[SPRING
screens Saturday April 18th at midnight and Wednesday April 22nd at
7:30 pm at the Capitol Theatre.]
Review
by Bob Ignizio
One
can see why filmmaker Richard Linklatter liked SPRING
so much: in many ways, it's a lot like his own BEFORE
SUNRISE. Both films
are nearly plotless romances in which an average American guy and a
beautiful European woman meet and fall in love while on holiday. The
couples then spend most of their respective movies primarily engaged
in conversation. The key difference in SPRING is
that its female lead, Louise (Nadia Hilker), turns out to be an
immortal shape shifter who occasionally loses control and kills
people, a fact she wants to keep secret from her would-be boyfriend
Evan (Lou Taylor Pucci).
To an
extent I appreciate what co-directors Justin Benson and Aaron
Moorehead are trying to do here by avoiding the usual methods of
building suspense and generating atmosphere used by most horror
films. It's a kind of matter of fact, “natural” approach to
horror that isn't interested in jump scares, or frankly much in the
way of scares, period, although it does aim to unsettle. In that
regard, parts of it work quite well. However, the film is far less
successful in avoiding the cliches of the romance genre. And since
SPRING is much more
of a romance than a horror film, that's kind of a big problem.
Evan
is a slacker dude with not a lot going on – at least nothing good;
he does have the cops back home looking for him – who has a
sexually ravenous supermodel/genius immediately offer herself up to
him. Maybe this has happened to someone somewhere at some time, but
frankly the whole immortal monster thing seems more believable. And
sure, I get it that such is the way vampires, succubi, and the like
operate. But Louise actually falls in love with the guy despite his
near total lack of personality. What is a 2000 year old immortal
genius going to talk about with a twenty something bro? A whole lot
of nothing, as it turns out, which isn't good given that most of the
film consists of them talking.
SPRING
further alienates with drab, washed out cinematography looks as if
it was shot through a filter best described as “bad instagram”.
Never has Italy looked less appealing. The frequent shots of various
insects, arachnids, and sea life that pop up throughout the film as a
kind of foreshadowing also don't work, feeling on the nose and heavy
handed.
And
then there are the attempts to explain Louise's condition. She talks
at great length about how she's a creature of science, not magic, but
her scientific explanations are about on par with the exposition in
some schlocky fifties sci-fi flick. Not to mention it has little
bearing on anything pertinent to the plot.
Really,
though, my main issue with the film is that it's so damn boring.
There's probably a good thirty minute TV episode here, but as a
feature it's tedious. If only “Monsters” were still on the air. 2
out of 4 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We approve all legitimate comments. However, comments that include links to irrelevant commercial websites and/or websites dealing with illegal or inappropriate content will be marked as spam.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.