting lost, things trying to kill them, claustrophobia, etc) that a comparison is inevitable. The most intense scene from "The Descent" is replicated here, although it doesn't come close in terms of scare factor. Giving credit where credit is due, it's unfair to compare the two films, but it's impossible not to.
This is a "found footage" movie, although it's been a long time since any filmmaker has employed it well. Repetition has replaced innovation, and filmmakers think that they can get away with being lazy ("Into the Storm" is an example). As used by John Erick Dowdle, it's above the level of gimmick, but not effective enough to justify its utilization. A more straightforward approach probably would have been better.
Dowdle shakes the camera excessively, and while it's justified here (unlike in the "Bourne" movies, "Public Enemies," and the like), it's not done well. The idea behind shaking the camera is to create suspense by building uncertainty. We don't know what is going on and that scares us. But there's a difference between the good movies ("Cloverfield") and the bad ones ("Into the Storm") that utilize this storytelling method, and I think I've finally figured out what it is. In movies like "Cloverfield" and "The Blair Witch Project," which started the trend, the dialogue and the performances are completely natural. We believe that these are real people whose camera footage has been found and assembled into a movie. In the former films, telling the story seemed to be of secondary importance. It was fully submerged beneath the characters' interactions. More importantly, the camera was never on (at least intentionally) when any sane person would turn it off and run. That doesn't happen here. It's still a gimmick, and Dowdle can't always make the camera movements or angles seem convincing (if someone is being pulled into a flaming car, I'd hope that the camera you were holding would be the least of your concerns).
Dowdle is also trying to create a sense of confusion and panic among the characters, which is understandable considering their situation. He shakes the cameras to show that they're running, scared, etc., but the effect isn't convincing, and this is why: it's confusing to the point of being frustrating. In the successful entries in the genre, we can't see much (if anything), but we know what they're doing and why. We know they're running down the hall or street to get away from the ghost/demon/monster, whatever. That's not the case here, where Dowdle makes things so messy that I got completely lost as to what they characters were doing, period.
I'm not going to claim that the film is entirely worthless. It's not. There are some legitimate shocks and scenes that are fairly creepy. The film also has two great performances, and the horror genre is rarely known for that quality ("Wishmaster," anyone? "Friday the 13th?" The list goes on...). Perdita Weeks is quite convincing as the gutsy and slightly obsessed Scarlett. She's brave to the point of being reckless, but she's not an idiot. She just thinks that the end negates any possible concerns. Her co-star, Ben Feldman, is also very good. As the slightly preppy voice of reason, Feldman is just adorable. I believed in the relationship between these two. No one else is especially memorable, but these two almost save the film.
"As Above, So Below" feels like it should be a lot scarier than it was, and there are moments that would be with a more stable camera and organized cinematography. Genre lovers will get their fix, but everyone else would do best to rent another scarefest.
Starring: Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, Francois Civil, Marion Lambert, Ali Marhyar
Rated R for Bloody Violence/Terror, and Language Throughout
The element of suggestion is paramount to a horror movie. A movie will not scare its audience without it. Paraphrasing Roger Ebert (again), what we see is never as scary as what we think we see (the lone exception, of course, is "Alien"). This is why, done well, shaking the camera or cutting quickly can up the scare factor ("Cloverfield" and "The Descent" are two masterful examples). Sadly, it's not done well here.
Scarlett (Weeks) is a young graduate student looking for the fabled Philosopher's Stone, which, as anyone who has read or seen the first "Harry Potter" book/movie knows, will turn whatever it touches to gold and grant you immortality. She thinks she's found where it is, and is going to the Paris catacombs to find it. With her is her cameraman, Benji (Hodge), and their guides, Papillon (Civil), Souxie (Lambert) and Zed (Marhyar). Her friend George (Feldman) doesn't want to be there, but is forced into it. It doesn't take long for things to go dreadfully wrong, and soon finding the stone becomes of secondary importance to staying alive.
It is impossible to watch this movie without thinking of Neil Marshall's 2005 masterpiece. Both films feature enough similar situations (getting lost, things trying to kill them, claustrophobia, etc) that a comparison is inevitable. The most intense scene from "The Descent" is replicated here, although it doesn't come close in terms of scare factor. Giving credit where credit is due, it's unfair to compare the two films, but it's impossible not to.
This is a "found footage" movie, although it's been a long time since any filmmaker has employed it well. Repetition has replaced innovation, and filmmakers think that they can get away with being lazy ("Into the Storm" is an example). As used by John Erick Dowdle, it's above the level of gimmick, but not effective enough to justify its utilization. A more straightforward approach probably would have been better.
Dowdle shakes the camera excessively, and while it's justified here (unlike in the "Bourne" movies, "Public Enemies," and the like), it's not done well. The idea behind shaking the camera is to create suspense by building uncertainty. We don't know what is going on and that scares us. But there's a difference between the good movies ("Cloverfield") and the bad ones ("Into the Storm") that utilize this storytelling method, and I think I've finally figured out what it is. In movies like "Cloverfield" and "The Blair Witch Project," which started the trend, the dialogue and the performances are completely natural. We believe that these are real people whose camera footage has been found and assembled into a movie. In the former films, telling the story seemed to be of secondary importance. It was fully submerged beneath the characters' interactions. More importantly, the camera was never on (at least intentionally) when any sane person would turn it off and run. That doesn't happen here. It's still a gimmick, and Dowdle can't always make the camera movements or angles seem convincing (if someone is being pulled into a flaming car, I'd hope that the camera you were holding would be the least of your concerns).
Dowdle is also trying to create a sense of confusion and panic among the characters, which is understandable considering their situation. He shakes the cameras to show that they're running, scared, etc., but the effect isn't convincing, and this is why: it's confusing to the point of being frustrating. In the successful entries in the genre, we can't see much (if anything), but we know what they're doing and why. We know they're running down the hall or street to get away from the ghost/demon/monster, whatever. That's not the case here, where Dowdle makes things so messy that I got completely lost as to what they characters were doing, period.
I'm not going to claim that the film is entirely worthless. It's not. There are some legitimate shocks and scenes that are fairly creepy. The film also has two great performances, and the horror genre is rarely known for that quality ("Wishmaster," anyone? "Friday the 13th?" The list goes on...). Perdita Weeks is quite convincing as the gutsy and slightly obsessed Scarlett. She's brave to the point of being reckless, but she's not an idiot. She just thinks that the end negates any possible concerns. Her co-star, Ben Feldman, is also very good. As the slightly preppy voice of reason, Feldman is just adorable. I believed in the relationship between these two. No one else is especially memorable, but these two almost save the film.
"As Above, So Below" feels like it should be a lot scarier than it was, and there are moments that would be with a more stable camera and organized cinematography. Genre lovers will get their fix, but everyone else would do best to rent another scarefest.
Comments
Post a Comment