Change Your Image
Sweet_and_Lowdown77
Reviews
Blair Witch (2016)
Failure on every level
In 1999, I decided to cave to the masses & crazy amounts of hype and go see THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. I was, inevitably, let down. The film was boring, redundant and IMO not ground-breaking - since mockumentaries had been done better before. Worst of all, for a horror film, it wasn't scary.
The fact that some folks - in a pre social media world - for a second, believed this was real was absurd. Like police would release evidence of missing people for profit.
My goodness, folks were stupid.
And now I'm stupid. Because I (again) fell for the fake hype. The "early buzz" calling it great and scary, etc. The director on social media pushing it's "not a remake", etc.
Well, like the first film, it wasn't scary. It wasn't ground-breaking and despite the fact the director said it wasn't, it WAS for all intents and purposes a REMAKE.
No, I understand it wasn't. I understand the lead character was going looking for his sister who went missing, and that was the basis for the documentary. I under the first film was a search for the Blair Witch.
But the film did EVERYTHING the same with the same beats and conclusions.
This was even WORSE filmmaking than the original. The original had $50,000 budget. This film had a $5M budget.
What the hell did they spend the money on? No cast, no production design, no music, no camera work - where did the money go?
Obviously, the answer is PR.
This film wasn't just boring and scary, it was just bad. I'm sorry, but a scared person with a flashlight in the quiet, dark woods CANNOT sneak up behind someone.
It's impossible.
Those moments were inauthentic moments designed to give the audience watching a "jump", but they weren't authentic.
Save your $$$. The bad reviews are ALL correct. This weekend, the box office will drop 70%+ and it only opened to $9M because their PR did it's job week 1.
Shame on Adam Wingard, who I admired after solid efforts like YOU'RE NEXT, THE GUEST and TV's OUTKAST. This was a major step backwards. I was looking forward to DEATHNOTE, but if THIS is what Adam thinks is "scary" Deathnote will suffer the same fate as this rubbish.
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
Interesting premise, but ultimately unsatisfying
I was incredibly interested to see this film. But then one of the reasons why I was interested ended up being one of the reasons the film simply doesn't work. I have one major script issue and one issue by marketing that IMO ruins the film.
***SPOILERS***
THE SCRIPT:
I actually loved the way the film starts and gets into the story. I was even with the film all the way until we reach the point where Howard kills Emmett. IMO, this was an incredibly weak choice. At that point, Howard cradles Michelle and tells her "it's okay, this is how it was supposed to be."
Meaning Howard PLANNED to only have Michelle at the bunker. Which means his accident story is false. Which means he was - during an attack - driving around looking for a girl to be with him in the bunker all before the air is poisoned? What are the odds he would find a girl under those conditions at that time? It was reaching to make that Howard's "plan all along".
I thought the trailer gave away the end, but it didn't. I loved that twist. Where we think Michelle is escaping but sees that Howard's telling the truth.
I just felt that the screenwriters didn't use Emmett well at all. He wasn't a decoy, he was simply there.
Also, do we really believe Emmett could've overpowered Howard into the Bunker? Or convinced Howard to take him in? If Howard TRULY just wanted it to be him & Michelle, he would've killed Emmett before Michelle ever woke up.
I was hoping the filmmakers were going to use "Howard being Evil" that second time as a rouse. That the reason Emmett knew about the Bunker was that HE had kidnapped that girl.
It made no sense why Howard would show Michelle a picture of a girl who's not his daughter if Emmett was aware of who the kidnapped girl was.
THE MARKETING:
I admit, "10 CLOVERFIELD LANE" intrigued me. The idea this is a sort of sequel to CLOVERFIELD got me to buy tickets, but then when Michelle wakes up in the bunker and DOESN'T believe Howard that something's happening outside - it dawned on me - IT'S A SEQUEL TO CLOVERFIELD, so Howard's 100% right.
All the mystery was gone.
by calling it "cloverfield" and mentioning in press that it's a sequel, it completely invalidates all the tension of "if" something is happening or not.
I think the filmmakers would've been better to name the film "THE BUNKER" and then NOT tell people it's a sequel. And then, at the end, when Michelle escapes, you see that mailbox with the address "10 Cloverfield Lane" - and let audiences put it together.
