Well, 'Devil' Isn't Too Bad, But It Ain't That Heavenly Either

Release Date: September 17, 2010

Starring: Chris Messina, Jenny O'Hara, Bokeem Woodbine, Bojana Novakovic, Geoffrey Arend, Jacob Vargas, Logan Marshall-Green

Director: John Erick Dowdle

Writer: M. Night Shyamalan (Story) and Brian Nelson (Screenplay)

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for violence and disturbing images, thematic material and some language, including sexual references.

Trailer

Official Movie Website

I think, from my very first review in The Little Critic ('The Last Airbender') you can safely assume how disappointed I have been in M. Night recently. Either his films are just not what they used to be or they have always been like that and  it is just getting old now.

We all know his storytelling style almost always includes a twist in the end and there is nothing wrong with that, but it seems like he's been trying too hard with the twists lately. 'Devil' is not an exception to the twists-concept, but it is not exactly a bad or good thing.

I think it is worth saying that he did NOT direct 'Devil,' but wrote the story. 'Devil' is the first film of The Night Chronicles production company; this company plans to create more films based on supernatural tones in a modern society.

In 'Devil,' through seemingly random events, five strangers are brought together in an elevator and evidentally trapped as it comes to a sudden, complete stop.

This mere inconvience becomes a fight for their lives as they slowly realize that one of them is not who they appear to be; that the devil is among them...

The film is fairly short, about 80 minutes, and, as stated before, not a good or bad movie. Actors are believable as mediocre, random people, especially since most of them are random actors who I am not familar with. Exceptions for Chris Messina ('Julie and Julia') and Geoffrey Arend ('(500) Days of Summer')

I think there is a moral to be learned from this film that probably does not have to be there, but that is just how I feel about it.

If 'Devil' was a TV episode of a show similar to 'The Twilight Zone,' it would have translated well as there is not much you can do with the story (they ARE in an elevator, for Pete's sake), but it is still a good premise for a short one. I do not think 'Devil' stands out enough to be its own feature-length film.

So, to be blunt, it is a decent start for my faith to come back to M. Night Shyamalan. Despite its moral lesson of forgiveness, 'Devil' does not give me a good reason to forgive Night for the atrocity that is 'The Last Airbender' just yet. Perhaps the next few films he spews out will change my mind...or condemn him to the Devil for all eternity.

Rent worthy? Yeah, if you really must know what happened on the elevator, I'd just rent it. Don't shell out money in the theaters; shell it out in your nearest Blockbuster or have Netflix deliver it to you when 'Devil' becomes available. I already made that mistake of spending money, well actually, someone else did for me, and I'm grateful for that.

DVD/Blu-ray worthy? Ha...no.

Keep on watchin'

The Little Critic

'The Last Airbender' Did Not Blow Me Away

This little critic watched the movie. This little critic was not happy.

'The Last Airbender' follows the story of a young 12-year old monk known as Aang who is found frozen in an iceberg by two Southern Water Tribe siblings named Katara and her brother, Sokka.

We learn that he is not only the last Airbender in the world (hence the title, duh), but we also learn that he is the Avatar, the only person who can connect with the Spirit World and master bending all four elements. (Water, Earth, Fire, Air) It is up to him to restore peace to a world at war for 100 years, but to do that, he must master the other elements and the Avatar State (the time when his eyes and tattoo glow blue) and try not to get captured by banished Fire-Nation Prince Zuko and his uncle, Iroh. All this at age 12.

All I had to worry about when I was 12 was what I was having for lunch at school and filling up my Pokedex in the Pokemon Crystal game.

This movie is based on the hit Nickelodeon series 'Avatar: The Last Airbender.' Due to friggen James Cameron and the blue people, they had to remove 'Avatar' from the movie title.

Damn you, blue people. Look at his smug face.

But I can't stay mad at James Cameron cause there's another director that throughly pissed me off: M. Night Shyamalan.

"Could this be my directorial comeback? Let's raise the hopes a little bit and..NO, IT'S CRAP AGAIN! And I made you pay for it, mwhahaha!! Aight, I'm gonna write the next script on the money ya'll gave me."

I had faith in Shyamalan. I really did. I recently got into the cartoon series a few months ago and loved it. I avoided it many times in the past and ridiculed my little sisters. If I knew a crazy scientist with a time machine DeLorean, I would go back in time and slap myself in the back of the head and just make myself watch it. This is a series where I thought, "This would make such a great film. They need to make it!"

I got my wish, along with millions of other fans. When I heard it was Shyamalan doing it, I felt skeptical, but I thought, "This cartoon is so good. There is no way that even SHYAMALAN can screw this up and I liked 'The Sixth Sense'...'Signs' was all right...I actually liked 'The Village.'"

So, from a perspective of someone who is familar with the show, what's the big deal and problem about this movie?

This was supposed to be a movie to get those who avoided the cartoon to be familiar with the series' well-developed and surprisingly mature story through live-action.

I followed the movie well. I knew what was going on because in my mind, I filled in the gaps with the events from the cartoon that the movie had missed.

Yet, despite that, I felt robbed. Why? Cause those who didn't know the story, did not get the big picture of Aang's journey. This is a child. He doesn't want these responsibilties at first. He just wants to be a regular kid and everyone expects so much of him. The movie and actors failed to portray that emotion and I think that is what makes the cartoon seem more human.






















"Oh, I see, the column on the left is the cartoon and the column on the right are the actors cause there's a lot more depth and emotion to their faces."

I'm not asking Shyamalan to put in every single detail from the cartoon into the film. I know how hard it is to condense stories. I had to do it once for an adaptation of 'Peter Pan.' It's a pain in the Avatar. You have to pick and choose which parts and characters are more relevant and more important to the story. Yet, he changes things and removes things that matter...except for the name-pronounciations...that didn't matter at all and he still changed it.

It's like remaking 'Star Wars' and giving the Jedis guns instead of lightsabers. Why do that? It'd just piss people off and do absolutely nothing to the story.

What I am saying is, this movie deserved better and it just didn't get it from M. Night. Nice try, but I'm honestly hoping for a reboot. The Hulk got it, The Punisher got one, Spider-Man is (unnecessarily) getting one, why can't Aang?

2/5

One point for trying, one point just cause I'm nice. That's right, Shyamalan, you have my pity.

What are your thoughts about this? Anything that grinds your gears about the film/director/actors/script?