Entry 5: RE: "Raven" - Clumsily UnPoetic

Posted by: Bradley Redder

First, let me just say that outside of the profoundly silly delivery of "Nevermore," that horseback chase sequence was by far my favorite part of this movie. If the detective sending Poe after the murderer instead of any one of the handful of others far more suited to the task is the set-up, then Poe falling off the horse nine seconds later and emptying his gun into shadows in the mist is the perfect punchline. The only thing it was missing was a few seconds of struggling before Poe could actually mount the horse and take off. It was gloriously dumb, and yet maybe the truest moment in the entire film: Why on Earth would Poe last much longer than that on a horse? Or know how to aim and fire a gun? This might beg the question: "Why am I still criticizing it for being ridiculous and out of place, then?" Because this happens so late in the film, and McTeigue has spent the previous eighty minutes trying to condition the audience into seeing Poe as a Hollywood hero. So, though it does succeed in providing the most entertaining sequence of the entire film, it is a complete failure and falls flat on its face in regard to its actual intent.

Which brings me back to the question I asked you... I was not talking about removing Poe or keeping him. What I'm curious to know is whether you think the more entertaining film would have been a series of weird "Nevermore" lines and goofy horseback scenes, or a more true-to-life depiction of Poe in a darker, more psychologically twisted film in more capable hands. We both agreed that this concept has potential, but potential for what, exactly? It relates to the larger question of Poe's superfluousness in this story. Personally, I think I'm so caught up in wishing that there had been more of these dopey, ham-fisted Poe references that I want the fully-realized goofy version of The Raven. I wanted The Tell-Tale Tambourine. As it stands, it's just about halfway in between: too silly to take seriously, but too labored to provide enough of that silliness for me to have a good enough time.

Though the way you interpreted that question makes me wonder now if it would have been better to scrap Poe altogether. I know it's not really fair to judge a movie based on how true to life or source material it is... I understand and fully stand by dramatic license and all, but at the same time I don't think it's fair, either, to just cut-and-paste an interesting historical figure into a dull script in order to jazz it up without at least putting any of that person's traits into the character. Having Poe ensures a certain expectation that the audience will have, and not delivering on that in any way is not only unfair, but it's also incredibly distracting. I'm supposed to look at this gun-wielding asshole running around after a murderer for ninety minutes and see him as the guy that wrote some of the most fantastic poems and mystery stories I've ever read? Not happening. So, given that this was an obnoxiously bland and poorly constructed film, I have to say that I might have been a little more willing to suspend my disbelief and go with it had the guy been named Steve... Because Steve knows how to ride that fucking horse.

Entry 4: RE: "Raven" - It's not im-Poe-tant

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

I think with or without Edgar Allan Poe this would still be a really bad movie. I find it difficult to come up with anything that really stood out to me as original. Basically, everyone has seen this movie before -- except this time Edgar Allan Poe happens to be a character in the story.

All of the fun in The Raven comes from those moments where the story becomes too silly to take seriously. Take for example one of the film's chase scenes: we have the police and Edgar Allan Poe hunting down the murderer. Never for a second would I have guessed that this sequence would end with Poe riding horseback, shooting his pistol like a hero from an old western. Scenes like this are so unintentionally ridiculous that it's hard not to be a little entertained.

I also kept having to remind myself that John Cusack is playing Edgar Allan Poe. The character is never believable or interesting at all. It's almost as if the other actors on screen were calling John Cusack "Poe" all the time as a way to constantly remind the audience that Edgar Allan Poe is a character in this movie.

I admit that removing the Poe gimmick would make some of the scenes less (unintentionally) funny. However, I'm not sure that my enjoyment level would change all that much. There just isn't enough in this movie to really keep me interested. 

Entry 3: RE: "Raven" - Po(e)stponed

Posted by: Bradley Redder

I just wanted to quickly comment on the question you posed at the end of your post... Why Poe? It's an important question given how much this film failed him not only as a mystery writer but also as an actual historical figure. I had planned to address it in a later post. The short answer is yes, I think he was definitely tacked on to a lame script... There's no way this was originally intended to be a movie based on/about/featuring Edgar Allan Poe. We both touched on it in our reviews, but I think your observation nails it... It is exactly like putting a celebrity's image on an everyday product in order to make it seem cool.

So I'll put off answering in full for now and ask you a related question: which film would you prefer... The silly, goofy, fun movie that The Raven sometimes was and which I started craving halfway through this dud, or the moody, atmospheric thriller that it could have been had Poe actually been utilized as more than a character name?

And if you're wondering... There are plenty more Poe puns where those came from.

Entry 1: RE: "Raven" - What did I just see?

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

While I liked the gory scenes, I agree that they seem made for 3D. Very strange. It's almost as if this was intended, as so many films are presently, to be a 3D blockbuster. After all, it seems to have all the makings of a really fun adventure flick -- great cast, murder, a damsel in distress, gunplay. 

Yet, the end result is really flat. Nothing ends up being really fun at all -- though the potential for fun was there.  I wouldn't necessarily mind the hokey, generic, script if it were all packaged in a fun movie. The only real enjoyment I found came from mocking the movie moments that we've all seen previously in countless other films. 

I guess that the only question I have is this: was this film intended to be more, or is this just some boring movie that the filmmakers added Edgar Allan Poe into as a gimmick to sell tickets? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter.

Chad's Take: "The Raven" (2012) - 1 Star

I’m going to assume by now that you’ve seen the trailer for The Raven, a film by V For Vendetta director, James McTeigue. You know the premise: a fictional Edgar Allan Poe (John Cusack) is helping hunt down a serial murderer, who seems deeply inspired by Poe’s work. This story is told through a series of chase scenes, shootouts, and other movie clichés.

To say that the plot unfolds without originality would be a complete understatement. This is a formula movie, and a very poor one at that. The Raven displays a visual style that seems to strive for mediocrity, and only succeeds at reaching that level some of the time. The film shows very little creativity in its visual style, and sometimes it looks downright ugly.

The cinematography is as formulaic as the film’s script — every shot seems borrowed from somewhere else; every scene seems crafted around a stale idea from the past. While I expected to see a film heavily influenced by past “whodunits”, The Raven fails so completely to deliver anything original that it seems like little more than a cheap knockoff.