Maybe I'm alone, but ultimately this was an unsatisfying experience. I love Goodman and Wanstead. I loved the production design of the bunker. The screenwriters were too focused on plot and not enough on character. Really underusing Emmett and making Wanstead one note were weak decisions. Also, making Goodman good, bad, good and bad just showed they were trying to trick the audience instead of serving the story.
And if I could advise Dan Trachtenberg in the future, you DON'T have to have 90% music running through your film. Silence is sometimes more effective than score to build tension. I felt like this was a musical with wall-to-wall score playing. They're in a bunker. I would've preferred to hear silence, like the characters hear. The weird rumblings from above. The constant hum of the lights or generator or fans.
The Green Inferno (2013)
Big disappointment
Since Eli Roth broke out on the scene with his indie CABIN FEVER, he's never stopped talking about how much influence Cannibal movies were to him growing up.
Well, it didn't translate to his own film.
This was laughably bad. Bad writing, acting & directing. The one good thing was the look of the Cannibal tribe. They looked like a remote tribe of cannibals.
There are WAY too many issues to list. I'll keep it to 3.
1) A couple ounces of weed stuffed into the mouth of a human, who's then cooked would NOT turn an entire village into goofy messes. Unfortunately, this wasn't just a "dumb" horror film moment. It was a plot point. Roth & his co-writer NEEDED the village to be distracted for 2 of the kids to escape. AND THIS IS WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH?
The MAIN problem Roth has is with the villagers. He clearly doesn't know what he wants them to be and he doesn't take a side. The Villagers are shown as victims and just in their actions in some scenes and then barbaric, erratic & just vicious for vicious sake in others.
While I understand they are cannibals, Roth doesn't give the audience any clue he knows who they are. They seem to have principles & traditions, then seem to ignore them. They seem to be extremely well organized one moment, and then the 3 Stooges the next. They are expert sharpshooters hitting people 50 yards away through heavy foliage one scene, and the next won't/can't hit a character in the wide open.
Why were some humans sedated at the plane crash & why were others bow & arrowed to the head?
2) The Almost female circumcision scene. This scene served no purpose, it was completely "attempted shock" for "attempted shock" purpose and not for anything that in any way made sense. I say "attempted" shock, but nothing happens. It was supposed to make you squirm, but this scene was stupid & shows that not only did Roth NOT know the natives he created, but, IMO, took a massive step BACK as a filmmaker.
We are told early in the film's WAY TOO LONG exposition setup, that tribes around the world, including in S. America, view the horrible act of female circumcision as a right of passage from being a girl to being a woman. Horrible but that's what they think.
When the humans are brought into the village, they're treated like food. The pigs are kicked out of the pen & the humans put in the pen.
Now, either the villagers are truly cannibals or they simply eat the captured people they believe to be enemies. The kids weren't their enemies, but they were wearing the clothes of the construction guys, so they mistake them for their enemy.
So, they are either simply eating the kids b/c they're food or that consuming the bodies of the enemies make them stronger.
So why on Earth would they care about circumcising their food before they consume it? Why would they care if the lead girl goes from being a "girl" to "woman" before they eat her?
Roth goes out of his way to explain that this is a time honored tradition for the natives. Why would they show their food/enemy the same respect they show their blood? Do they circumcise the pigs before they cook them too?
No. It was all simply to make the audience wince. And it didn't.
3) Lastly - and most importantly - it wasn't scary. I have to wonder if Roth even ever watched ANY Cannibal movies.
Roth may have peaked with HOSTEL. I personally think HOSTEL 2 was better, but I think I'm alone there. This was a huge letdown.
Sinister 2 (2015)
A poor follow up to original
I really enjoyed SINISTER (although, I'll always think it's a terrible title - HOME MOVIES seemed to make more sense), but I digress.
I liked the original. It was creepy with a solid story that didn't insult the audience. You HAD to be paying attention as the film didn't hit you over the head with what was happening. It left bread crumbs and let you figure it out.
I also thought the performances of Hawke & the others were genuine.
SINISTER 2 was a great disappointment. While I liked the idea of seeing it from the kid's side this time, unlike the 1st film, it TOLD you everything that was going on.
And it didn't have to. We KNEW the basic premise.
I felt all the scenes with the kids weren't authentic. They also weren't scary.
The film made the "home movies" the focus. This was a mistake. The original made the characters the main focus. While creative, the home movies were a side gag that got elevated to "main course" because there wasn't much meat on the bone.
I like Shannon. She still looks so young, yet I believed she would have 2 kids.
