Red Riding Hood (D+ or 1/4 stars)
'Red Riding Hood' (directed by Catherine Hardwicke, Twilight) has received some pretty bad reviews. I expected to go into the theater and not love the film, but little did I know just how bang-on correct the critics were. Despite looking pretty neat, this movie kinda stinks. In a medieval village nestled on the edge of a huge forest lives a young woman named Valerie (Amanda Seyfried); who is in love with a penniless woodcutter named Peter (Shiloh Fernandez). He broods, she swoons, & they've liked each other since they were children. Much to their dismay, her mother & father (Virginia Madsen, Billy Burke) have betrothed her to the wealthier Henry (Max Irons). He seems like a nice dude, but she has no feelings for him.
Valerie - who enjoys wearing red - frequently visits her grandmother (Julie Christie, what are you DOING in this?), but the elderly woman fails to offer opinion on the Peter vs. Henry debacle. This feeble romantic triangle takes up a brunt of the plot (zzzzzz ...), but the other major plotline consists of the murder of Valerie's sister by way of the town's dreaded werewolf. For years, the town maintained a truce with the wolf; offering a monthly animal sacrifice. But the wolf is over it. Terrified, the local priest summons werewolf hunter Father Solomon (a scene-chewing Gary Oldman, what are you DOING in this?), who arrives prepared to sink his teeth into the case. And with time, Solomon fears that the werewolf could actually be any one of the townsfolk! So, who is the werewolf? And is he/she directly affiliated with Valerie? Deadly, and deadly dull proceedings ensue.
For the first 20 min. or so, 'Red Riding Hood' enjoys a 'this is so bad, it's good' vibe. The mystery component (who IS the wolf?) is promising, early on. The acting, the dialogue; all delivered with an almost camp-like, stilted quality. And Amanda Seyfried is the only one who acts/speaks somewhat convincingly while her fellow older actors ham it up. That's fine. I even chuckled. I knew that was the intent. i.e., show the damsel in distress all serious while everyone around her acts as if they're in a different movie altogether. But - umm - I was wrong. That was NOT the intent. The film is just bad from beginning to end. The tone goes from 'so bad it's good' to outright awful when the plot descends into boring preposterousness.
In fact, the narrative framework went something like this: attractive actor posturing ... wolf attack ... Amanda Seyfried staring into the distance ... drab dialogue ... attractive actor posturing ... pretentious self-seriousness ... wolf attack ... monotonous music ... repeat. Why does a romantic triangle evade this classic faerie tale in the first place? Why is there a witch hunt? Why is the "grandma, what big eyes, ears, teeth, you have" segment treated like an afterthought (arguably, the story's most iconic passage)? I guess it's hard to fill 100 min. from a 2-page source material. No, strike that. It's easy; with a stellar script. I think the screenwriter tried to muster up themes of sex & death for the teen crowd to appreciate as they watch this film. But it is too faint to make an impression.
Is Mandy Walker's (Australia) cinematography beautiful? Sure. The outdoor scenes, lighting, & swooping cameras create a fantastical, almost haunted atmosphere; we get a real sense of the isolation of this village. Are the sets impressive? Well, they are from a far. Up close, they look like glorified Lincoln Logs. The costumes? Dreamy. So yes, the film looked good. And the young actors (Seyfried, Fernandez, Irons) all fit the mold of steamy young protagonists. But the lifeless script, climax, & conclusion are so ill-conceived & blah that any strengths are deadened. Furthermore, on a technical note, the CGI wolf & effects-aided blood/gore all look so unbelievably fake that no true scares are to be had. Ugh, 'RRH' almost reminded me of an M. Night Shyamalan type of miss. Next.
Valerie - who enjoys wearing red - frequently visits her grandmother (Julie Christie, what are you DOING in this?), but the elderly woman fails to offer opinion on the Peter vs. Henry debacle. This feeble romantic triangle takes up a brunt of the plot (zzzzzz ...), but the other major plotline consists of the murder of Valerie's sister by way of the town's dreaded werewolf. For years, the town maintained a truce with the wolf; offering a monthly animal sacrifice. But the wolf is over it. Terrified, the local priest summons werewolf hunter Father Solomon (a scene-chewing Gary Oldman, what are you DOING in this?), who arrives prepared to sink his teeth into the case. And with time, Solomon fears that the werewolf could actually be any one of the townsfolk! So, who is the werewolf? And is he/she directly affiliated with Valerie? Deadly, and deadly dull proceedings ensue.
For the first 20 min. or so, 'Red Riding Hood' enjoys a 'this is so bad, it's good' vibe. The mystery component (who IS the wolf?) is promising, early on. The acting, the dialogue; all delivered with an almost camp-like, stilted quality. And Amanda Seyfried is the only one who acts/speaks somewhat convincingly while her fellow older actors ham it up. That's fine. I even chuckled. I knew that was the intent. i.e., show the damsel in distress all serious while everyone around her acts as if they're in a different movie altogether. But - umm - I was wrong. That was NOT the intent. The film is just bad from beginning to end. The tone goes from 'so bad it's good' to outright awful when the plot descends into boring preposterousness.
In fact, the narrative framework went something like this: attractive actor posturing ... wolf attack ... Amanda Seyfried staring into the distance ... drab dialogue ... attractive actor posturing ... pretentious self-seriousness ... wolf attack ... monotonous music ... repeat. Why does a romantic triangle evade this classic faerie tale in the first place? Why is there a witch hunt? Why is the "grandma, what big eyes, ears, teeth, you have" segment treated like an afterthought (arguably, the story's most iconic passage)? I guess it's hard to fill 100 min. from a 2-page source material. No, strike that. It's easy; with a stellar script. I think the screenwriter tried to muster up themes of sex & death for the teen crowd to appreciate as they watch this film. But it is too faint to make an impression.
Is Mandy Walker's (Australia) cinematography beautiful? Sure. The outdoor scenes, lighting, & swooping cameras create a fantastical, almost haunted atmosphere; we get a real sense of the isolation of this village. Are the sets impressive? Well, they are from a far. Up close, they look like glorified Lincoln Logs. The costumes? Dreamy. So yes, the film looked good. And the young actors (Seyfried, Fernandez, Irons) all fit the mold of steamy young protagonists. But the lifeless script, climax, & conclusion are so ill-conceived & blah that any strengths are deadened. Furthermore, on a technical note, the CGI wolf & effects-aided blood/gore all look so unbelievably fake that no true scares are to be had. Ugh, 'RRH' almost reminded me of an M. Night Shyamalan type of miss. Next.