22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Love Without Heart
8 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
There are worse films out there I suppose, but where "The Guest House" falters is not its production values or low budget, but the fact that the love story between the two characters is so empty and their affection is so forced.

I don't know if these women were uncomfortable with the homosexual aspect, if their acting was just *that* bad, or if the director had an unnatural vision of what women in love really looked like. They would go from sweet nothings to forceful, aggressive making out; they would be having a random conversation about life and suddenly one of them would pounce on the other...lesbians or not, *people* don't do this. There was zero sensuality during any given encounter. No tenderness no softness, no sweetness. It was more like drunken lust, but even all the a** grabbing and rough kissing looked awkward and struck me as that of rushed, groping teenagers. The end result comes off as attempt at eye candy under the guise of of male's vision of what two women look like.

Now I *might* could suspend belief long enough when it came to this weird forced eroticism if the rest of the story had been convincing...but it isn't. Apart from the the father, there is absolutely NOTHING driving the plot. These girls fall in love with each other in a complete vacuum. There are no friends around, no jobs to go to, no competition for affection, and no parents aside from the last few minutes. Nothing really happens - there's nothing to drive their relationship forward or test their limits or to develop them as characters that we can care about, relate to, and understand. Really, how much of a story is there about two people falling in love who are almost completely cut off from the outside world?

About the time that the film would've gotten interesting, when the couple hits their "speed bump" in the form of dad, we cut a few months later, gloss over it, and everything's fine. Even when the film gives us conflict, we don't really get any.

The dialog is pretty bad too, and this ties back into nothing much of any interest occurring. The writers try to give the girls character through these long winded conversations amounting to "what's your favorite color" for half the film which is painful to listen to. After some skin we move over to mostly endless pillow talk. And it never lets up. These ladies communicate through the most banal remarks about how much they love other. What they sound like are, like the sex scenes, uncomfortable teens. They don't really know each other so they make nervous small talk that is unbearable.

And so we have what might look like a sweet little love story that ultimately has very little humanity left in it. We don't know the characters, their story happens outside of real life, and there's just nothing for the audience to connect with. A real love story, between 2 people of any sex, should be able to speak to anybody (except perhaps the severely homo or heterophobic) because we're able to relate to how they get to know each other and their search for happiness. But that vibe just isn't here. There is nothing to hang on to, and what's left in its stead is almost impossible to sit through.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Surreal and Intoxicating, but also Disparate
28 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I feel the need to quickly preface this review with two facts. One, I have not read the book, which I think in most cases is a good thing when one reviews a movie as it sets an unrealistic point of reference across mediums with varying strengths and weaknesses. A film should stand on its own regardless of however far it has (or hasn't) strayed from any source material. Two, I admit to not understanding what exactly the point of this film is. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up in the 70's, or because I'm not a girl/woman; I don't really know.

The first third or so of this film (before Trip's introduction) is dreamy and mesmerizing. The plot line likes to float a little, but used correctly it can leave the audience that much more interested in whatever over arching theme is being presented. I especially enjoy the awkward teenage humor not to mention the humor innate in the narrator's reflection on his youth. There's some very vivid imagery that would seem to lead to some character development and we get to learn a little about the people whose perspective we're getting the story from. The calm surrounding such a young and seemingly unprovoked suicide also adds some serious intrigue. As an audience, we're all asking ourselves "why," or after some thought, "what clever ripples will resonate throughout these characters' lives?"

Unfortunately, what made this first bit so darkly magical is jerked away in a flash. Abruptly the film shifts to focus solely on one sister, Lux, and even then we are only really witness to her actions, not who she is. The argument is of course that this is precisely what part the boys/narrator sees, but without really knowing who's telling the story, there's no real way to connect the dots, to gain any understanding what level of profundity this has on our spectators or how much gravity it holds. Does any of this affect THEIR actions? Do they change what they think because of watching Lux, or are they simply mystified by Lux? We're all mystified by Lux by now, and I'm mystified at why the film isn't spending much time on why we aren't asking any questions about the other sisters aside from "why are they even there?" From here on out, "The Virgin Suicides" takes on an episodic approach that in effect shows us what we've already been shown about Lux (that she's rebellious), reinforces the isolation of the remaining three sisters, and continues the theme of bewilderment by the boys. I don't have a problem with any of this; what I wish is that the movie had explored the consequences of this behavior, the impact that these changing opinions and lifestyles had on the characters. But in this film, the characters are all very fuzzy to begin with and only remain fuzzy. We know the changing situations affect them, but not in an emotionally, relatable way.

The appropriate and expected shock moment comes and goes with all the reflective voice-over, yet there's no gratification. OK, I can live with not exactly understanding why the girls did what they did, I understand that the film isn't about them, it's about the boys who observed them. But with all the contact near the end and the invitation to the boys to discover the horror, there's no sense in why the girls wanted to share this sort of twisted intimacy with people who didn't even seem to be their friends. Furthermore, the audience is alienated even more because we don't know the boys/narrator either! Frankly, the two main parties involved in this film didn't know enough about each other to produce a substantial impact. And I really hope someone doesn't read this and think something like "the whole point is how this tragedy between barely-acquaintances can stick with you..." I mean maybe that is the point, but it's not a very good one, and it went through some really interesting stuff to get to a really dull conclusion.

I like it, its fun to watch, but there's such a disparate element to all of what's presented that I find myself not believing that it actually ended without any further revelation. Is it a good movie? Maybe. But is it one you'll really need to watch more than once until you forget it? No.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
R.S.V.P. (I) (2002)
4/10
It Starts Off Clever Enough...
9 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I realize that most of these reviews default to comparing RSVP to Rope; a film which I've seem but much too long ago for this review to be any sort of comparison. Instead I'll discuss this film on it's own terms.

There's a lot of really fun stuff going on in the beginning with the pseudo-intellectual conversations about murder as a sort of art form, initially leading me to believe I was in for a very clever sort of slasher film. RSVP fails to deliver, mostly because the writer couldn't substantiate all the clever banter with any sort of compelling story. Perhaps it's different since we're well aware of who the killer is from the beginning, but this potential is never maximized. Instead the film turns into a fairly generic slasher except the audience doesn't even have the pleasure of trying to piece together who the killer really is.

What kills RSVP is that it starts out as a somewhat interesting meditation of serial killers and murder, and degenerates quickly into the standard fare of drinking, drugs, etc. No suspense is built because it quickly becomes evident how our killer is operating. There needed to be some kind of payoff near the end, but all we get is another jilted youth. All of his musings on murder amount to nothing by the end of the film, and however interesting the killer may have seemed in the beginning, he's just another idiot who loses control by the end. I give it a 4 for keeping me pretty interested for the first half, but midway through the 2nd act my mind wanders.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
V/H/S (2012)
2/10
A Couple of Bright Spots Amidst Far Too Much Garbage
7 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
There's been a fair bit of hype surrounding this "film" in the horror world, and it seemed like a neat idea, so I bit. I even took a Dramamine 30 minutes beforehand to prepare for all the shaky cam stuff. Unfortunately any shred of potential is wasted far too early, and there's never the nice little tie up that anthologies usually include to validate the frame narrative, which basically negates the film's existence as far as "found footage" is supposed to go.

An immediate turn off is the infallible ability for the first characters we meet to spend a solid 10 minutes being the most repulsive humans ever conceived. There is nothing to like about them, and it isn't even possible to write them off as stupid teenagers since these men are the quintessential dirty old men before they get quite so old. If you're still watching after the upskirts vs. sexually assault women and record their breasts conversation, you really shouldn't because that's about as horrible as anything else in this anthology.