I would've made the scenes with the ghost kids scarier. More haunting. More like 6th Sense where they didn't just come out and say what they wanted.
Just my two cents.
Terminator Genisys (2015)
Miscast, Mis-Directed, Poorly written and just a mess
The Terminator was a perfect film. Great idea, story, wonderful action, amazing visuals and MOST importantly characters that felt real & were wonderfully acted.
T2 was pretty close to perfect although, fans of T1 point out that the time travel device Reese went through was destroyed after he went through & that no 2 terminators were identical - I mean, they weren't mass produced on an assembly line. The whole point to make a Terminator was to fool humans. If they all looked alike, it defeats the purpose.
But, T2 was thrilling and epic is scale. It also developed the characters - I mean Linda Hamilton was so amazing - why don't action/sci if films get Awards?
Anyway, T3 wasn't as bad as folks remember IMO. Bad casting & some wooden acting (and again a 3rd identical Arnold). The climax of T3 was pretty great I thought. TS, to me, was incredibly unfocused. It made no sense in parts and, most importantly, simply wasn't exciting or entertaining.
TG is a whole new level of mess. Emilia Clarke might ooze of sex but she ain't got nothing on Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor.
But I digress, it's the story & direction that ruin the film.
The story feels less like a script & more like a few fan boys brainstorming ideas. I actually saw dozens of problems, but I excused them for the most part b/c I was actually interested in 1 thing introduced early on. When Sarah reveals that a Terminator came to her at 9 years old.
Okay, interesting. But... they never say who did this. It's the one thing you're waiting for the entire film. The film makes no sense without the explanation of who sent Sarah the Terminator (again, another Arnold model).
After you finally realize they're not going to answer this, the entire films flaws come rushing at you. How exactly did the T-1000, now Chinese, appear in 1984? Why did Skynet wait until Kyle Reese went back in time before killing everyone in the future? Certainly if Skynet prevents Reese from going back, than the Terminator wins and Skynet wins.
Also, Skynet was left alone with the time travel device after Connor goes through time. Scent then jumps back in time in Connor's body. So, who sent Sarah a Terminator at 9? Who sent the original 1984 Arnold? Who sent the T-1000?
All these things are in the past but yet, no one could've possibly sent them back.
And exactly how did Arnold's Terminator get an "upgrade" to have T-1000 morphing arms?? They went out of their way to SHOW you Arnold DIE in the explosion.
Maybe I missed something but I usually pick up these things. And don't tell me, "they're saving the answers for the sequel". They're might not be a sequel. You HAVE to make a film work for 1 movie. Unless it's Lord of the rings or something, you can't just introduce the main reason why a completely alternate time-line has been made without answering HOW/WHO helped make it.
Now, you can save the "why" it was sent for a sequel. But you have to answer the question YOU put forth. It's like If Citizen Kane never answered who Rosebud was.
I guess what should we have expected from the writer of WHITE HOUSE DOWN, Alexander, DRIVE ANGRY & MY BLOODY VALENTINE?
Now onto directing. It's clear Alan Taylor knew what he was doing on Game of Thrones, but he's now been at the helm of 2 major action films & they are both miserably under-produced, emotional wrecks. THOR 2 barely registered a pulse and TG is worse.
Go back and watch how an action scene is supposed to look like. Go back to T2. with 1/2 the budget & 1/100 of the VFX ability, go watch T2, when the T-1000 chases Arnold, Sarah & John with a helicopter.
TG looks like a cartoon. You KNOW every action scene is 90% CGI. The actors aren't good enough to sell us they're in peril b/c they're NOT in peril. They're simply on a mock up with a green screen behind them.
Do you remember when the T-1000 flew a helicopter into a tunnel and under an overpass?
Alan Taylor had $175M and it looks like a pre-Viz cartoon. I'd be embarrassed to put my name on this film.
If you haven't seen, don't waste your time in the theater. Wait for HBO or when it appears on USA Network or TNT. This is an embarrassment for all involved. The next time you see "the terminator" this storyline will not matter. This is like that Ang Lee HULK movie. They'll make another Terminator, but they're going to ask you to ignore this one.
Extraction (2013)
a fun action film with some nice twists
Extraction was an entertaining action film that was just fun. It has a serious plot but the film never takes it self too seriously. All the actors do a great job. Sean Astin, Danny Glover and Vinnie Jones all do their thing. But it was the unknown stars of the film that really stole the show. I didn't know who Jon Foo or Falk Hentschel was before this. But I do now. Foo is a beast. And Falk has the looks and acting chops to be a breakout star. I just saw he's also in the new Nolan- produced Johnny Depp film TRANSCENDENCE.
The tone of the film starts out serious, but ever so naturally, the film lightens its mood and becomes wonderfully comedic. It, however, never strays from the action nor does it forget it's plot. Some nice story twists and turns keep you guessing.
I gave it 9 out of 10. Very fun solid piece. The first film I ever watched on Crackle. I'll watch more from now on. I'll also be on the lookout for more Foo and Hentschel.
Middle Men (2009)
Seriously how did this movie not get any attention?
I was skeptical about this film. I know it says it got a theatrical release, but it must've been on only a couple screens.
If you are thinking about watching this movie, do it. It's wonderful. I gave it 8 out of 10. There was a little too much Voice Over narration, but this was a great story, well acted and well directed. Luke Wilson's never been a great thespian, but here, he's very good. Giovanni Ribisi overacts, but here it works. Gabriel Macht, who I have never liked was great. And Laura Ramsey was gorgeous and great. I could have done without Jacinda Barrett, but hey, that might just be me.
In a day and age where crap gets 3000 screens (I'm talking to you Season of the witch, drive angry, hall pass, the roommate), it's a shame this was not released wide and could not find an audience.
To the filmmakers... very well done. To the distributer: you could have done better.
And Soon the Darkness (2010)
So much right, but too much wrong
1st off, I am a HUGE Amber heard and Odette Yustman fan and when I heard they were in a film together, I was very happy and eager to see it. AND SOON THE DARKNESS has a lot of good things going for it, but ultimately it fails to deliver or (which is probably why it didn't get any theatrical love) be memorable in any way.
I thought the setup, acting and locations were all great. The problem squarely lies in the direction and script.There was a completely useless "teaser" showing a young woman being tortured (like so many torture porn films before). When you actually learn why these girls are taken, this opening is revealed to make no sense. Strike one.
I thought the 1st act did a great job of creating a realistic scenario (albeit 2 girls that looked like Odette and Amber riding alone in S.A. is unbelievable, but that aside, the set up works). The bar scene was particularly effective (although not one South American man hits on Amber?)
Odette burst onto the scene with CLOVERFIELD (a film I despised) and then THE UNBORN (which was terrible). She's stunning and displayed moments of great potential in both, I just didn't like those films. This is the best performance I've seen her give. She OWNS the 1st act of this film. Amber's great too, but I've seen more of Amber's work so it didn't need mentioning.
Where the film falters is the abduction and subsequent events that follow. It's completely unbelievable. I click spoiler alert, so I will spoil some things. Odette's kidnapped and taken to a burnt out town. This is way too easy for Amber to finally find her. And the girl in the opening teaser was chained, but here Odette's ductaped. The scenes with Amber searching for Odette were unconvincing. She looked in 3 spots (where she disappeared the hotel & then where she was being kept). How Karl Urban didn't know exactly where she was and he'd been there 6 months looking for his missing girl is unbelievable. Why did the Cop pretend to help Amber? He had her alone in his car, at the station? He could have taken her captive several times. She was all alone. She was ripe for the taking. Also, the director should not have included shots of Odette being held captive. We as the audience should think the worst. We knew she was alive.
Again, major spoiler...
Now, one thing that worked was Odette's death. I didn't see it coming. And Amber being trapped in the cop's car by her own doing was great.
BUT... that points out the above note. If the cop was going to take her, why didn't he do it several hours before?
It was also WAY TOO EASY for Amber to escape and eventually kill her captors.
Overall, I wanted to love this film. But I didn't. I think Odette and Amber are stars and if you like them, you'll want to watch this film. The director, while not having any nudity in the film, does give us some amazing shots of the girls (including several very good close ups of Odette's bottom).
I gave the film 5/10.
I Love You Phillip Morris (2009)
Good, odd, daring, weird, fascinating, good acting, but definitely not for everyone
I'm going to try to give a spoiler free review...
At first you could think this was some wild Jim Carrey farce about gay men in love. Well, it definitely is not his usual fare.
I was never a big Carrey DUMB & DUMBER fan. I loved THE TRUMAN SHOW and ETERNAL SUNSHINE, so when I found out he was doing this, I was definitely willing to give it a shot.
I don't think the majority of his fans will.
The story's great. The pacing of the film can be slow at times. All the acting is great, especially Carrey. I thought Ewan was good too, but the part wasn't too big of a stretch for him.
Why ultimately this film is worth seeing however, is not the "gay" thing, or Carrey's performance... it's the story. It's incredibly fascinating and definitely worth the watch.
I just don't think many people will watch it.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Not your Father's NOES... and that's a bad thing
The original NOES was truly unique, scary, ingenious and worthy of many sequels (although the sequels never truly lived up to the original). And in the remake happy era, it was a prime target to get made again.
It's a pity the filmmakers have no clue what made the first film (or any horror film) work.
Platinum Dunes struck gold with their TCM remake in 2003. While not as good as the original, it was entertaining, well made, well acted and it looked awesome. Since then, they have taken on a Uwe Boll-like ability to take great ideas and make them boring (THE HITCHER), stupid (Friday the 13th) and altogether not-scary, dull and perplexing bad... which is how I describe the new Nightmare on Elm Street.
The Pros... there was one. The idea that Freddy had a personal connection to the kids. That he molested the very kids he was attacking was interesting. But the execution of it was terrible. How does the entire class repress the incidents of what happened? It's almost impossible. This isn't Los Angeles, or New York or some big city. They're in Springwood. A small suburb. All the kids live on ELM STREET or in its vicinity. How do they not know all the kids from the preschool that they've been seeing in their neighborhood their entire lives? When Nancy asked if she had a connection to Quentin or Dean, and the mother said "no"... Why didn't she just say, "Uh, Nancy, you've lived down the street from them your whole life." It was one of the dumbest moments in film.
And how about the miscasting of Jackie earl Haley (who's being type cast as a pedophile). I think he's a good actor, but he seemed to want to play the role straight, unlike Robert Englund's legendary campy interpretation of Freddy. Which, by the way, is why NOES is memorable and worthy of a remake. Jackie seemed to fight those trademark one liners (or just couldn't execute them well). So he wasn't funny. He also just wasn't scary. He's a tiny man. Kellan Lutz is 1 1/2 ft taller than him and could've broken him in two. His make-up was horrible. Usually in the remakes it's the VFX and MUFX which are better, since the budget's are higher, but here, it's much worse.
The final attack I will make is on the director: Sam Bayer. Stick to music videos. This was by far the worse acting in a studio released film since Platinum Dunes Friday the 13th. Katie Cassidy should have her SAG revoked. Connie Britton was absolutely horrible. And Jackie Earl I just think had to be misdirected. The rest of the cast was laughably bad. And Sam, loud does not equal scary. Every "jump" moment was accentuated by a thunderous sound FX. It doesn't matter how loud the effect is, if the moment ain't scary, no sound will help it. And not one moment was scary in this film. Or creepy. You stole every iconic image that was scary. We all know those moments. They didn't scare us.
And, by the way, dreams don't have cutaways! Quentin's dream about what happened to Freddy. He's outside watching when we cut inside. Exactly who's prospective is that? It's Quentin's dream!!! You can't cut to a place where Quentin isn't if it's his dream. When you dream, do you cutaway to another location? No.
It's been out 2 weeks. I'm sure it won't last another 2. I was very disappointed. I went in with positive thoughts. It was truly the worst movie of the year. Shame on Michael Bay. His raping of my childhood continues.
Død snø (2009)
If there had to be a Nazi Zombie movie...
... I'm glad these filmmakers did it.
The setup is the same as most horror in woods films and the plot is barely there. But... I watched this expecting, well, for it to be completely terrible. Like one of those SyFy channel unwatchable creature flicks. It wasn't. The acting was surprisingly good and it was done with care and respect.
Sure, Nazi Zombies buried in the mountain snow of Norway sounds like the dumbest plot ever. And, it is, but the filmmakers know this too. It was a thoroughly enjoyable horror-comedy. Over-the-top, yes. Weird. Yes. Fun, yes.
The budget couldn't have been more than $1million, maybe $2 million tops. SyFy should learn from these guys. Or better yet, Platinum Dunes should learn from these guys.
For fun, give it a chance. I know you're curious. "Nazi Zombies in Norway." Who wouldn't be?
Friday the 13th (2009)
A real shame
When I think about Friday THE 13TH, I think about the image of the girl in the boat, the police coming, she's just been through a night of hell. She thinks she's safe, and JASON jumps out of the lake and into the boat and hauls her under. That long slow shot of the deformed boy is forever in my mind.
Can you name one image from this remake that's memorable?
I am the biggest Friday fan there is. I saw parts 3 - 10 (plus F vs J) and now this film in the theaters. I was 10 when part 3 came out. But I had seen and loved parts 1 & 2 enough to drive my mom to take me to see 3 in 3-d.
Let me state up front, I never wanted to see this remake. My love for Jason drove me to it in the end.
Shame on Michael Bay, the studios and the producers and the writers. I can't blame the director. He obviously had no love or knowledge of the history of Friday THE 13TH. He shot what was written. This combo did a decent job with TCM remake, but fail miserably here.
It was one of the laziest remakes ever. It had no style. No charisma. Nothing memorable about it. The $43 million opening has nothing to do with this film, the writers, the stars, the director or even the trailer (which stunk). The reason this film did so well is b/c Friday THE 13TH has a loyal base of fans that desperately wanted to see another film in the theaters.
But we didn't deserve this one. Mrs. Voorhees killed in the first 90 seconds? Betsy Palmer gave one of the great horror film performances of all time. This time around, Mrs. Voorhees is an afterthought. The first 25 minutes are unwatchable. The ending is stupid (let's take the mass serial killer and dump him in the lake?) How about, call the police? Nothing like contaminating a crime scene. Revealing that the sister is alive about 25 minutes too early. In part 2... the woman they modeled the sister after was amazing. When she tricks Jason into thinking she's his mother... that was cool. Here it was lame. The police searched the forest and never found the remnants of Camp Crystal Lake? How about that power's being pumped into the camp? And everyone but the cops seems to find the pot growing back there.
And how about trying to maybe make the film scary?
One of my big problems with the Friday films was after part 2 they never did explain why Jason "came out." In part 3, the farm was always there and aside from on attack when the girl had wandered away, Jason never bugged them. Part IV, the same. Why did Jason just choose now to come out of his hiding place? Here, by combining elements of 4 films, they heighten this stupidity instead of solve it. Obviously this rich kids house has been visited many, many, many times before, but Jason just chooses now to come out and kill the kids? The farm kid?
I left the theater reminiscing with friends about parts 1 & 2. They tail off after that in my opinion. This was bad. It didn't have to be. But it wasn't scary. It wasn't memorable. Hell, THE NEW BLOOD was more memorable. This just wasn't a Friday THE 13TH film.
Storm Warning (2007)
No story. Dumb characters. Lame.
You are going to get 3 gross kills in this film. That's it. If that's what you are into, go for it, but it's nothing great. Just gross and nothing you haven't seen before.
The film contains bad acting, no story, illogical choices made by the characters and is a waste of time. This is not a horror film. More like an attempted thriller. Usually the dumb choices in these films are made by the main char., but here, the "bad guys" are even dumber.
So 3 porn addicted hillbillies who haven't seen a live woman in years and are moments away from raping her (something they have been suggesting they are going to do for 20 minutes) decide just as they are about to penetrate her... to go inside, watch some porn, leaving the girl and her man alone in a dilapidated (easily escapable) barn with 1000 weapons at their disposable... then decide to go get the girl to bring to the father to rape, only when the 1st son comes back, the place is booby-trapped- Macgyver-style. The 1st son dies in said booby trap, but no one seems to notice/care? This was the equivalent of Dr. Evil telling Scott Evil in Austin Powers I, "I am going to leave them in an easily escapable situation, but assume they will die. What?"
And don't you hate when you are a hillbilly and are about to rape a woman and you go c*ck first into her and she has a broken bottle between her legs and it cuts up your c*ck? Hate that. How he couldn't tell there was a broken Malt Liquor bottle between her legs as he was groping her is beyond me.
This was stupid. Cheap production values (worst Video film I have ever seen). How about a few more cuts to the sky Mr. Blanks in the first 10 minutes? The film was built around three gross kills. Three gross you will only enjoy if you are mentally-challenged or not yet hit puberty.
There is no story. None. Not even an attempt. Couple lost, finds drug dealer hillbilly home and then kill hillbillys before hillbillys can do anything to them.
At least in films like HILLS HAVE EYES, DELIVERANCE, and TIMBER FALLS, something has happened to the leads. Those films have stories. Those films had obstacles the characters had to overcome. Nothing happens to our leads except getting scared and a sprained leg (b/c if it was broken like the film suggests, he wouldn't have been able to walk out of the barn - even with a limp).
Avoid like the Plague.
Das Leben der Anderen (2006)
Brilliant
Quite simply one of the best films of the past 5 (maybe 10) years. A truly remarkable story coupled with brilliant acting, and one of the best scores ever. It breaks your heart then lifts your spirits. I know how corny that sounds, but it's true.
The only reason I hesitate giving it a 10/10 was it did seem to be a little hard on the women. Actually woman. The film kinda treats the lead woman as Eve. The men all skate, and the woman is seen as the evil one.
But it's really minor and that is nit-picking. Not enough to bring this film down. In fact, it might be a comment that I am trying to find fault in it b/c it is so flawless.
We in the US complain about our rites and liberties being trampled on. Berlin in 1984 we are not. This film shows how truly horrific the world was (and can be). But also does an amazing job showing that even the coldest human being can change. He can become good.
I highly recommend this film.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Huge expectations left unfulfilled
I am a huge Coen brothers fan, but have been disappointed in their most recent efforts. While NCFOM is a lot better than THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, INTOLERABLE CRUELTY and LADYKILLERS (not hard at all), this is not a great film.
**** POSSIBLE SPOILER ****
For 75% of it, you think you're watching a masterpiece. You forgive all the little things because the whole is so satisfying. Knockout performances from Brolin, Bardem, and Woody Harrelson. But, like the book, once Moss dies, the story limps to the end. The Coen's were very true to the book. Maybe too much so in some places and not others. I think Moss's back-story got lost and added to an underdeveloped hero (although, like I said, Brolin is awesome). Bardem gets the role of a lifetime. The best scene in the film might have been with Bardem and the Gas Station Attendant. Genius.
But Once Brolin's character is gone (very unsatisfying death by the way - not seeing your hero die?) The film becomes Tommy Lee Jone's film and it just dies. The life goes out. Jones is his usual self, although you got the sense this wasn't hard for him to do.
The film's cinematography is excellent. The acting is great (except for Kelly McDonald's Mom). The lack of music was genius.
But as far as "best Film of 2007"... Not even close. EASTERN PROMISES wins that one.
Atonement (2007)
A giant step backwards
I thought atonement was a giant step backwards for Joe Wright. This was a film I was eager to see. I enjoyed PRIDE & PREJUDICE. The first 40 minutes of ATONEMENT were sensational. The last hour plus was extremely disappointing.
The beautiful pacing and energy and heart of the film left once James McAvoy was arrested. That 10 minute stedicam thru war carnage was pretentious and brought the film to a grinding halt it never recovered from.
Great acting by McAvoy. Not so much anyone else. I usually love Keira Knightly, but she is horribly mis-cast. 100% unbelievable.
It pains me to write all this.
I think all this Oscar talk is nothing but the film's and actor's publicity people working overtime. The movie's 2 hours long (and it felt like 4). I can't see anyone talking about this film. In fact, I'm guessing there won't be many who turn out at all.
Timber Falls (2007)
Entertaining Horror film with some great dark humor
I watched this film last week at the closing night of SCREAMFEST in LA. I have been looking forward to it for a while. The online reviews have been split, some love it, a few did not. I was curious.
This is a very entertaining film. It doesn't break too much new ground as far as setup. You got your "teaser" scene with a baddie doing bad things, then you intro the "heroes" going camping, and then the sh*t hits the fan. It's here where the film is not like others. It hits the same beats, but the story was unique and creepy and weird. DELIVERANCE, Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE and MISERY were 3 films it's similar to.
Most horror films, of late, spend the 1st 30 minutes introducing the main characters and their petty problems, but then once the "evil" element kicks in, all those problems and character traits go away. TIMBER FALLS introduced things in the beginning that paid off in the end. The two leads (Josh Randall and Brianna Brown) were great. Josh in particular.
But the best actors and most interesting characters are IDA and CLYDE. The warped couple. The tag-line says "deranged locals and a gruesome plot." Well, it's not like HOSTEL or CAPTIVITY or HILLS HAVE EYES. This was an actual real plot. The gruesome scenes made sense. Not just for shock value. There was a real story here and cheap gross out tactics were not needed.
It's also about 1/2 way thru the film when the dark humor comes in. And it pays off great. The film isn't pretentious and does not take itself too seriously. I think a couple of the negative reviews probably missed out on this. There are still great jumps and scare moments, but the film definitely provides a lot of tension breaker moments. The crowd went wild and reacted great at all of these. I don't think watching this movie at home on DVD will have the same impact as watching it in the theaters with an audience.
The cast and director were at the screening. They announced the film is coming out in theaters in December in select cities.
This is not THE EXORCIST. It's not so super scary all the way through and it seemed to have a "this might be a hit so we need to tack on an ending that could leave film open to sequel" ending. But it has a great story, great acting. Good scare moments. Some gross stuff and some real, intentionally funny moments. When you see it, remember this line, "Things are starting to get out of hand here, y'all." It brought the house down.
Very well done.
30 Days of Night (2007)
Good, but flawed
This is a well made film. It looks great. Sounds great. Good gore (if you are into that). Surprisingly good acting (especially from bad Vampire #1). But, and this might not mean a lot to a lot of people, but... the story is very weak.
1) Once you get past the gimmick, there isn't much. Okay Vampires can only come out at night and night lasts 30 days. So they don't have to hide every 12 hours. That premise gets old fast. 2) The Vampires were portrayed as very clever. They manipulate a human to help them find the town, sabotage the communication system and kill all the dogs in town. But yet... The Vampires are in a town with only a handful of people and 20 buildings and they cannot find 10 people hiding in an attic - for 30 days? There is a mass exodus from town in the opening scene. So only a handful of the 152 citizens remain. The vamps kill at least 15 right away. Then for 15 more days can't find the remaining people? 3) The humans go without food water or the bathroom for 30 days 4) Why turn yourself into a Vampire 15 minutes before the sunrises? 5) There's no real plot. Just survive the 30 days. 6) If you cast Melissa George in a film and never have her out of a snowsuit you should be fired. At least have the obligatory, "i have to shower" scene. Come on!
Like I said, these are plot/script problems that might not be a problem for some. I think the screenwriters (and by default the director) let the audience down. The production was big. The acting good. The VFX and FX were great.
If they put a little attention into some story issues this could have been great. that and a little skin from Melissa George. Is that too much to ask?
Halloween (2007)
does everyone in Haddonfield go the the same barber?
********** POSSIBLE SPOILERS************
I thought this film would suck and suck bad. The truth is... it was better than I expected. Having said that, it's not great. I just don't get Rob Zombie's casting choices and the performances he gets. They are always bad. And the first 5 minutes of this film has some of the worst acting EVER. I'm talking Uwe Boll territory. And why does everyone - white trash to Child Psychologists - have the exact same hairdo?
But then the next 40 minutes or so, the film finds it's groove. The ads hint that you'll see more of Michael's life. And you do. And it's quite fascinating. Not just embellishing on what Carpenter and Hill hinted at. Much more. And Zombie and the movie are at its best here. Most remakes films just retell the original story with some changes. Zombie makes HALLOWEEN a character piece. Michael's story. And this was well done, interesting and refreshing.
Unfortunately, the film absolutely collapses after Michael 'comes home.' Instead of staying on an original course he established, Zombie crammed Carpenter's original plot back into this film. Carpenter told that story in 90 minutes. Zombie tries to cram all that in about 30. And it feels it. All the originality got pushed aside and it became about killing teens after sex.
In the 1st half, You saw Michael carefully select his victim, what set him off on them and then, not only the kill, but you saw Michael's growing fascination in killing. Zombie took his time and it's quite effective. The Young Michael Myers (a perfectly cast ugly child) is very convincing.
The 2nd half, it's just stuff you could find in 1000 slasher films. It's loud, but not nearly as scary as the 1st half.
Again some bad acting bookends this film. The girls are cute, but annoying, whiny and the entire audience cringed when Laurie uttered, "Was that the boogeyman?" Cringed then laughed. The final resolve is stupid. And the commercials say, "a twist you'll never forget," um... what twist? I don't know if the marketers know what a twist is. THE SIXTH SENSE or USUAL SUSPECTS have twists. This DOES NOT have a twist. Unless they mean a twist on the original's ending? But it's not really that different.
The final 15 minutes are bad. Bad acting, loud, not scary and silly. It's unfortunate.
I really wish Zombie (who I don't usually like), could've stayed on the path he laid out. It was a film we had never seen and was looking like it would be a nice compliment to the original. But sadly, it's not to be.