"How'd it get burned? How'd it get burned?! How'd it get burned?! How'd it get burned?!"
What an odd and puzzling film. I genuinely think I've sacrificed some of my brain cells by choosing to watch this but in a weirdly good way. I'm not sure whether Nicolas Cage's involvement in a film has the writer(s) change it accordingly to fit him or if his choice of movies is always ones that seem so original.
Still, it's impressive how both films of his I've seen so far, Vampire's Kiss and this one, have such a peculiar identity and feel to them that you're not going to get elsewhere, not even films you've never heard of with barely a budget. Yet, at the same time, it's hard to tell whether that's because of his involvement (subtly, as he's not the director or writer) or if his film choices are genius. And that's so fascinating.
Thank God for Nicolas Cage for caring about acting instead of caring (more) about his image/reputation like mostly every other actor, especially those highly regarded. Thanks to that, he's pumping out all kinds of roles in all types of films while other actors micromanage their acting careers and the roles/films they choose. So what if most of his movies don't have super high budgets with highly regarded directors and writers? He's keeping cinema alive, regardless of how you feel about most of his films, and everyone is oblivious.
Based on this film's consensus, most people hated it, thinking it was one of the worst films ever, and I'm at a loss. I guess that it's mainly due to how it's a remake, especially of a well-received film. That has to be at least 90% of it, as aspects of the film were good.
For example, the budget wasn't that low, so the overall production value was solid. Quite solid, even: the island locations looked great. As an extension of that, the cinematography by Paul Sarossy was good. The score by Angelo Badalamenti was even better; by far one of the best aspects of the film and reminiscent of Brian Tyler's score for Law Abiding Citizen with an eldritch-esque twist. The themes of isolation and indoctrination, as well as the general eerie and sinister tone, were quite effective. And, of course, Nicolas Cage's performance was good: there were also a few signature moments of Nicolas Cage-esque outbursts that he does so well, which is probably intentionally included in his films now, akin to Tom Cruise and his efficiency at running; the other acting performances, particularly by Molly Parker and Kate Beahan, as well as Ellen Burstyn, were good as well.
When it comes down to this film and Vampire's Kiss, the only Nicolas Cage films I've seen, both are pretty much the same, more or less, regarding objectivity. Based on audience reception, they're not even comparable. Most people detest this film, while the reception toward Vampire's Kiss was more evened out or mostly enjoyed, to an extent. My outlook is that I found the latter significantly more enjoyable. However, I also found this film enjoyable. I think its hate is excessive. I don't think this was a bad film.
Review by LineageBlockedParent2022-10-05T21:38:23Z
"How'd it get burned? How'd it get burned?! How'd it get burned?! How'd it get burned?!"
What an odd and puzzling film. I genuinely think I've sacrificed some of my brain cells by choosing to watch this but in a weirdly good way. I'm not sure whether Nicolas Cage's involvement in a film has the writer(s) change it accordingly to fit him or if his choice of movies is always ones that seem so original.
Still, it's impressive how both films of his I've seen so far, Vampire's Kiss and this one, have such a peculiar identity and feel to them that you're not going to get elsewhere, not even films you've never heard of with barely a budget. Yet, at the same time, it's hard to tell whether that's because of his involvement (subtly, as he's not the director or writer) or if his film choices are genius. And that's so fascinating.
Thank God for Nicolas Cage for caring about acting instead of caring (more) about his image/reputation like mostly every other actor, especially those highly regarded. Thanks to that, he's pumping out all kinds of roles in all types of films while other actors micromanage their acting careers and the roles/films they choose. So what if most of his movies don't have super high budgets with highly regarded directors and writers? He's keeping cinema alive, regardless of how you feel about most of his films, and everyone is oblivious.
Based on this film's consensus, most people hated it, thinking it was one of the worst films ever, and I'm at a loss. I guess that it's mainly due to how it's a remake, especially of a well-received film. That has to be at least 90% of it, as aspects of the film were good.
For example, the budget wasn't that low, so the overall production value was solid. Quite solid, even: the island locations looked great. As an extension of that, the cinematography by Paul Sarossy was good. The score by Angelo Badalamenti was even better; by far one of the best aspects of the film and reminiscent of Brian Tyler's score for Law Abiding Citizen with an eldritch-esque twist. The themes of isolation and indoctrination, as well as the general eerie and sinister tone, were quite effective. And, of course, Nicolas Cage's performance was good: there were also a few signature moments of Nicolas Cage-esque outbursts that he does so well, which is probably intentionally included in his films now, akin to Tom Cruise and his efficiency at running; the other acting performances, particularly by Molly Parker and Kate Beahan, as well as Ellen Burstyn, were good as well.
When it comes down to this film and Vampire's Kiss, the only Nicolas Cage films I've seen, both are pretty much the same, more or less, regarding objectivity. Based on audience reception, they're not even comparable. Most people detest this film, while the reception toward Vampire's Kiss was more evened out or mostly enjoyed, to an extent. My outlook is that I found the latter significantly more enjoyable. However, I also found this film enjoyable. I think its hate is excessive. I don't think this was a bad film.