I get why there's lots of blue screens and random clips of previous recordings and every other inadequacy of the format displayed, but its overused to no effect. We get it. It's called VHS. Let's move on. I also realize that with "found footage" we have to put up with a ton of boring crap as if to add to it's authenticity, but in an anthology the time needs to be used well. It needs to get us as vested as possible in the story and misdirect us enough not to predict the outcome. Instead of this however, we are treated to pointless conversations and every other dull happening of the human life. Sifting through all this to try and even get slightly creeped out is so tedious it's ultimately not worth it. Truly, what good there is to be gleaned from this atrocity is not worth sitting through the digital recreations of video tape shortcomings and found footage conventions.

The frame story is pretty novel at first; when we think of VHSs now in the digital age it seems to symbolize something very clandestine, and in the film's context, certainly something dark, mysterious, and meant for few eyes. It almost feels like a grittier version of Cage's descent in 8MM. But after a few seconds, this glimmer is lost because these same abominable men roam around as lost as if they had landed on the moon. And upon finding hundreds of video tapes without knowing which one is right, some of them begin keeping the dead guy company and watching them. This is one of many happenings that just doesn't make any sense. The other men force this one guy to stay in the room with the dead man. Why??? The first story is probably the strongest, although most of it is a pain to struggle through. Here we are dealing with equally reprehensible monsters at perhaps a younger age who are rightfully mangled by what seems to be some kind of childlike vampire creature. There are a view nice little incidental touches such as the quick shot of her bizarre feet, but this quickly degenerates into mayhem where the camera serves no purpose but to catch incomprehensible glimpses of carnage. The woman is instantly creepy, but all the frat boy crap is so distracting there's no chance for any tension to be built up and the shock is expounded on poorly with a bit of a nonsense ending, not to mention no relevance to the sort of childishness of the creature.

Number two is filled with painfully boring footage and turns out to be little more than some kind of slasher story whittled down to a few minutes. Again, no explanation for anything.

The third story is equally horrible with what is either supposed to be a spoof or homage to Friday the 13th. I don't even begin to understand exactly what the girl who is hunting the killer has put together in her head; it's another bit of nonsense. I tend to think there was some decent potential for "The Glitch" but this story can barely even be called a story since so much is left to the imagination.

The fourth also begins kind of decently except that for every bit of interesting conversation we're forced to endure mounds of useless banter. The climax approached spooky, but was ended so abruptly and with so little explanation and so few clues as to what exactly happened that it's initially confusing which quickly turns to disinterest. The tension is built up well here, but without any rewarding pay off.

Five is another high point, probably the best overall story. Everything looks good, steadily increases in tension and intensity, and has a sufficiently evil if not cliché ending. But what is done right here is not worth all that has been done wrong to get here.

Finally, the fifth actually starts after the conclusion of the frame story, which rapidly degenerates into some sort of inexplicable zombie attack with absolutely no relation to the video tapes whatsoever.

Unsatisfying, distracting, nonsensical...a few words to describe this over-hyped monstrosity. There were bits of good horror hidden deep down, but not good enough to justify the rest of this anthology.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Detention (2011)
9/10
An Almost Perfect Film
7 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Detention is one of the smartest and most original films I've ever seen. Everyone who made this managed to hit every single nail on the head; not a single joke fell flat, not a single reference was unnoticed or trivial. Every bit of this film was crafted and fine tuned to be the best possible version of itself.

One of the aspects of this movie that I love so much is that it makes fun of all this pseudo-nostalgic hipster garbage, and these same people don't even have a clue. If you're around the age of 28 or so, you'll know exactly what this film is about. If you're somewhere between 15 and 22 and you find it more hilarious than any postmodern irony (hah) with Michael Cera, you're laughing at the wrong stuff. This film isn't the divine distillation of all these movies about all these 18-22 that love everything from the 80's and 90's, this film is for all of us who are old enough to actually remember Roadhouse and I Swear in our childhood but are still young enough to have enough contact with a generation wearing TMNT hoodies and belts with the NES controller on them at 16. Sorry guys, but references to Bronson Pinchot, Patrick Swayze, and Ralph Machio weren't there for you to laugh. It's for us old enough to remember the People cover of Swayze as the sexiest man alive, those of us who were sitting around playing with our ACTUAL ninja turtles while our parents watched Perfect Strangers.

The irony in this film isn't irony at all. It's an overt spoof on the sad state of teenagers today, obsessed with everything from the past to appear smarter, yet cry (or worse) at the thought of a world without Wi-Fi. There's a few million teens somewhere out there laughing at Clapton's blurb about starting a music review site because they've been there and lived it. But then there are those of us who laugh at it because we were around when sites like those popped up, and can identify with how self-riteous teens began telling other self-riteous teens what to think and like.

The horror herein hearkens back to when movies like Scream were at their peak, a nice touch to connect with those of us who were somewhere in or near the teens when these films became popular. The music, culture, and the characters' absurd reverence for such gives all those of a certain age a good chuckle about what was decidedly uncool by the time we'd gotten to the late nineties and early two-thousands.

Along with the exceptional wit is the almost nonsense humor concerning things like Billy Nolan and Ione and Sloan's switch. Time travel appears out of nowhere and even though it's all meant to be silly, it actually skirts around the broader implications enough to keep one flowing with the story instead of stuck on minutae about how one thing or another could be possible. It's hard to find films that are so well written yet don't take themselves seriously. Most filmmakers use this as an excuse for plot contrivances and illogical characters, but since nothing really has a purpose, there's not much to find fault with. We are taken to this almost alternate universe where anything is possible and it doesn't matter why it's possible, or even that it is, it's simply part of what happens.

Detention is a really tough movie to describe to anyone who hasn't seen it, so I haven't really tried. Mostly I am thrilled to have a film that speaks very carefully to a very narrow age range and does it so specifically. It very cleverly pokes at the inability of current and barely former teenagers to create any wave or cultural phenomenon of their own, and instead focus the past and how hip the world was back then (the same world with very few cell phones, no 24-7 internet EVERYWHERE, etc.). It serves to remind us that at one time the youth of this country looked forward, wanted to change things, had ideals and beliefs that were strong enough to up-end pop culture occasionally. Now we have this vapid technological shells with an idyllic vision of fashion and music that exist outside of context, with no desire other than to have their smart phone smaller, or bigger, or whichever Apple says you need. No longer are we pushing forward, against the current, but riding it backwards in blissful ignorance, so aquiescent to the will of others, so scared of yelling or offending, or of truly being different, that the least we can hope for is for future generations not to copy the copycat generation.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Well, it's Better Than Wishmaster 3
7 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It's never good news when sequels are filmed back to back, but I truly love getting as deep as I can in many of these horror franchises. Before anyone gets their feathers ruffled over the 5 I'm giving this film, realize that I'm rating with the context in mind. This is not stacked up against every movie ever, or even every horror movie ever. In the world of straight to video sequels, I think this 5 is well deserved.

Most of this movie is taken up with this sort of love triangle, which for some reason I found instantly vested in. Of all the mutations of relationships presented in horror movies, I thought that what the main girl and her handicapped boyfriend struggled through was conceivable and plausible. In many ways, this movie is more of a love story with horror elements than the other way around. There's some real sensitivity going on with this woman, and I spent most of the movie sympathizing with her and wondering where her emotional entanglements would lead her. This may not necessarily be a good thing when one is looking for a decent horror movie, but it caught my attention nonetheless.

Sadly, about halfway through the film this potential gets completely wasted as the Djinn tries to figure out exactly what human love is. This concept in and of itself could have been inventive to play with, but instead it turns into this sort of muddy quest of enlightenment for a decidedly malevolent creature not of this world to understand a thing or two about mankind.

On the horror front, the kills are pretty unoriginal and uninventive in becoming with all the sequels. Nothing new is added to the Djinn mythology, and the god-awful idea of Michael the angle sadly resurfaces from the previous film. And he's more of a vigilante or mercenary of god than any sort of angel. The thuggish demeanor and black and white personality of the angel leaves the Djinn the more human of the two. The film makers did a decent job of building up emotional suspense, but there aren't enough conventional horror elements to add up to much shock or surprise.

For the "prophecy" to have finally been "fulfilled" it would have been gratifying to see a bunch of Djinn causing general destruction and mayhem, but nothing of any grandeur or finality is attempted. It's better than the second sequel, but we've got a long way to go to revive the cleverness and freshness of the Djinn. Oh, and if anyone even thinking of making another film reads this, please cut out all that god and man and earth and Djinn and fire and void s***. Everyone's heard it a thousand times, and it doesn't ever hold a bit of relevance to, well, anything.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Summer's Moon (2009)
3/10
Should've Pushed the Taboo
20 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
First up, anyone reading this should be well aware that this movie is nothing but trash. And yet, there are degrees of trash. I'd rather fall in compost than rotting diapers. The acting is uneven, especially for our female lead, the camera work is dubious with its sort of floating grayness, and much of the dialogue is unnecessary, repetitive, at times inane, and narratively much is left to the imagination. The film did however hold my interest, purely because it so overtly dealt with perhaps the greatest modern taboo; incest.

As other reviewers have mentioned, "Summer's Moon" walks the line between horror and thriller, but never quite commits to either making for a somewhat bland presentation. The best thing the film had going for itself was its bold and unapologetic prevalence of incest. Whereas a shock factor such as this should've been pushed to the extreme, evoking all sorts of disturbing and grotesque feelings, it's left on the backburner as sort of the "oh no!" of the movie. The implications of incest are what are so shocking and disgusting to people. These characters however are somewhat immune to it. Not ignorant of or oblivious to, but immune to. It never impacts any of the characters in the way that it would impact an audience. The implications of mother/son, father/daughter, and brother/sister are more than enough to have the film banned in several countries. "Summer's Moon" never exploits the atrocity the way it should have being that incest is such a focal point of the plot and indeed it would seem one or more characters' sole motivational force.

I wish I could say that what the film passed up in the realm of psychological mayhem was made up for in gratuitous gore, but what little blood is shown isn't even as grisly as most prime time TV shows. There's never really any sense of dread or tension; certainly the script is to blame but the actors also had a very hard time emoting anything other than childish fear with such a whopping dose of abject curiosity thrown in that none of the characters are particularly convincing in their respective roles. Summer is just a little too nonchalant about being a prisoner, and Tom and Mom are just a little too aloof about keeping captives. There's just no indication that the characters themselves have any motivation, as if they had sprouted up in a vacuum and were plopped into this bizarre situation.

Finally, initially significant portions of the film end up stuck with no context. The "garden" was at first a bit eerie, mysterious, weird enough I thought there might be some half-decent reveal later on, but Tom's revolving door of girl-slaves gets shoved aside with no explanation about any of it or its relevance to Summer, who is clearly serving another purpose. And while psycho-Dad was easily the best actor of the lot, what exactly was the mechanism of his lunacy? Did he methodically plan out this whole scenario just to rape his teenage daughter ad infinitum? What did ANY of the film have to do with him killing random women? What purpose did the kidnapping of the last girl play at all? So many incidents are isolated that it can be tough to piece together the arrow of causality.

So, "Summer's Moon," you get a bit of a nod for diving right down into the incest, but somehow you got lost focusing on the murky reflection of the water rather than embracing it's depth and terror.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Has "Die Hard" Died for Good?
8 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
When the fourth entry of Die Hard hit the world with a PG-13 rating and something about cyber-terrorism, I rolled my eyes. However, the plot was clever enough and the action scenes were so spectacular that I find myself liking it quite a bit. So when it seemed the franchise would return to it's R-rated roots, I was even more excited. The fifth Die Hard falls completely flat, and is a poor follow up.

From the beginning the plot is plain confusing. Maybe if I watched it a couple more times it would make sense, but in a fast paced environment like an action movie, the story should be smooth enough that it only takes a single viewing to know what is happening and why it's happening. I'm still not sure exactly what happened other than the vague threat of nuclear war. The little twists and turns that the movie took were ineffective because it was difficult to grasp what was happening before the twists and what role the characters involved in these twists played.

Willis and Courtney had zero chemistry and what was meant to be comedic and touching banter between the two became stale and annoying within 20 minutes. There is so little dialog other than the aforementioned drivel that I found myself unable to hold interest in the familiar "bad day" situation which follows McClane throughout the series. In the previous film, there was a nice contrast between the street-savvy yet technologically impaired demeanor of McClane and the relevant situation skills and non-confrontational nature of Matthew. Through decent writing, it was funny at times and created a balance that really connected the characters. In "Good Day..." I found McClane to have much less of a genuine spark with his own son.

The brisk running time fills most of it's time with moderate action sequences instead of bothering to develop anyone, even going so far as to reduce Willis to little more than a robot, stripping him of any charisma or brutish cleverness with a dash of luck that has defined him thus far. The action scenes are alright, but it isn't enough to keep me coming back to the film. I won't say I didn't like them, but the gun fights and explosions are handled in rather mundane ways without the expected ingenuity from past Die Hards.

When and if another Die Hard is made, it will almost surely have to be better than this one or I doubt the studio will even bother to slap a Die Hard label on it. No fun, no originality, and some seriously weak writing easily bump this film down to the bottom of the franchise.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Breed (2006)
6/10
Well Done, but Perhaps a Little Too Forgettable
23 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Have you ever seen a movie where you thought "what a great idea!" only to be let down by the execution? Well, "The Breed" is sort of the opposite. It's a fairly silly idea pulled off fairly well, especially in the horror sub-genre of animal/nature attacks. The cast is all pretty decent, no egregious under or over-acting. Rodriguez has a nice change of pace as the strong but friendly female lead.

Basically this film plays off of everyone's fear of a wild dog, although to spice it up a little these dogs rely on planning and strategy just as much as brute force. A little out there perhaps, but at least the dogs used are real and there isn't once a hint of a bulky puppet or too-slick-to-be-real CGI.

One aspect that sets "The Breed" apart from similar horror films is the logistical reasoning of the characters. Everyone's actions are generally understandable. Instead of the usual Act 2 fall-apart of all but the best horror movies, rife with teenagers who unleash a maniacal bloodlust or the bookworm who suddenly takes down several trained military personnel or (of course) the young adults who scoff at death with unchained promiscuity and substance use, we can clearly identify each of these characters as fairly average college-aged people. Another big plus is the absence of a gun as a plot device. The bow and arrow is the closest parallel, but realistically, it is used inefficiently and lost long before some pivotal moment of group survival. So often in horror movies I am befuddled by where so many guns pop up and why, if so many guns are floating around, no one can consistently seem to use one throughout the film.

So "The Breed" does get a nod for being as realistic as high-concept horror can, but unfortunately there isn't enough originality to keep it within memory very long. No spectacular atmospheres or moods generated, no breathtaking special effects or breakout performances; it's simply a fairly mundane idea pulled off quite well.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cloud Atlas (2012)
3/10
I Wish this Had Been The Matrix 4
16 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As much as people's eyes light up when discussing how ambitious, beautiful, or transcendental this film is, I think they are forgetting to admit that it's also quite simply long and boring. I'll admit that I had a tough time realizing it myself after three viewings. But it's true. Everyone is so focused on interconnectedness and reincarnation that they fail to see what is actually sloppy filmmaking, or sloppy storytelling, or perhaps both. I believe that many of those who watch Cloud Atlas are afraid that if six concurrent stories seems confusing or incoherent it must mean that they "don't get it" and therefore apply their own vague understanding of Eastern religion so that it becomes a profound tale of humanity.

I'll be honest. I wanted to like Cloud Atlas. Really bad. I resisted the urge to fiddle on my phone. I paused when I had to pee. I rewound when my kid yelled from the next room. But after 3 viewings, 2 one day and 1 the next, I realized that I was bored. I realized that I didn't miss anything walking out of the room for 60 seconds. Contrast with something like Mulholland Drive. That feels like an incomprehensible film at its end, but its never boring, and each minute holds import, even for someone who doesn't understand exactly what's happened. But Cloud Atlas tricks you. There's no payoff and the ride isn't even fun. But of course the less sense it makes must mean its all the profound, just waiting for little old super smart film loving you to discover its wondrous secrets. It's alright to admit that just because a film was made with 6 stories doesn't mean it's good. Ask someone to really tell you what's so fantastic about it, in detail, with specifics. It will be a bumbling affair with lots of vocal filler and big words like "connectedness."

I first went in expecting at the very least some very clever exercises in causality. I was pretty disappointed at the lame "connections" and a flimsy, undeveloped notion of reincarnation. Moreover the stories were just boring. For this film to even begun to have worked it needed to deal with stories that could stand on their own. But the viewer is so distracted by making connections and abrupt transitions that it takes a little while to see that these stories are incomplete. In fact, I was waiting for all but one to get to the "good part" and it never happened. Each is filled with a dull anti-climax culminating in insignificance. The very structure doesn't allow any time to connect with anyone. When you have a story devoid of anything to personally "connect" to, it gets very boring very quickly.

1849 is a dull plod through one man's minor morality struggle while he himself is subjugated by evil near and far. Surprise! Good guys win, yeah! 1936 wants to show off the purity of love and art by giving us a protagonist who can't find the time or courage to face his lover and would rather kill a man than give due credit to his composition. What is this? The world is cruel? Maybe, but your moral compass could sure use some calibration before we throw the pity party over your suicide. 1973 Corporations are evil and will clearly blow up planes. But daddy's little girl can't be beat down by "the man!" Power to the people yo! 2012 Yawn. Why should we care about this guy? He's obviously a little less honest with money than he ought to be and he slept with his brother's wife. What are you cheering for? 2144 Easily the most boring. A tired tale of revolution trimmed down to 30 minutes. And the bad guys win anyway. Revolution failed. 2312 or whatever. What could've been the most interesting segment is whittled down to incomprehensible babble, and for a story about contacting the colonies of a post- apocalyptic Earth it's made as purposefully uninteresting as possible.

It's just not that grand. Just because something has never been done doesn't mean it should, and just because someone did it doesn't mean they did it well. I will concede that Cloud Atlas is a fine treat for the eyes, but it doesn't contain the genius ending that justifies its tedious approach. I know the cuts between stories are quick, but don't let it fool you into thinking anything important is really happening.

As I said, I wanted to like this film, I still do. But it's so inflated with purpose, so intent on being profound, so dazzling in its premise, that it could never live up to whatever vision someone like me hoped for. What's there is even difficult to understand. Something is peculiar with the sound (very noticeable in The Matrix as well) that makes characters particularly hard to understand, more so considering the British and Asian accents in the first two, fourth, and fifth segments and the sixth remains all but a mystery without subtitles. The inclusion of a handful of actors for a few dozen roles is, like the film, surely ambitious, but ultimately distracting.

Ambitious does not equal pleasing, entertaining, or coherent. Sprawling does not imply meaningful length. Grand in scope is not synonymous with a cohesive narrative. Stop letting these words "cloud" your mind when you find yourself just plain uninterested in this ambitious, sprawling epic of grand scope. What one forgets amidst all this pomp is that things like pacing, restraint, and focus are consistent hallmarks of good filmmaking and good storytelling. The gimmick makes us too many promises that no one can keep. The objective ought to be to figure out what one wants to say and then form a creative way to say it. Instead, when it comes to Cloud Atlas, it seems that too many are wrapped up in how the story is told rather than the significance of what is told.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Divide (2011)
6/10
Decent "Horror from the Inside" Sort of Tale
16 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The Divide was a nice little film exploring the darker recesses of human nature. At times it is all a bit unbelievable but extremely entertaining as well. Unlike most post-apocalyptic horror/sci-fi films which feature characters roaming over a wasteland and negotiating episodic hurdles in their quest to survive, The Divide simply uses this cliché as a way to force some folks together with a finite quantity of necessities.

For all those concerned with aspects relating to the scientific plausibility of hiding in a basement after a nuclear attack, I must say that this is not the point of the film. The same holds true for the strangers in white who seal up the only way in or out. Perhaps the writers could've come up with a more believable situation but for myself, and I imagine plenty of others, these two plot devices are more than serviceable. It is after the sealing of the doors when the narrative really begins.

At first the characters are the usual sci-fi horror fodder, but then they all find their place among the strong and the weak. While this part feels a bit rushed and could've, perhaps should've, been the bulk of the story, the madness that follows takes up the remaining time. The initial descent isn't what we see, but rather a further de-evolution into madness. The character of Bobby during his one way trip to way the hell out is a vicious and disturbing vision into a man's possible psyche. As nasty and violent as he becomes, we can still see the humanity that remains near the end. Conversely, our female lead Eva endures as the stressed and traumatized yet still generally respectful human we all would like to think we embody, yet at the very end embraces her own survival instinct at the cost of being helpful to her fellow survivors, fiancé included. Was this always in her? Did she actually gain a killer dose of self-preservation from witnessing the brutality of others? Mostly The Divide is just a suspenseful ride watching how immense stress affects these characters and what inevitable end it leads too.

I liked this film, especially considering much of the horror garbage flooding the world today, but it is not without some rather significant problems. The most glaring is that we never really have a clear picture of the time that is passing. Even by the end I was completely clueless as to whether days, weeks, or even months had transpired in the shelter. It would have been very simple to insert a few lines of dialogue when talking about the dead bodies or the food stores to give the viewer an indication of the time span. Secondly, while I do maintain that this is an interesting exploration of humanity and what it can become, I do not think it is a correct or necessarily plausible exploration. The amount of withheld information combined with petty bickering after what I suppose to have been only a few days seems highly unlikely. There's no real problem solving either. History shows that people pull together in a crisis, not fall apart. While I would suspect some minor deceptions and disagreements, I would think that this is a situation that everyone would actually work hard to avoid, especially since people have a sort of hardwired belief, even instinct, that inclines oneself to see the group as stronger that the self, to foster and perpetuate and preserve as must solidarity as possible. This also leads into another major issue which concerns the relatively rapid onset of brutal, animalistic behavior. Again, without a proper way to infer the passage of time it's difficult to know whether or not it is as rapid as it seems. The film may have resonated more psychologically if it more deeply explored the reasons for this madness; otherwise it only stands to suggest that 1 out of 4 people is a sadistic psychopath waiting to be unleashed. Lastly, the hidden gun was certainly a plot device, an afterthought by the writers, but I can't say I was displeased by the ensuing reversal of fate.

So perhaps The Divide isn't the psychological thriller that it could've been, but it makes up for it enough to become a reasonable standout in the sub-genre of post-apocalyptic horror. Fine acting and its share of tension and genuinely creepy visuals should earn this film at least a somewhat memorable place in any horror fan's repertoire.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Day (I) (2011)
2/10
Useless Fodder
12 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I can only guess that many of these quite similar and overwhelmingly positive reviews must have been made by those close to the cast or production or what have you. The Day would've been a pretty mundane affair were all else perfect, but as it stands its bad filmmaking on top of a worse story. We are never treated to things that make other films enjoyable, such as say, an explanation for anything that's happening. We don't know why this world exists, who the characters are aside from vague notions of a normal life turned savage, or what exactly drives the cannibals other than the idea "to survive."

It's impossible to determine the quality of the actors involved due to the drivel that these poor souls are expected to pass off as human speech. In the same vein, there isn't even the faint glimmer of a broken 40 watt light behind a brick wall on another continent of human emotion for the audience to identify with. Through illogical actions and plot contrivances the story progresses without attention to suspense or timing. Everything plods along to the uneventful and poorly thought-out climax. Most of the action takes place during this battle with the cannibals but there is never any urgency or clear goal or anybody really doing anything besides sticking their arms in and out of windows.

The Day is a failure to be sure but even worse its not even a magnificent failure; the entire project has been absolute trash since its inception. And I nearly forgot about the weird murky gray-scale filter that's supposed to be dead and dreary like this "new world." Nauseating and distracting. Don't bother with this one; there's not enough drama, horror, or action in this to be enjoyed by even the least demanding audiences.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wild Target (2010)
2/10
Pointless and Forced
24 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Not that the premise sounded original, I decided to give this film a shot one morning. A hit man falls for his target and in the process has a strange sort of awakening while forming the family he never had time for in his younger days. The actors all do a fine job but the script is so aimless and ill thought that this quickly becomes unwatchable. At first I was expecting a dark comedy with a modicum of violence but after the first act it's something else entirely, some sort of sickening love story with a message about family that no one can relate to.

There's about three things going on here besides the main story; Victor's crisis of self, his relationship with Rose, and his mentorship of Tony. This would be difficult for all but the most of astute of film makers to competently put together and outright fails in Wild Target, even if it is meant to be a comedy. From the get go there's so much focus placed on Victor's lack of a mate as well as his lack of a successor that once the three main characters show up on screen together it's painfully obvious where the story is headed. The issue is that the "how" involved in this process is dull and uninspired. The "why" is so thin that I'm left scratching my head over what exactly these three are doing in this strange configuration. To be brief, this arrangement is never developed. There's not a lick of characterization to suggest why the three of them have the need to form this familial unit so quickly. Sure, the circumstances give reason to the formation of the unit but there's never any believable or fleshed out reasoning for the persistence and continuation of this "family" and the roles that each adopt.

The relationship between Rose and Victor is perhaps one of the worst on screen couples I've ever seen. She goes from hate to love literally over a foot massage and the chemistry just isn't there. Again, there's so little character development beyond "Victor needs a wife" that the relationship isn't convincing. Not once did I root for them to get together nor did I feel any joy when they did. There was no heart or passion or any connection with the audience. Nonetheless, it was quite obvious the two would end up discussing his weight from the very first few minutes of the film.

Perhaps more outrageous than this mess of a love story is the forced inclusion of Tony, the homeless nobody who wants to find his place in the world and get a little bit of love. Where the necessity for this story element arose from is bewildering. He serves no place except for another good guy with a gun and his dynamic as an adopted apprentice is fuzzy at best. Moreover his extension into the familial unit as the child is stretching reality entirely too far. It is so difficult to understand his role in any realistic context that I'm left feeling disconnected and consequently see his position as confusing, bizarre, and trivial.

Wild Target is about as close to nonsense as any film I've seen. It gets a 2 only because the technical aspects of film making were tolerable. I'm not sure where all the positivity for this film is coming from; those describing it as "hilarious" must not have been as distracted as I was by the lack of cohesion and motivation.
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Fatality...for the Audience and the Franchise
17 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have always loved the MK games and as I grew older and the games more complex, I also really began to appreciate the storyline. Of course the first movie didn't follow the original story much at all aside from a few nods, it was a decent action movie that left plenty of room for a promising sequel. MKA is an atrocious piece if work, however, and I would've rated it lower had I not wanted to like this film due to its vast (yet ultimately unrealized) scope and its (rather pathetic) attempt at integrating much of the storyline from MK2 and MK3 (along with a mutated and ineffectual pinch of MK4 - "Raiden, I am your father!" said Shinnok.)

One major flaw is the sharp decline in acting quality. The first film featured some rather austere performances, but they were punctuated with bits of humor and as much emotion and likability one could expect. Only 2 actors return to MKA and neither are given much of a chance to act due to the endless fights and near complete lack of exposition. The rest of the cast alternates between cheesed out stereotypes and the brainlessly bland. Remar gives an exceptionally terrible performance as Raiden. Instead of the witty, mysterious, and sarcastic god given to us by Lambert, we have a puny weakling who tries to utter profound wisdom to our warriors but generally spits out complete nonsense. And when he's not doing that, he's giving out preschool-level speeches about love and unity and inner strength. Lets not forget the villains that speak with such pomp and bombast that they sound like a 13 year old level 27 dungeon lord of the 5th plane of the abyss.

Of course the script is equally to blame. None of the dialog even remotely resembles human speech. I do sort of like how some story elements are used, but the problem is that they play no role in the central plot because that is one thing the writers totally ignores and destroyed. The games take place in such a rich mythology that I can't understand the need for hacking it up so badly. We have a huge number of characters with zero relevance, and big bad Shao Khan was a huge misfire. It's just some bulked up moron, no resemblance to the accomplished warrior, cunning sorcerer, seasoned general, and mysterious god-like being from the games. He's just a goon with other goons absent any clear motivation.

I could forgive the murder of the storyline had a compelling film been made but its too full of nonsense to think of anything other than how it might've been made better by the inclusion of key plot points out of the games. It's fun to see characters I love come to life but equally disturbing to see such egregious mistreatment. MKA fails to honor its source and perhaps more importantly fails at being a coherent film. Most of it is one brainless fight after another with zero explanation or context interspersed with Raiden's infantile musings on hope and humanity and atrocities like the animality or, for instance, whenever any character speaks to another. Beloved combatants pop in and out of the film, while others exist only to die unceremoniously, there are far too many maniacal laughs from villains and the good guys are so wooden that you'll be wishing you'd been the victim of a gruesome fatality by the time MKA is over.

"I've seen that tattoo before, on a robot."
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Killer Pad (2008)
1/10
Truly Terrible
17 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I am a fan of cheese, shlock, and camp in horror from time to time, but without a modicum of restraint and some semblance of narrative gravity it's impossible for it to work. What some people don't enjoy, or appreciate, or perhaps don't even understand is that it takes a measure of talent to make a so-bad-it's-good movie. One can't simply throw together a film absent meaning with the expectation that B-movie lovers will latch on.

Killer Pad fails on almost every level imaginable. I'm not sure whether to say the acting is over the top or just non-existent. As others have noted, there is a noticeable homoerotic undercurrent between the three leads, not in the least dispelled by the fact that none of them have sex, the strange boy-cuddliness they share, or that the only nudity is a fat, hairy butt. As far as the script goes, these characters behave completely nonsensically. There is only the pervasive notion to "get laid" throughout the entire movie. As a result of this alternate reality in which all this happens the deaths are neither shocking nor meaningful and it is impossible to connect with and thus have any sympathy for the 3 repressed buffoons.

As a note to any filmmaker reading this: no one over the age of 9 or 10 thinks fecal humor is funny let alone the gratuitous scene presented in Killer Pad!!! The remainder of the jokes are unfunny at best, downright painful at worst. This concept of the American comedy as a sort of live cartoon has been done far better before, even in the horror genre, and frankly wasn't all that funny to begin with.

The special effects are among the worst ever conceived and ought to have been omitted in favor of the expected nudity. Deaths were tragically uninventive especially for what sick and grotesque methods you'd think Satan himself could come up with

Overall Killer Pad is a steaming pile of incomprehensible garbage. There isn't a shred of emotion, suspense, shock, humor, or even decent gore to hold more than 5 minutes of this film together. Avoid at all costs.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looper (2012)
5/10
Not as Clever as You Think
7 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I had remembered seeing previews for this and was pretty excited when it hit video last week. I wanted to like this film as I generally enjoy time travel flicks (even with all their inadequacies) and thought the whole contract killing idea was a neat framework. Sadly, it fell far below my expectations as an original take on time travel. Furthermore it didn't even deliver much in the way of excitement, suspense, or any outstanding performances. Somehow, Looper also managed to be devoid of any sort of style, preferring to lean on character development as it's main source of entertainment.

The premise is extremely interesting, but Joe turns out to be a pretty prototypical hit-man. Far too much time is spent on explaining who he is and what he does, and yet we end up knowing nothing about it except that he gets high and frequents prostitutes. His older self is just as bland; we know he was married. Both Joe and Old Joe aren't really given any real humanity and it made it hard for me to really care what happened because there was absolutely no connection made between the audience and our main character(s). Bruce Willis didn't even really need to be in this film as Old Joe didn't represent an emotional being at all.

When the film really gets going, with the TK boy, it still fails to impress. Little actual tension is created I didn't much care about the sort of stilted, clinically precise version of this young child that was presented. The mother was the only character able to generate any sympathy and only so far as I understand how protective a single parent feels over a child that age.

The big plot twist was the most disappointing aspect of the movie to me. While I know a lot of people out there are praising how well the time travel mechanic was handled and how it actually "makes sense" in this film, it's really nothing new to anyone who's even had a passing interest in time travel and read up on the many user-friendly, math free theoretical plausibility and possibilities of time travel. What Looper does in order to have the film "make sense" on a superficial level is introduce a closed loop. An interesting facet proposed about time travel is that if it is possible, then time isn't really changed; if someone traveled back in time then that's actually what happened back then.

For instance if I traveled back to 1981 and had coffee with your 20 year old self, then now you would see a picture of me and remember having coffee with me 32 years ago just as I look now. It always happened that way. Where this gets tricky is when you have a "closed loop," as it's called in time travel parlance. (No real relation to the "closing your loop" term used in the film, although perhaps a bit of foreshadowing.) A closed loop is when an event in the past causes an event in the future that goes back in time and causes the initial event in the past. Sure, it's a clever little device to throw into a film, but it makes no more sense than any other time travel paradox. To put the concept in simpler terms, imagine that I have a book of all of Shakespeare's work. I have this because he wrote it hundreds of years ago. But lets say I go back in time, before he wrote anything, and took this book with me. Now let's say I give him this volume and tell him to do what he wants with it, and I return to my present time. What we have here is all of Shakespeare's work that has no origin. I only have it because he wrote it, and he only wrote it because I had it to give him, he had it because I gave it to him. It's cyclical, and because of the laws of conservation of matter and energy, it is impossible for this to exist without a point of origin. If my dad gives me a knife in 2010, I go back in time and give it to him in 1990 for him to give me in 2010, then the knife is never actually created.

The fact is that it's impossible to try and be sensible about time travel. By virtue of being impossible (as we know of) it is also incomprehensible and incompatible with our view of time. Therefore I think the best a film can aspire to is to be entertaining. Looper tries too hard to be a time travel movie for the thinking man, but it falls on the same problems as other movies of the type and fails to genuinely entertain in the process.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Freedomland (2006)
3/10
Been Here, Done This
7 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I had heard nothing of this film before viewing it. I was going through movies on TV one night and stumbled across this purely because I noticed Samuel L. Jackson as the star. While it held my interest well enough, was competently made, and had a fairly cohesive script, something about this film doesn't work. "Freedomland" eschews action for some pedantic sociological musings on race, but fails to get anywhere or reach any conclusions because none of the provocative subject matter is really examined; just simply presented in the context of a tired, tired missing child story.

The missing child scenario is nothing new. In fact, it's the subject of so many TV crime dramas as well as hour long forensic crime documentaries that frankly the very premise of this film has been beaten to death both from an entertainment and informational standpoint. What is meant to be the "big reveal" that heads up the third act is pretty well hammered into the viewer within the first however. There is no subtlety once the idea of Brenda being responsible is first (or subsequently) broached and there is never a bit of exposition to lead us to any other conclusion. Maybe this was intentional, but I tend to think not since the entirety of the third act is dedicated to understanding the details of the child's death and disposal. But even if the point was not to be engaged in the mystery, what we're left with is an unexplored and overblown study of where race, crime, and authority meet.

Plenty of films have dealt with whites vs. blacks. A decent few have even explored reverse discrimination. What the purpose of this film was I could not say. The material wasn't presented in any sort of thought-provoking way. Instead, we get this completely overblown representation of how white cops deal with a black neighborhood where a black criminal might be hiding out. The housing project is laughably treated in a way reminiscent of fascist Germany with the white cops nothing more than mindless, bloodthirsty goons. Jackson attempts to be a sort of liaison between the two but ends up as some kind of pariah for both camps. His character's role in all the racial tension is very murky and undefined; I'm not really sure what he added as he did nothing to ease tensions or even get anyone to think about what the hell it was they were doing. To top it off, nothing is gained, learned, or even really lost at the end of it all. There's no way to even begin to think about the issue (not that it was terribly complex in the first place) due to the cartoonish detention of an entire housing project.

Up until now, we just have a movie without a message. Not that it's a bad thing, but it also fails to entertain on a visceral level. Worst of all it wants to have a message, or make some kind of statement, but doesn't even come close. Sometimes, the performance of the actors is so engaging that it need not be flawless when it comes to things like "the plot." Here is where I am most disturbed by this movie; I cannot stand Julianne Moore's performance as Brenda. I don't know if I dislike it because the role is unnerving and supposed to be unnerving, or if it's bad acting. Moore is over the top and difficult to watch and impossible to like, but part of me thinks that all of this may actually be the point of her performance. Jackson is numbingly dull in his role as whatever he is. He generally has a knack for uttering hilarious lines at least once per movie (scratch Cleaner) but in Freedomland he is a perfunctory character making no use of his acting skills.

I won't say the film has actual plot holes, but it does leave a lot of things unresolved that are specifically brought to the viewer's attention. Lorenzo's asthma, Brenda's history of drug use, her brother's Over Zealous 5000 role, the relevance of the 'Freedomland' location, and so on. Sure, you can watch this film and make sense of it. It's not unwatchable, it's just a poorly made film on top of a script rife with poor social commentary. I don't think it's the actors' faults for their shortcomings as characters, it's that the screenwriter couldn't do any better than these one dimensional characters. Even with all of Moore's outlandish acting, she only ever exhibited this sort of nervous panic despite her varying situations. Watch it if you won't, but certainly don't pay to see this.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
An Excercise in Novelty and the Absurd
9 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The idea of a horror musical is so absurd that I absolutely had to watch this while flipping through the movie channels late one night. Although horror is easily my favorite genre of film, the slasher sub-genre falls near the bottom of my heap, and I can't say that I'm a huge fan of musicals either, although I was subjected, by my parents, to watch several musical plays at a theatre in my mid-teens. The difficulty with Don't Go in the Woods is that the plot (what little there is) leans more towards horror, while the actual performance is closer to a musical. The film certainly incorporates elements of both, but there's never a real congruity and everything is painfully uneven.

Several people have heavily criticized the music. It's not really that bad. I can understand someone not having a fondness for the sort of emo-indie feel of the songs, but for a stab at that type of music, it's more than reasonably competent. The instruments are played well, singing is in key, and most of it is catchy enough to enjoy for a few minutes. One issue that became apparent the second time I caught this was how often some of the music was repeated, and that it was repeated very closely in the time frame of the movie. The stuff's not bad, but it becomes a little too obvious that the song writer(s) really only had about 3 catchy progressions and 4 decent lyrics and stretched these "motifs" as thinly as possible. The problem isn't the music itself, but how and to what effect the music is used. In a musical, characters burst out into song, but it's not as if they are putting on a performance inside the movie itself. Rather, the singing and dancing act as a medium of communication common to whatever universe these characters live in. Also, the music and lyrics are typically used in lieu of dialouge and generally advance the plot or add to characterization. Don't Go in the Woods follows neither of these patterns. The characters don't burst out into song, rather they are a band that is actually playing these songs, knowingly and purposefully doing so in the context of the movie. Rarely does any of the music further the plot; a couple of times there may be vague information about the thoughts of our characters conveyed, but never is the plot is truly furthered or expanded upon because of the music. Therefore, rather than this being a musical per se, it's a horror movie with a lot of songs being performed by the characters of the movie. This deviation from what actually constitutes a musical is a big reason it's easy not to like this film; instead of the musical being weaved into the story, it moreover acts as a series of interludes between pieces of plot progression.

