This week I watched two movies that may not be so well known. Neither of them will likely be mentioned in the same breath again. One was entertaining and one that could be perceived as important. Neither movies is both. Does a movie need to be both?
What We Do in the Shadows is a faux documentary about a house full of vampires. As it is a comedy, it is often more about how the vampires deal with being roommates Real World style and less about bloddy vampire action. The movie is often very funny and clever. It knows its vampire mythology well, and does a great job making a parody of all that. To U.S. audiences the only possible familiar face would be Jemaine Clements, my favorite of the Flight of the Conchords pair. The movie clocks in at less than 90 minutes, but the comedy still gets a little repetitive. This is a problem I have with most comedies though. For the most part though, the film succeeds in its purpose and that purpose is to entertain. I would expect nothing more.
The Russian film Leviathan is a different story. It received great acclaim at the Canne Film Festival and was nominated for an Oscar for best Foreign Language Film. I have to think that the fact that the film takes on Russia's current political climate has to be a big part of the acclaim. The film is neatly two and a half hours long and there isn't enough action here to sustain an hour. There are lots of drab scenic shots and people sitting deep in thought. The movie really doesn't get going plot wise until about an hour and 50 minutes into it. AN HOUR AND FIFTY MINUTES! That's when most movies are ending! And yet film snobs (I'm not going to lie. I can be one) have anointed it as agood or great film because it's important with a capital I! Well great it's not entertaining with any kind of e. Does an important film need to be entertaining? It does if it wants me to get through it without nodding off!
What We Do in the Shadows 7 out of 10
Leviathan 4 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment