Change Your Image
gabby_bm
Reviews
Tracker (2007)
Wonderful start.
I'm not a film maker i'm just the audience So I'm not going to go into great detail regarding technicals or accuracy regarding the process of making this film.
This film had a great premise: Three geocaching (google it) adventurers who find themselves on a kind of GPS-oriented scavenger hunt. Each find directs them to clues to a new location to explore. The anonymous internet provider of this adventure promises it will be "unforgettable"
This game seems to be appealing to the 21st century day-adventurer. But in this film the stakes are a bit higher as they discover the sister of one of the adventurers is in extreme danger complete with a deadline of 7pm the following day- the time of her demise. In order to save her they have to jump through the hoops of the geocaching which ultimately implies the final clue will lead them to her.
Good, fun thrilling stuff, right?
And it basically is, on the surface. There's wonderful locations and the audience is regularly reminded of the ticking clock without it being cumbersome. But it has some severe flaws.
First was the casting. Noting that this is an Indie, one cannot help but notice the main actors have very little in the way of acting chops. Their performances are bland and stunted for the most part.
Secondly was with regard to the ticking clock: they never indicated a sense of urgency as time was running out. Their behavior in the final three hours was as relaxed as the first three hours of the adventure. Never did I get the sense of panic or urgency from them.
Next was the lack of adventure. The film would have greatly benefited from more daring and interesting scenarios, rather than simple hiking and climbing. There were some light threats along the way but nothing even remotely thrilling. Indiana Jones taking a nap seemed more exciting.
Overall, I LOVE the premise. It has great potential in the right hands (and budget?) and could easily become a favored and critically recognized thriller/adventure film. I hope it gains little to no audience so that the creators of this film can use it as a demo to sell the idea to investors to create a much larger production of the film.
With some rewrites, better actors/director, more focus on the escalation and emotions that come with a ticking clock and augmenting it with bigger threats, spills and thrills this could be a home run.
I see others have rated this pretty low and that's understandable. As a film it is severely lacking in many areas.
I give it 5/10 stars because I see the promise in this film and hope that those who made it happen can create some movie magic with, what I consider a moving storyboard of a film that still needs to be made.
I say watch it and you'll see what I mean. It's not a bad movie- just a badly made one.
Con Games (2001)
The cons were fun.
A few minutes into this film, you know it's B-grade quality. I'm OK with that. But that B-grade was really pushing it. if it weren't for the swearing, I would have thought it was a C-grade film.
C... as in Christian. C... as in Cameron
Yeah, the acting was so bad that when the sister was seen holding her father's bible on the couch, I thought it was gonna be PREACHIN' TIME!
I gave it an extra star for not doing that to me- especially after the pathetic fighting I was forced to watch in the first two minutes. Really, I did watch it all the way through, but there just isn't anything remarkably good or bad to write about. This film sat there flopping like a carp in the bathtub.
No. That's not fair. The carp would have been more entertaining.
If you like low-grade prison movies, I'm not sure you can get worse than this one.
Checkmate (2010)
Root Canal on film
First off, this is a Christian film. So if you have problems with such films, bag this one. It's less heavy than "Soul Surfer" but the element is still there. I never felt they were preaching to me though. Just tossing it into the salad, so to speak.
I have to admit, I never finished this film. I spent an hour or so on it because I was compelled to see how it all would turn out, and the father was a bit of a mystery. But... The acting was horrible. The dialogue was horrible The staging and sets were horrible. Even the chess, on which the premise of this film is based, was horrible. I would rate it one star except the premise of the film was interesting enough to keep me watching, hoping for a payoff. Maybe one came. I don't know. After an hour, it just wasn't worth the trade to sit through the lousy acting and painful script.
But in the right hands, with a decent cast, director and budget, this film would hold some promise. I would watch it.
As it was, you're going to end up watching some Youth Ministry Group put on a show. They either needed to pray more for some talent or just give Kirk Cameron a call.
Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)
Good for fans, and dissenters alike!
I admit I am a fan of Rand. though far from a devoted. I'd been dreading a film version of "Atlas Shrugged" as much as anticipating it. I've dreaded it for two reasons: (A) It would not be faithful to the material and be "Hollywooded up". And (B) That it would be faithful to the book and be an absolute chore to sit through.
I am glad to say neither happened.
I'll admit the beginning was abrupt and the first five minutes was edited so poorly and quickly that it might as well have been done by a first-year film student.
If you're familiar with the book, you'll be relatively happy to know there aren't 20-minute monologues about the virtues of making your own peanut butter sandwich. In fact there aren't really any monologues to speak of. Hardcore devotees may find this a flaw, but it sure helps the film's pacing.
Because of their wanting to remain faithful to the material, some of the dialogue seems forced, strained against the flow of some scenes. Emotions also seem strained for the protagonists, though that can also be seen as an element of their characters. The character of Dagny admits early on that she doesn't have any feelings. She is cool (not cold), motivated and 100% business. And she has integrity. Taylor Schilling plays her wonderfully. I was noticing throughout the film that she was looking more haggard the more frustrating things became. I don't know if this was because of the makeup dept. or her acting, but either way it played well.
The character of Hank Reardon was also brilliantly done, though at first, I was a bit put off by his smarmy smiles. But they were the smiles of someone biting his tongue and playing the domestic role that seemed to be a wasting of his time. You can actually hear his inner monologue screaming to breathe free.
Wesley Mouch is introduced with absolute and unapologetic hostility toward what he can only construe as sabotage. His first lines seem a bit over the top, but I think that's a natural impression of anyone who comes onto the scene yelling with dripping venom of betrayal. He quickly warms for the audience as peace is made and actually becomes one of my favorite characters in the film.
The antagonists are plentiful, but not very impressive. They are often thrown in to set up the obstacles for the protagonists without being given a whole lot to do otherwise. I think more time could have been spent with them, fleshing out a bit more of their motivations and reasonings. The James Taggart character is definitely a major villain in this part- demonstrating a clear message about business and government in each other's pockets and how such relationships threaten the freedom of all people.
The visuals are beautiful, though the fly-overs laughingly resembled those in "The Postman". The effects of the train were gorgeous, though obviously of lower budget than recent films. Still, watching the train slicing through the landscape at high speeds, like a snake slithering along the mountainsides, we are reminded of what a beautiful country we live in and why we need to protect our planet from those who see environmental aggression as a tool, rather than the weapon it is.
One thing I really liked was the emphasis on the missing persons. I didn't quite get that sense of the mystery from reading the book, but in the film, when one of the world's producers went missing, we'd get a transition shot in black and white, noting the name and date of their disappearance. Though many might consider this too "television" (it feels like the end of each act for "NCIS" or any other Bellisario produced TV program), I think it worked well to propel the mystery for our protagonists- as well as the audience.
I think the film works well. It sure is a lot less cumbersome than reading the book.
But even if you don't agree with Rand, I don't see much in this film to offend the sensibilities. Yes, the government is seen as the bad guy, conspiring with less-than-ethical businessmen, but they're the bad guy in a lot of films these days. So it's really nothing new to see congressional whispering, cover-ups, backroom dealings, etc. The only difference in this film is that they are screwing over businessmen rather than UFO witnesses, conspiracy theorists and mutants.
Yes, the distinction is made between real businessmen and those who use the government as a weapon (neo-corporatists?)
Of course, this is only Part 1. If this makes a decent showing at theaters, we may actually get to see Parts 2 & 3. The advertising for this film is about nil. However, there has been a solid demand for it.
Overall, I recommend it, regardless of your feelings about Rand's philosophy. It's an entertaining film that keeps you interested all the way to the end. I feel I got my money's worth and will gladly pay full price for Parts 2 & 3. And I don't say that about a lot of movies. I don't pay to go see things blow up or glow a pretty blue. I don't pay to go see gun battles or boobies. I go for interesting characters and dialogue that feed my mind and leave me contemplating when the credits roll.
In that, this film delivered.
Speed Racer (2008)
good, bad and UGLY
For old-school Speed Racer fans, this is not your Speed Racer. This is definitely next-generation Speed with the visuals, high-speed, flashing, strobing effects that would give anyone over 20 years old an epileptic seizure. For me, that is my only complaint- that the racing scenes were too difficult to watch. Too much bright neon, edits too cacophonous eliciting a strobing effect that gave me a headache. It made me feel like I was in the cockpit of one of their cars, driving through an endless sequence of neon signs.
But once you get past that, you get a good flick. The casting was excellent. I can't say too much more about that. Trixie, Pops, Spridle, Speed and even Racer X were cast effectively and with their particular look and talents in mind. John Goodman looked healthier than he has in a long time. The storyline was effective and current with dialogue that wasn't too condescending or volatile, though I wish they would have focused a bit more on the Racer X backstory.
The heart of the movie was visually appealing but frankly, the only disappointments for me were the racing scenes. The cars were all moving in a "Tokyo Drift" with no semblance of control, the races were all performed at night which flooded every race scene with overly bright neonesque visuals, and we never got to really see the star of the show, meaning the "Mach 5". There was a lot of emphasis on the jumping ability of the car (which all the cars seemed to have the capability of doing), but not much else.
I rate this film at three stars (* * *) one for the casting, one for the story and one for the dialogue.
I deduct stars for making it visually unappealing in the race scenes and for neglecting a major target audience- those who grew up with the original and who don't spend a major part of their life hooked into an X-Box.