filipemanuelneto

A few years ago, I saw the movie "Ouija" and found it banal, uninteresting, and predictable. Today, I decided to see the sequel, hoping for something better. However, I have to admit that my expectations were quite low, which was a plus considering it's not much better than the first film (although it is a bit better, we have to admit).

The direction and script were handled by Mike Flanagan, who has a well-known and respected portfolio, replacing Stiles White, a screenwriter who, I'm not sure how, secured that role on the first film, the only one he ever directed. Flanagan brought extra gravitas and depth to the film, which seems more complex and expensive to make, but he fails to solve its most serious problem: the fact that we already know the most important elements of the script, all of which were spoken in the previous film! It's hard to surprise once the plot is known to the audience (at least those who saw the first film and still remember it). As for the scares... I don't know why I still expect anything other than the "jump scares" that Americans love. The film even tries to create tension or suspense, but each attempt ends badly: for example, when the actress holds her light next to the wall where we see a skull in a hole, we have time to anticipate the fright she's about to get. How uninteresting!

Technically, the film fares better: the cinematography was industry standard at the time, but the editing is excellent and "aged" the film very well, giving it a more retro look. The film also knows how to work the lighting, especially the candles and the warmer lights, more inviting to the supernatural. Set in the late 1960s, it's not the most successful film in its depiction: we have old black-and-white TVs, we have several classic cars, the hairstyles and costumes are generally appropriate... but something is still missing, whether in the way it's directed or in the cast's deliveries. The characters don't behave like people of the period, and I found myself forgetting the time in which everything is taking place. The inclusion of the priest also makes no sense: I'm Catholic, I have friends who are priests, and I guarantee that a real priest would never participate in a spiritualism session under any pretext! His romantic subplot is incredible and should have been cut for its sheer lack of verisimilitude, as should the one involving the girls' father, an appeal to cheap melodrama.

Lulu Wilson, despite her obvious youth, was a good addition to the cast and delivered everything she needed to. Naturally, she doesn't perform miracles, but she provides a solid presence and a believable performance. Annalise Basso had more difficulty and doesn't always sound convincing. Elizabeth Reaser doesn't have much to work with: she manages to elicit some empathy from the audience, but the character isn't developed enough for us to truly care about her fate.

I've never been, and probably never will be, a fan of this franchise, but I confess I was quite impressed by the first film, which is why I decided to see this one as well. It's a horror style that has little to do with me or my tastes; I prefer psychological horror... but I recognize that the first film balanced well psychological tension and suspense with a lot of visual and graphic scenes of killing. This film simply tries to do the same, but bigger, with more people and a bigger budget... and it succeeds for the most part.

This time, the director-screenwriter is Darren Lynn Bousman, a complete rookie, and a risky gamble on the part of the producers, justified by the pre-writing of an idea that seemed adaptable: with the help of Leigh Whannell, Bousman transformed his ideas into a well-developed script that honors what had already been written, and maintains narrative coherence between the two films. Unfortunately, the script also has a lot of logical flaws and dialogues so poorly written it could be studied as a bad example in cinema schools. The ending is bad: it comes suddenly and is as unsatisfying as a premature orgasm.

The film's most refined aspect is, therefore, the way it builds tension and dramatic suspense, twist after twist. Some work better than others; there's an excessive dose of predictability at times, but, for the most part, the film manages to hide its cards and surprise. The editing is also better and more professional; the filming work seems more thoughtful and less instinctive; the visual and sound effects are as good as in the first film, and the soundtrack does its job. The challenges created for the film are truly worthy of a mind as twisted as that of a medieval pantomime inquisitor, and the deaths are cruel, to say the least.

As for the actors, special praise goes to Tobin Bell, who returns to this film as Jigsaw, now deserving of special attention, with more time and space to show his talent. He managed to create one of the best psycho/sociopaths I've ever seen on film, a magnificent portrayal of a disturbed mind incapable of empathy, totally focused on planning each trap with the dedication of those who defend the most distorted moral values and visions. Donnie Wahlberg also does a good job, giving us a believable character. The remaining cast does their job as cardboard characters who are there to die. Franky G. Is the worst off, thanks to a histrionic and stereotypical portrayal of a Latino drug dealer.

