 |
| I can't believe they did the "SeSevenen" thing. |
You know the feeling? Sometimes you're just walking down the new release wall and BOOM there he is: looking out at you from the box like some slack-jawed, somewhat vacant-eyed drifter who you can tell was probably good looking back in the day but has now fattened up and exceeded the recommended storage capacity of his face. He just stares out at me with those sad blue eyes, as if some siren song were emanating from those once bright windows of the soul, singing "Please, Patrick. Take me home. Watch my movie. I know it's not always been the best of times, but please...for the history between us...give me another shot." And me, being the big softy for Val that I am, concede and give the guy another chance. "D'aww...okay, Val. Ya big lug."
This seldom works out in my favor.
You see, in the off chance that you were unaware, Val Kilmer hasn't been on a hot streak lately. In this case "lately" references nearly the last 20 years. As far as big box office goes, the last big Val Kilmer headlining movie was "Batman Forever." Since then he's appeared in lots of other movies, to be sure, but none of them have really been big. It's unfortunate because I honestly think that Val has been doing some of his best work since then, but not too many people see him. Val Kilmer really isn't a big name anymore. And that's a shame.
Most of his films nowadays are straight to video affairs that usually don't even have him in most of the movie. Usually he plays a supporting role and gets killed off about half an hour into the film. Of course, this doesn't stop them from slapping his face all over the cover like he's the main character. A safe rule of thumb is to assume that if it looks like the role you are currently watching him in took more than a weekend to film, his character is probably about to die.
"Listen, Mack...you got me till 5 on Sunday. I gotta get back to my other job at Footlocker."
This is a shame, because if it isn't clear already, I love Val Kilmer. Despite his current popularity placing him slightly below Nicolas Cage but a little above Steven Seagal, I think he is horribly underrated and underused in Hollywood, and he deserves better than straight to video schlock that gives him 20 minutes of screen time.
Which finally brings us about to "7 Below."
This is a tough one to talk about. It's not that it's overly good or bad, it's just kind of dull. These are always the hardest movies to talk about. The movies that really don't leave an impression on you one way or the other just have this nasty habit of slipping out of your mind so quickly that by the time you sit down and write about them, it's already mostly gone.
"7 Below" is a fairly standard setup in terms of the "spooky house" genre. About 100 years ago, a family was murdered in this creepy house by the youngest son. Now in the present day, a group of travelers are stranded by a storm and are forced to spend the night there. Before too long, people start turning up dead, and it starts to become a "whodonit."
Ving Rhames plays the dude who lives in the house, and it doesn't take too long to deduce that there will probably be something nefarious about him, mostly because besides him living by himself in a really spooky house, he's trying really hard to be helpful. And in case you wanted to know how to spot a bad guy before the reveal just look for the person being the most helpful. That's your man.
Pictured above: Prime suspect.
In case you were wondering whether or not that was a spoiler, not really. The real reveal as to who the killer is, while I won't say was overly clever, was slightly unexpected. At least, it was only expected after they reveal it and you say to yourself, "Well, duh, I guess. Should have seen that one coming." Perhaps someone else watching would spot it earlier. Of course, by that point of the film there were only 3 people left so it almost could have been a coin toss.
I will say that the camera work, set design, and in certain cases the acting was actually not that bad. The house looks effectively spooky without looking too obvious, and the lighting does make it pretty moody. In the hands of a scarier script it could have been quite effective. And had it been scary at all, that would have been nice too. But any kind of hope for scares that I may have had for the film were dashed pretty hard when the movie tried the awful, terrible, UNBELIEVABLY overused and un-scary mirror gag not once, but twice.
Twice? Are you kidding me? It's too much if you try it once! That's the horror movie equivalent of playing "Smoke on The Water" or "Stairway to Heaven" on your guitar in public. It's something that you just don't do!
This has worked ONE time in the history of movies...and you're looking at it.
The cast isn't the worst ensemble I've ever seen in one of these outings. Val Kilmer and Ving Rhames are unsurprisingly the best actors in it, and Val in particular does a rather convincing job as a sleazeball. Ving is okay, but his role is kind of cheesy and one-note. I think he plays a better badass than a quiet, subdued kind of creepy guy. This would have been a role better suited for Michael Clarke Duncan. Oh and there's a dude who talks like Schwarzenegger. It's pretty sweet.
There are some weaker links, however. Bonnie Somerville, whom you've seen in nothing unless you watched "NYPD Blue" or "The Ugly Truth" is pretty weak sauce as Val's wife. At least, she's not very good after he dies (spoiler alert). Leading up to his death they have a decent "we can't stand each other" chemistry, particularly a great scene at a gas station where he screws her out of coffee after hitting on the cashier. But as far as her grieving goes, it lasts for only one scene.
I mean, know you weren't overly fond of him, but he was still your husband, and you cared enough to freak out when he died, but 5 minutes later you're sitting on the couch like nothing happened, only mildly remarking that you want to leave like you're only slightly annoyed because you're having to spend the night in a place without fresh sheets. Is your grieving period literally that short? I don't blame her so much as the script, but you almost feel like they filmed the scenes out of order and changed Val's death to WAY earlier than what was in the script.
When "7 Below" gets to the ending, all the pieces fall into place and the mystery is solved, I couldn't help but feel like I had missed something. It's not that the story in the end didn't make sense, because it did...kind of...but overall it gave off the impression that a couple pages had been torn out of the script which would have explained just a few things more. And that's a problem with a horror film. Unless that movie is meant to be provocative and asks some pretty big, not easily answered questions of the viewer, the nature of the terror should be reasonably easy to comprehend, otherwise we aren't left with anything to relate to and be scared of.
"7 Below" did not ask any big questions. It's not trying to convey a message or be artsy or even trying to disturb us with the thought of the nameless terrors of the unknown. It's just a haunted house movie. Just tell us about the evil lurking in the basement and get on with it, otherwise I don't know what if anything I'm supposed to be afraid of. You can't just show me a spooky house and say "BOO! It's scary! WoooOOOOoooOOOoo!!!" That doesn't work on me, and it can be hard to have a positive view looking back on a haunted house movie which left me with more questions about the house than it gave me answers.
Unless it's this.
THE BOTTOM LINE - While I wouldn't call "7 Below" amateur in its tradecraft, its biggest problem is that it's just a story that in the end wasn't really worth telling, and the end, while almost hitting on some interesting ideas, never really pulls through. Recommended if you need your Val Kilmer fix, since he's pretty sweet in it, but otherwise skip it.
...And I still have NO IDEA what "7 Below" is supposed to mean.
No comments:
Post a Comment