Review of Pontypool (2009) by Max M — 06 May 2012

Do you hate it when a woman jumps at your window in the middle of the night? Especially on Valentine's Day?

Me too.

So does Grant Mazzy. It freaked him out.

Grant Mazzy, played by Stephen McHattie (Hollis Mason), used to be a talk radio superstar, but now he reads the weather and updates school closings for a small radio station in small town called Pontypool.

On his way to work one morning, Mazzy almost runs over some more than mildly confused woman. Later, odd reports come in, about a shoot-out at a riot between Pontypool policemen and naked ice fishers with missing body parts screaming nonsense.

But really, is that so odd?

Now, Pontypool is so very well done in many areas, but fails in more than one.

Pontypool is one of those films that have a plot that is better left unexplained.

Its greatest success is an extraordinary one. One that has never had such impact on me like any other film.

POSITIVES.

But before I explain Pontypool's greatest success, friends, is that you must know that the film is shot in one location throughout its whole running time: The radio station.

It occasionally leaves the studio, but only once or twice. Maybe three. But whatever. So, the vast majority of the film takes place in the station's studio. It is very claustrophobic. But in an effective and purposeful manner. It even goes from the studio and into the booth. Making it even more claustrophobic.

Personally, though, claustrophobic films never bother me. I never care if a film takes place in one location. It seems like a lot of people find that displeasing. I do not understand that.

Since that has now been briefly explained, I can continue on about Pontypool's greatest achievement: Its way of not revealing any of the disturbing horrific details we obtain.

Ken Loney, the station's traffic reporter, calls in from time to time giving information about the riot he oversees. But we never see Ken or what Ken sees.

Not on the screen, anyway.

He goes deeper into each and every detail about what he is watching, as things get closer and closer to him as well.

And it. Is. Terrifying.

I could hardly sit still. And all it is verbal detail.

It does this for the first forty to fifty minutes of the film, if I recall correctly.

No film has done this so well. I wish the whole film was done this way, never revealing any of the images that are being spoken to us, but the chances are that the filmmakers did not realize how effective this was.

Gosh. If only they had known.

The music also helped convey this sense of terror when Ken calls in.

Freaky stuff.

So the soundtrack was a positive as well for the film than a negative. It was not your typical horror soundtrack.

Well. It might be. But it was used too well to tell. If it is a generic horror soundtrack, it did not seem like it considering how it was dealt with.

I hope that makes sense?

Three POSITIVES so far.

1) Claustrophobic style.

2) Torturous verbal details.

3) Soundtrack.

The cinematography was also very, very good. Everything was so crisp and detailed, and at the same time, it all looked so smooth and creamy. I will not even try to explain what I mean by smooth and creamy. But that is how I saw it. And I think it makes sense to have crisp, detailed cinematography because of that is how the images Ken Foley sees is presented to us viewers.

Nice work.

Stephen McHattie's performance was absolutely fantastic. He had the looks, the attitude, the style, and the VOICE to nail this role. He did nothing short of nailing it. His performance was so convincing and natural. Great stuff.

The other performances were pretty good, too. The runner up being the station's producer, Sydney Briar, played by Lisa Houle. She was super good.

Georgina Reilly was good with the role she was given. It was not one worth much or had much, but she did what she could with it and I would say it payed off for what it was.

The guy that plays Dr Mendez, Hrant Alianak, was silly and amusing. Played quite well.

Another great success of Pontypool, and a major one, is its sound / audio.

Most of the film's dialogue was well written (writer props!) and spoken through radio microphones and that is exactly how we viewers hear it. As if we had those headphones on in the studio. It is rare to come by a film with such good audio and sound.

The film's camerawork was uber good. During the start of the morning's radio broadcast, the camera was constantly moving along smoothly. Complimenting the broadcast. Then when things get crazy and creepy, so does the camera. There are pretty nice shots complimenting that. It also has some of the best compositions I have seen in a long, long time in today's cinema.

Props Bruce MacDonald!

And kudos for you Tony Burgess!

NEGATIVES.

Pontypool had a pretty darn good premise, or at least had lots of potential, but the writer felt like for some reason he had to explain how everything was happening and why. That is where the film hits its biggest downfall. Many films consist of plots that are left best unexplained.

Planet Of The Apes, for instance.

Pontypool is now another example.

What is really weird about its explanation of everything, is that how / why it happens is not only nonsensical and stupid, but its cure makes sense. The cure is dumb, but it makes sense. This is another first Pontypool did. Having an explanation that makes sense but having a cure that does.

Hmm ...

I do not want to say how it was ruined by all this, because it would give a lot of details away that I would like to savor for readers' sake. That may frustrate you, but you will thank me if or when you see this film. And do not go looking it up on Wikepedia or anything. Do not ruin it for yourself.

It is too good for that!

Its second downfall, which follows under the last one, that also is not necessarily completely the faults of the writer and director. That fault, is that it chooses us to show us things. I personally believe the film would be a hundred times better if it stuck with the excruciating detailing of events and images. But, as I said above, they probably did not know how effective they were being.

The film is also based on the novel by Tony Burgess (also screenwriting for this), but that does not mean you cannot tweak anything for the better. The book was most likely written the way the film was, but the whole description / visual thing is something they should have changed.

I suppose that is all the negative things I have to say?

Look out for any crazy women in the night. A lot more may be going on than you think.

Three mangos out of four.