When we choose to watch a DC film, whatever it may be, we already know what we're in for: no matter how bad the script, how obscure the hero, it will surprise us with high quality CGI and effects, showing us how their multi-million dollar budgets were spent. Therefore, there's already an expectation among the public: a fantastic film, excellent for enjoying with popcorn and taking a date or two.

"Aquaman" is precisely that. Resurrecting a DC comic hero from our grandparents' era, it offers us a masterclass in CGI and the use of visual and sound effects. James Wan, a creative director who made his name in other films (in the horror genre, such as "Saw" or "The Conjuring"), provides a highly dynamic direction, capable of instilling movement and preventing the film from becoming sluggish or overly static... a direction that often sacrifices substance for style, and which, for this reason, feels more at home in this fantastic universe. This results in a fast-paced film, where everything happens quickly, taking the dazzled audience on a mind-boggling journey to the depths of the ocean. We don't have time to think about the story, or to properly absorb the ton of CGI and colorful visuals that bombard us at every moment. All of this is perfectly accompanied by an impressive and atmospheric soundtrack, and impeccable, immersive sound, that requires a good theater and loses much of its impact when watched at home. On the downside: in the many battles and combats, there is no blood spilled. Did they have salt water in their veins, or do we have to pretend we don't bleed to avoid offending sensibilities?

Of course, a film like this, no matter how successful it is at the box office - and this one certainly was! - isn't perfect and masks its flaws with CGI. For me, the most uncomfortable flaw was the mediocre writing of the script and dialogues. I'm not a comic book expert, so I can't say whether the character's story respected all the sacred canons that comic fans enshrined, but that's not what bothers me. I simply found it cliché: a romance destined to end badly, from which a son is born who is, from birth, destined to unite the worlds and show that everyone can live in harmony. Wow! I've seen this a million times! Can't they do better? Atlantis, whose myths date back to Ancient Greece, and about which there are countless fantastical books, is nothing more than a technologically advanced place that exists right under our noses? The film doesn't explore this universe or explain how we have almost magically ignored them! As for the dialogue, it's basically a bunch of good catchphrases, but sometimes seem lifted from other films and materials. On the plus side: the Maori phrases that Jason Momoa manages to introduce honor his Polynesian culture. Bravo!

As for the cast... this isn't a film that brings out the best in each actor, and James Wan has never been a good director of actors. That's his weak point! Even so, we have a very strong, super-luxurious and royally well-paid cast! I can understand the kind of appeal that leads talented actors to accept these films: besides offering a real chance of winning awards or Oscars, these projects guarantee work for years thanks to the multiple sequels, prequels, and spinoffs, for which they are called back to play the same roles in exchange for fat paychecks. It's almost the same of playing soccer in a Saudi Arabian team! This doesn't mean the actors are lazy; they're simply looking after their financial needs in an industry where they might have a job today, but be out of work for a long time later. Yes, the "dream factory" is cruel, and these films are easy money. Willem Dafoe and Nicole Kidman, for example, are actors whose talent no one dares question, but they haven't put in half the effort they would have with a deeper plot and solid, developed characters. They limit to the basics, knowing that they've already added value to the film simply by being there. Patrick Wilson is a cardboard villain, permanently unlikable, while Yahya Abdul-Mateen II played a character so redundant and expendable that he shouldn't have appeared. Amber Heard, a talentless beauty (in my opinion), is just the pretty face for today. Dolph Lundgreen, who suffers from the same chronic lack of acting talent, is here because he had to be, and he limits himself to being himself, but with a beard. Jason Momoa, a muscle giant from Hawaii who's good at fighting, is a virile choice for the main role and gives it a good dose of brainless testosterone. The only actor who deserves unqualified praise is Temuera Morrison, who shone in "Once Were Warriors," but will likely be remembered only for this magnificent role.