fine whine

I forgot to mention one thing about Darkness yesterday; it does have one genuinely creepy shot. Late in the movie, amid a near-montage of running-though-hallways-with-bleeding-walls bits there's a shot of some swings in the kitchen. They do not belong there, as we were shown them at least five other times and we know fairly certain that they are, in fact, out in the backyard. So it's a bit creepy to see them in the kitchen. Well, maybe you just need to see it*.

But that was yesterday. Today I watched another so-called thriller, and even though it wasn't really a better film, I enjoyed it much more. It was Cube 2: Hypercube, the sequel to the underrated low-budget Cube, which I had rather enjoyed when I watched it a couple years ago. Neither movie, despite being described as 'scary', is scary or frightening, and this second one is considerably less gory or creepy than its predecessor.

The major difference between the two could well be the entire production team, director included, that did not return for the second film. That's one way to avoid a sophomore slump, I suppose.

Fresh cast and crew aside, Hypercube is nevertheless still very much a sequel. One of the characters is aware of (if not responsible for) the first cube thing (as seen in the first movie) and provides what little transition is given to explain the increased complexity and strangeness of this second cube thing. He, of course, is dispatched before he can explain anything useful to the rest of the cast. The special effect that does him in is discussed at length in the DVD extras, but I must admit that even after having heard their intentions and re-watched the scene, the filmmakers' intentions and final results are not so obviously well translated as they may think. This is largely irrelevant, as so much of what is happening is not meant to be explained but just survived, so it doesn't really matter or detract from the proceedings. After all, this isn't supposed to be completely explained, since it isn't really supposed to be explainable even inside the movie, though the characters attempt to do just that more than once. To admit inside the movie that the reality of what is happening isn't really possible is either very bold or very cheesy, and I can't decide which.

It's just not something that I want to think about for very long. I enjoyed watching the movie while I was watching it, and wasn't really thinking about the plot holes and sheer stupidity here and there. Suspension of disbelief, I guess they call it.

Back to the differences between this one and the first Cube, though. This one's a lot brighter, as the walls look to be made almost out of light. This time around the CGI budget was greatly increased, and even for the shots that aren't hyperkinetic killer razor cube-things the computer effects are well-integrated into the film so as to not be noticeable. It wasn't until I listened to the commentary that I realized a number of shots could not have been done optically and hadn't thought much of it since they weren't big effects shots. Technically, then, well done.

It gets cheesy at times, and dull at others (never have I seen a more boring zero-gravity love scene) but overall Hypercube is an enjoyable enough movie for people who aren't too interested in thinking about realistic physics for an hour and a half or so. Hardcore fans of the first movie seem to dislike this one, as I've seen on message boards and elsewhere, but for a casual fan like me, it's likable enough.

* By saying "...you just need to see it," I am not actually recommending that you watch this Darkness, even for that one scene. I cannot be held responsible for any harm caused as a result of persons watching said movie.