Reading the short plot summary of Choose immediately got me on edge and very excited, on account of its great resemblance to the gist of the Saw series, my favorite Horror/Thriller anthology of all times. I believe my fellow horror freaks also couldn't avoid having some Jigsaw associations, 5 minutes into the film if not upon reading the two lines synopsis.
The beginning and first half of the film were excellent and profoundly intriguing, building up a lot of potential by telling a great story using some well thought of (if not all that new) ideas. The "choices" offered were horrific and well thought of, but way too few in numbers (on account of too few victim stories). Katheryn Winnick's acting was realistic and convincing, and along with the excellent exposition paved the way to what should/could/would have been an excellent film.
So much for anything flattering, good or even remotely positive I could bring myself to say about this film. Sadly from here on it's bad to worst.
The voice of "Mr. Choose-It" lacked conviction, charisma and strength. When a face is not visible - the voice is extremely important, if and when the goal is to make the killer threatening. Kevin Pollak's acting, portraying the Sheriff in charge of the investigation, was at best anemic and unconvincing. Story-wise, for a policeman in charge of an investigation to allow his journalism majoring daughter to walk in and out of police situation rooms as she saw fit, exposing her to police work and top secret investigations, was simply amateur screen writing.
All the great exposition and story build-up reached its anti-climatic climax halfway through the film. From there on - no twists, no turns, and barely any surprises. Why not expose the audience to some details about the mentioned psychological theories? Why not add victims? Why not use a few more characters, or give some of the existing ones a little more than 3 lines, in order to at least appear to be trying to throw our guesses off? Why not make the film longer than 80 minutes and allow the story to advance a little slower? Why not make the minimal effort to follow through on the promising exposition? I ask these questions with disappointment, regret and sadness rather than criticism....
Everything about the second half of the film felt like it was forcebly rushed, like the director suddenly noticed "oh, I've only got 40 minutes left, lets speed through the rest of the screenplay!". The details of the investigation, the interaction between the characters, the unfolding of events and even the dialogues! Not to mention the crime scene footage.
The twists towards the end and in the end were, if to be forgiving, clever. Not mind-blowing nor shocking, and not the least amazing. Just plain clever. After all the build up - the 2nd part is simply a stoop fall into a less than mediocre abyss, and a crash through the bottom.
In addition (and pardon my speculating), as if to add insult to injury, the footage ambiance and lighting appeared to be of pretty high quality, supposedly indicating the film wasn't that low budget. However, every other aspect implies a very low budget. Why not plan the budget in a little wiser, more professional and dare I say more mature way?
The longer and higher the climb - the harder the fall. Disappointments are as great as expectations. Any similar cliché. With such a promising beginning, the continuation simply left me very, very disappointed.
I rate this film 4, if only to reflect that the beginning made me think of 8-9. Too harsh? Not when such potential is diminished to such waste.
The beginning and first half of the film were excellent and profoundly intriguing, building up a lot of potential by telling a great story using some well thought of (if not all that new) ideas. The "choices" offered were horrific and well thought of, but way too few in numbers (on account of too few victim stories). Katheryn Winnick's acting was realistic and convincing, and along with the excellent exposition paved the way to what should/could/would have been an excellent film.
So much for anything flattering, good or even remotely positive I could bring myself to say about this film. Sadly from here on it's bad to worst.
The voice of "Mr. Choose-It" lacked conviction, charisma and strength. When a face is not visible - the voice is extremely important, if and when the goal is to make the killer threatening. Kevin Pollak's acting, portraying the Sheriff in charge of the investigation, was at best anemic and unconvincing. Story-wise, for a policeman in charge of an investigation to allow his journalism majoring daughter to walk in and out of police situation rooms as she saw fit, exposing her to police work and top secret investigations, was simply amateur screen writing.
All the great exposition and story build-up reached its anti-climatic climax halfway through the film. From there on - no twists, no turns, and barely any surprises. Why not expose the audience to some details about the mentioned psychological theories? Why not add victims? Why not use a few more characters, or give some of the existing ones a little more than 3 lines, in order to at least appear to be trying to throw our guesses off? Why not make the film longer than 80 minutes and allow the story to advance a little slower? Why not make the minimal effort to follow through on the promising exposition? I ask these questions with disappointment, regret and sadness rather than criticism....
Everything about the second half of the film felt like it was forcebly rushed, like the director suddenly noticed "oh, I've only got 40 minutes left, lets speed through the rest of the screenplay!". The details of the investigation, the interaction between the characters, the unfolding of events and even the dialogues! Not to mention the crime scene footage.
The twists towards the end and in the end were, if to be forgiving, clever. Not mind-blowing nor shocking, and not the least amazing. Just plain clever. After all the build up - the 2nd part is simply a stoop fall into a less than mediocre abyss, and a crash through the bottom.
In addition (and pardon my speculating), as if to add insult to injury, the footage ambiance and lighting appeared to be of pretty high quality, supposedly indicating the film wasn't that low budget. However, every other aspect implies a very low budget. Why not plan the budget in a little wiser, more professional and dare I say more mature way?
The longer and higher the climb - the harder the fall. Disappointments are as great as expectations. Any similar cliché. With such a promising beginning, the continuation simply left me very, very disappointed.
I rate this film 4, if only to reflect that the beginning made me think of 8-9. Too harsh? Not when such potential is diminished to such waste.