The most serious flaw of Don't Go in the Woods lies in its paper thin plot. Kills are fairly random and done without much fanfare (most of it's done in about 10 minutes near the end), and there is never even the vaguest notion of why the band leader is killing his friends, no cleverness in his methods, no mounting tension, and not enough characterization, aside from the lead singer who IS the killer, to give a damn about what happens to anyone. It's not gruesome enough for gorehounds, there's not enough mystery, intrigue, or visual significance to the killer to be even slightly compelled with perhaps the most driving force in a slasher movie. The big twist doesn't make any sense; it's not to hard to figure out once you realize our lead singer is never around any other characters when murders occur (well, except that one kill near the end, whatever that was about) and there's never really a "why" to it all or any series of clever clues for repeated viewings, or red herrings to add suspense and surprise...the horror story told here is exceedingly dull.

There's a ton of other flaws...the acting is at the low end of B-movie horror, there are repeated references to the blind guy being blind, a plethora of characters exist that have no place in the film, not even providing a decent death scene, and there's nothing here to illicit any emotion, positive or negative, aside from some head bobbing to some catchy songs that sadly feel just a little too long and yet a little unfinished. The pacing is just weird. The first act is a lot of boring, conventional exposition of how they all end up in the woods. Act 2 is more or less one musical number after another, with the above mentioned frequency problem, ending with a slew of unremarkable and unsuspenseful deaths, most done during the day. Act 3 finds us with the big reveal which provides much less of a release than it should, because the movie failed to achieve any tension in the first place. And the ending is just plain lazy; we've got a Tyler Durden-esque killer who offed his buddies for a record deal? Maybe? I don't know.

This was an interesting piece when I watched it the first time, and if I'd written a review then I might've marked it a little higher for what it tried to do and the fact that I could actually see some real, non-musical music within the embryotic songs. Upon my second viewing earlier this evening however, my opinion has dropped somewhat, mostly owing to realizing how much the same songs were used and the creeping pace at which any action at all took place, leading to a hasty and unsatisfying end.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Underrated, One of My Favorites
18 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Disturbing Behavior is one of those movies I come back to time and time again. It might be a week between viewings or a couple of years may pass, but I always enjoy it. This film isn't great in the sense of a masterpiece, or a seminal moment in the genre, or in originality, or in how the story is told. What it does have is a certain restraint that keeps a fairly dull sounding plot surprisingly interesting. The X-Files influence on the mood and atmosphere is clearly evident, and it's easy to imagine Cradle Bay as some secluded town that Mulder and Scully stumble upon only to discover this mind control plot.

One of the highlights of the film is the acting. There's nothing there to blow anyone away, but this is easily one of the best portrayals of teenagers in almost any movie I've seen. There's enough subtlety as to not simply show them as stupid teenagers and insult their intelligence, but there's enough naiveté and impulsiveness to make the characters believable as teenagers as opposed to the overly introspective or self sufficient characters with hardly a mention of or need for any parents so prevalent in many movies.

There is a certain coldness and sterility to the ambiance of Disturbing Behavior, punctuated perfectly by the warmth of the humor and irreverence of our 4 friends as well as the spontaneity of the crazy old janitor. While maybe a little smart for his age, Stahl as Gavin is a pleasure to watch on screen, especially with U.V. as his quiet and quirky sidekick. Marsden as Steve plays the new kid in school down to a tee, keeping a low profile and genuinely trying to find his place in this new world. Holmes is beautiful as Rachel and while her character doesn't serve much purpose other than Steve's love interest and later the damsel in distress, she does a fine job of being just another misfit.

The plot can wear thin at times, and Caldecott goes a little too far with his mad scientist persona late in the film, but the film rarely loses it's eerie foothold. The robotic and sometimes psychotic teenagers are fun to watch as well. It's a mundane and tired concept, but it's brought forth in a believable way without becoming hokey. In many respects they are the typical jock; looks great to adults but totally evil to those outside their clique. In Disturbing Behavior we actually have a reason why this kids act in this manner.

I don't know that I have much more to say. There isn't a lot about this film to dissect or read into, but it's a pleasure to watch.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Imperfect but Enjoyable
16 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Normally I'm not a fan of these types of horror movies; my preferences lean towards horror rather than terror. I'm much more interested in the visceral aspect of the genre which mostly leads me into the gratuitously grisly as well as the over the top antics of shlock and camp. But I had a better time watching this than I thought, especially seeing as how I caught on a movie channel this afternoon needing to kill a couple of hours.

Quite frankly it starts out fairly boring. The lead characters are annoying and there's just a little too much of that frat boy vibe going on. Then I realized, with the exception of the psychic, that's probably what was intended. A group of people working on their engineering or biotech degrees or whatever with a passing interest in the paranormal hook up with a friend who's good with a camera. After a few hours of clandestine internet research, they pack up and head out. Still, the beginning drags on a bit too long for such a simple premise and one that nearly everyone is familiar with. When our band of ghost hunters finally gets going, it's kind of fun to watch them fail at making any contact. Some may call it homage to shows like Ghost Adventures but really I think they are poking fun at going into a room and being like "dude, ghost thing, if you are exist, contact now kplzthx." I have to admit it is fun watching absolutely nothing happen when half the time on these ghost hunting shows I have no idea what they think they've captured on film nor have I heard whatever earth shattering sound that proves to be the climax of the excursion.

The tension that is built in the second third of the movie is the strongest point of the film. There is some genuine suspense and a slowly growing sense of dread. I enjoyed the feeling of knowing it was sure to get worse but being completely unsure of how much worse, and in what way. My one complaint about this particular part is how freaked out the characters get. Any time they hear a noise they rush towards it but when anything actually happens they run and scream as if they were there for some other purpose then actually seeking out encounters like this. The door slamming, the gurney moving, the girl's hair being moved...I wouldn't think this would be so terrifying to a team who went to the trouble and expense of going through this whole thing. The lost camera guy and the other camera guy, T.C., getting pushed down the stairs are probably the last bright spots when it comes to this 30ish minutes of buildup.

After all of our characters are sufficiently shook up and just want to get the hell out, the movie moves into more conventional horror movie territory presented in a documentary way. Now that's not to say I didn't enjoy the rest of the movie, but I feel it went in a different direction than the dread that had been building to that point. No longer was the dread and fear building, it was already there, yet the story continues for another 40 minutes or so. The time dilation and inability to leave the asylum doesn't leave much room for suspense at this point; the film crew's fate is pretty inevitable by now. No longer are we asking ourselves the "why" or the "what," all that's left is "how." We're treated to a little bit of eye candy at this point, the plot thickens when they find the camera guy albeit insane by now, and there's arguably the worst on screen horror death ever when the psychic is killed. The events in and of themselves are largely irrelevant at this point, running, crying, and screaming interspersed with a very physical threat; our crew is just as doomed as any counselor at Crystal Lake. The ending is a bit over the top, but not wholly inappropriate considering where the film has decided to go during it's third act.

