|
|
|
|
[REVIEWS
> SUSPENDED ANIMATION]
|
| 10/16/03 |
 |
| Laura
Esterman and Sage Allen as the cannibalistic sisters |
|
| "A
new curious horror entry" |
|
Reviewed by Quentin Lee
|
| |
| A new curious horror entry, veteran director
John Hancock's "Suspended Animation" is also
a flawed film that shuttles between genres such as action,
horror, melodrama and psychological thriller but it never
quite gels together, if you know what I mean? At the same
time, it's precisely the film's flaws that make it an
interesting horror film. |
| |
| The film opens promisingly with the protagonist, Tom
Kempton, a Hollywood animator, who gets stranded from
a snowmobile accident and finds a house with two cannibalistic
sisters who very soon capture him a la "Misery"
(which could have been a fascinating film by itself).
But Tom narrowly escapes in the first 15 minutes after
his friends rescue him and end up in a shoot-out with
the sisters and a gorgeously filmed avalanche. Afterward,
as we're led to believe that the sisters are dead, Tom
gets obsessed with one of them and he finds out that she
has a long lost daughter in Hollywood. The movie then
veers into a semi-"Vertigo" plot and some interesting
plot twists which you'll have to find out. |
| |
 |
|
The
excellent and beautiful Maria Cina as a Cannibal's long
lost daughter
|
| |
| What I do admire about the film is that it's both very
ambitious and interesting in its concept and plotting
and it's well-made (the tech credits are excellent). However,
the story execution doesn't quite work despite solid but
somewhat bland directing and good performances from almost
everyone. The writer/director seems to be caught in between
wanting to make the movie more "horror" or "gothic"
and trying to simultaneously have a psychological dimension
and human element to the drama. But the truth is, the
plot is ridiculous to begin with, why not have more fun? |
| |
| Maybe that's right... the film or the director (I hate
to say that) takes itself way too seriously and doesn't
have enough fun in pushing the boundaries of his characters
and the story. John Hancock seems to want to keep all
his characters psychologically grounded and he ends not
pushing the genre limits in the film. |
| |
|
A bad good film is sometimes a frustrating experience,
because you want the movie to be better, but it just
doesn't get better. So when you leave the theater, you're
left with a few good concepts and moments from it...
and forever be bugged saying that "it could have
been better" in your head. Because you want it
to be a good movie, it disappoints you. So that's sort
of how I feel. As a horror thriller and indie film fan,
I have all the reasons to love it but I just wish the
film could be more....
|
| |
John Hancock seems to have independently
raised the 2-million budget through his company Film Acres.
Power to him that after even an Oscar nomination and some
studio pictures he still has the passion working away
independently outside Hollywood. And again, I really would
have loved this movie for its genre, its concept, its
quirky characters, but the movie just doesn't quite work.
Still, it's a worthy Halloween first-run entry, way better
than the straight-to-video junk..jpg) |
|
|
|
|
Now
in theatrical release
|
| NOW PLAYING in theaters in select U.S. cities,
check the U.S. distributor's website for showing info. and future
release on video: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