Push through the beginning and Grave Encounters is interesting and enjoyable enough. The buildup is superb and although the ending takes the film in a new direction, it doesn't make it any less fun to watch. While I wouldn't go as far as calling this "brilliant" as others have, it certainly isn't crap either. It would've been cool to keep more of the horror hidden with perhaps some big reveal at the end for 15 seconds but I enjoy people running from monsters all the same. Worth a rental at least for any horror fan.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Drive Angry (2011)
4/10
Drive Angry Tries Too Hard to be a Bad Movie
11 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Drive Angry comes out of the gate with an absurd (and poorly expositioned) plot, an uneven cast, and quite decent production values with a modicum of sex and violence sure to be considered "extreme" by the average square. It at no point is a "good movie;" in fact it is painfully obvious that the filmmakers wanted a "so good it's bad" reaction from the audience. Whereas most films with this appeal are a product of B-movie shortcuts, Drive Angry can't use that as an excuse to be bad nor as a limitation it has transcended. The filmmakers tried to make a B-movie with decent actors and an outrageous budget and the result is a failure because a movie as such isn't so easy to fake.

Too many reviewers are comparing this to the sort of quasi-grindhouse pseudo-revival of recent years but Drive Angry only wishes it could be one of those movies. What "Grindhouse," "Machete," "Hobo with a Shotgun," etc. did was make a decent movie out of exploitative, high concept material. They took a loose, crappy genre and made genuinely decent movies where all the visceral thrills could be enjoyed in at least a semi-meaningful context. Drive Angry is neither a homage nor a transcendence of the genre; it's bloated and suffers from the very conventions it so desperately tries to "ironically imitate."

First off is Cage trying to be our typical atypical antihero. The man truly only knows how to play one role, but that neither adds nor detracts from his performance as the character is so stilted it's hard to care about what he's doing and there's nearly zero cool factor when it comes to any sort of stylistic sex or violence with Cage on the screen. Even the oft-mentioned sex-during-a-gunfight is contrived and laughable...the girl is totally naked and there's so much screaming about "cock" and "f***ing" but Cage couldn't be any less convincing. We don't even see so much as a buttcrack from him, and the only alternative is that his magic stick is being torn to shreds by his fly. Next is Heard, an amazingly beautiful girl whose purpose is hard to pin down. She does little more than up the F-bomb count in the movie, which wouldn't be so bad if the movie treated her like the sex doll it should have but never quite does. Meant to be alluring and gawked at, she still remains just chaste and pure enough to never approach any raw sexual energy. This "look but don't touch" attitude really has no place in a film like what Drive Angry strives to be. Next up is this Burke guy, a largely forgettable crazy hillbilly stereotype who is severely underdeveloped and underexposed to be the primary antagonist. The Accountant is the one bright spot of acting in the movie as Fitchner has this eerie but quirky presence with enough mystery and style to steal the shots he's in.

Drive Angry wants to be a B-movie, but it isn't. Decent actors and a huge budget remove any and all "bad movie authenticity" when it comes to terrible dialouge and nonexistent characterization. Drive Angry wants to be an exploitation flick, but uses up it's Hollywood allocated "shock points" too early on (gunfight sex, baseball bat kill, hot girl on hot naked girl fight) and finds itself restrainted, even constipated when it comes to exploiting anything for the second half. Lastly Drive Angry wants to be high concept with the whole "good guy from hell seeks Vengeance" plot line and this is easily the weakest aspect of the film. There's some sort of embryotic story here but it's disjointed, poorly explained, and devoid of any style that should automatically accompany a movie whose main character is from Hell.

While the movie ultimately starts off a bit off the wall and I daresay even interesting, it fails to deliver. There isn't enough credible filmmaking to think of it as any kind of art or expression, there isn't enough sleaze, filth, shock, or utter strangeness to provide enough visceral appeal or sensory overload, and there isn't even enough of that certain aesthetic style that makes the most banal action movies nigh brilliant. With even one of these aspects ratcheted up a bit Drive Angry might've escaped the gutter. The plot "thins" (as opposed to thickens) as the movie wears on, the action sequences are decent in execution but subpar in concept, and the climax is pitifully predictable.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Rage (2007)
4/10
Terrible, But Watchably Terrible at Least
11 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not going to go into a lot of plot details...chances are if you're reading this you've either already seen it or your decision to see it isn't going to be based on a few dozen words about plot. Basically it's a mad scientist plus zombies plus killer animals (vultures, in this case) with conventions placed accordingly.

Firstly I'm not sure why "Re-Animator" is popping up in so many reviews...this film is nothing like Re-Animator either in story or style. Well, maybe perhaps a little bit in the story department but in both cases it is but the logical end to mad scientist meets zombies. And for those of you likening this to "another B-movie" please get your understanding of a B-movie straight. The fact is most horror is B-movie crap, and if you're a fan of the genre it's likely that you've seen more B-movie horror than actual Hollywood horror. Evil Dead, Romero's first 3 movies, most franchises, all fall solidly within B-movie territory. Stuff like "The Rage" falls squarely into C- or Z-grade status, depending on how many levels you want to keep separating it into.

Now the reason I say all that is because for a B-movie this is absolutely terrible. For the plethora of Z-grade horror with slick box art that has flooded the shelves for the past few years, it is at least acceptable. The plot is at least coherent (despite some glaring plausibility errors), the script manages to mostly flow seamlessly, and the acting, while bad, is at least not unwatchably bad. The gore is abundant and often, and about 80 to 85% of it is done well, more than making up for the crappy CGI. If you're used to this sort of Z-grade stuff most of this won't detract. Things like lighting and sound, video quality, editing, and direction are all fairly competent. The one thing that really drags this movie down is the pacing. Certain scenes are far too long and/or unnecessary.

Mostly I find the plot tolerable. However there are some strange inconsistencies within the parameters set by the film itself. How does "Uncle Ben" magically end up behind his nephew? Did I miss something about teleporting zombie things...? Also, a deadly killer bird I can get behind, but these things have this sort of psychotic malice that I find a little out there. The vultures are also almost impossible to kill which I think is another drawback; why use animals at all if they're just going to be assigned human malevolence as well as a sort of indestructability? If the enemy was going to have these qualities, I'd rather the zombies themselves be the antagonists. I find that the scientists inbetween status and ability to master the other "zombies" underdeveloped; I find this relationship to be convenient for the film and not something that really gels with what these creatures are supposed to be.

One thing that ultra low-budget horror is good for is pushing a taboo here and there. In the case of the The Rage we have 2; the killing of children and an utterly tasteless "zombie defecation," the latter of which was totally unnecessary. There's a ton of gore here and it kicks in from the start and continues fairly steadily. Obviously the bulk of the shoe string budget went to the creation of entrails and body parts, and I'm OK with that; most of it looks really good and genuinely disgusting. The film stumbles a bit with it's CGI, another hallmark of Z-grade film. Explosions look totally stupid, fake birds fly around with the finesse of an 8 year old with Photoshop, and in a couple of instances the CGI spewing of blood looks as awful as always, only even worse here because the scenes are brightly lit. The vulture puppets, while slightly comical, were a bit gruesome and evil looking, and although the weird choppy/fuzzy edit montage thing is beat to death in The Rage in does serve to enhance some of the puppet-on-human action that would look utterly terrible otherwise.

The pacing of this film is quite poor and the single most difficult obstacle when actually trying to watch this. The beginning is done well although I did grow a little weary of going back and forth between the scientist and the guy begging for his life. It just kind of went on and on. The party/rave scene was blessedly short, as usually this type of scene wears on and on in horror movies. There's a bit too much of running from the vultures, and it really drags during the sequence in the corn field where it would seem the same 5 or 6 shots are edited together over and over. The ending is more gratuitous than most, with multiple sort of mini-climaxes, however this also gets tiring as we do little more than watch the 2 leads run from one room to another only to encounter some LAST last ditch effort from the dwarf zombie.

If it's movies like Final Destination and Scream that rock your world, hell even if Evil Dead II or Dead Alive are your favorite movies ever, then this probably won't be your cup of tea. However, if you've been suckered by slick box art before yet still keep coming back for more, then you might dig this. I would say it'd be a decent intro for those interested in Z-grade horror, but then again that's implying that it's territory worth introducing oneself to.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed