McHenry Reviews

Exam (2009)

An ending even harder to buy than the ending of 'SAW'

[2/10 · 15 October 2010]

Only with 'Saw' and 'Sixth Sense' have I seen such an implausible ending seemingly made purely for the sake of having a 'twist'. We're supposed to accept that shite at face value? Not that the movie made a lot of sense up to that point anyway. Seemed interesting at the start, but went downhill rapidly, with the last 5 minutes or so stretching credibility to the breaking point and beyond... This was not the suspension of disbelief, it was the untethered balloon of disbelief. For supposedly creative and brilliantly intelligent candidates, they allowed themselves to be manipulated by each other in mind-bogglingly stupid ways...like accepting a piece of paper for burning just blindly without first looking closely to see if it's relevant... some of these kinds of movies have interesting premises, I just don't understand why they have to insult our intelligence by assuming we'll accept any kind of plot stupidness.

Antichrist (2009)

The only way to insult this movie is with indifference

[9/10 · 15 November 2009]

I won't say that anyone is wrong to violently denounce this movie. But I will say that to do so is the sincerest form of flattery to Lars Von Trier. It's the same with Art or Architecture, when it's bold and provocative it's generally only loved or hated. If you hate it, you're just as complimentary as someone who loves it. You have allowed it to occupy your passion. Indifference would be worst. When I saw it in the cinema, there was a sort of heckler who proclaimed that 'we all wasted our money and we know it' - as if the self-importance of his opinion was relevant to anyone else. Other people in the audience told him to shut up - and yet he stayed until the end of the movie that he apparently hated - LOL.

Grizzly Man (2005)

Interesting adaptation of an eccentric character

[8/10 · 3 November 2006]

*mild spoiler - not really though* It's always interesting to listen to people who are passionate but not well informed about what it is they are passionate about. Mr. Treadwell seemed was not knowledgeable enough about Grizzly bear behaviour to take the necessary precautions. Or perhaps his familiarity bred complacency. It was never clear to me what kind of 'protection' he was offering them, other than simply to raise awareness. But I think useful co-existence includes giving other living creatures their needed space. As the theory in Quantum Mechanics goes, you must consider that the act of observation will have an adverse effect on the outcome of the experiment.

What I really observed from his footage is that these bears have the capacity for violent and merciless acts even among their own - how can a human being expect to enter their circle and be entirely safe? But then, instinctively I already knew this.

Maybe he wanted to connect on a level that no other human had before with untamed animals. Perhaps there is some nobility in that. I'm sure he believed there was. Maybe it was his way of flirting with danger and feeling alive, some base jump; he bathed with grizzly bears. Although it never seemed like he truly feared attack. Maybe we can walk away from the movie with the romantic notion that he died doing something he truly loved. Otherwise, it could be looked at as a bleak story that leaves many scratching their heads.

xXx (2002)

Pretty juvenile...

[3/10 · 9 October 2006]

Did anyone else notice the RPG - type weapon that the Vin Diesel character uses near the end? Did you happen to see that it's simply a modified SONY camcorder? How cheesy is that? Was the props budget running out by then or what? This movie was I think the beginning of the end for Vin Diesel action career. He did well in Saving Private Ryan, but then for some reason started to shoot down his own credibility by accepting action roles that only barely pubescent males would appreciate. Too much implausible action with too little substance. Someone earlier compared it to James Bond style. At least 007 films have a story.

V for Vendetta (2005)

This movie doesn't 'do' totalitarian very well...

[6/10 · 6 October 2006]

After watching this movie, I had to agree with an earlier posting which stated that this movie didn't really present a believable totalitarian regime. When the troops stormed in after the Benny Hill skit, I half expected the bloke to blurt: "How dare you barge in here during tea!??!" You need to present a really dour, Machiavellian political atmosphere, where all sense of personal freedom is removed. Where the threat of brutalities is as horrifying as the brutalities themselves. Characters with muted personalities, indicating fearful oppression, but yet moments of humanity peeking through (1984, Fahrenheit 451, Handmaid's Tale, THX 1138) and the hero should begin like all the others, no different than they are, except for a courageous ability to rebel. For as long as there is even only one defiant character, the world is saved. There hasn't been a movie like that in a long time. Just look at what they did to the remake of 'Rollerball' - I'm afraid to see what they'll do to 'Logan's Run'.

Saw (2004)

Boring Spongiform Ensufferable-Plot-empty

[10/10 · 21 February 2005]

Okay, I'll give some credit: it wasn't that boring. But you could fly a fleet of Airbus A380s through the plot holes. Some of the reviewers here gave it a 'thumbs up' despite that, but I can't, because to do so would be to validate the insulting of the moviegoers intelligence. This is clearly a case of two dudes with a cool premise for a movie who just decided to make it up as they went along. It's like: what should we shoot next? Hey - wouldn't it be cool if it turned out that the one guy was actually a photographer hired to take pictures of the doctor. And then: we need one last twist at the end - the dead guy is the killer! Of course, anyone with advanced metastatic glioma in the frontal lobe should be able to lie death-like for hours on end. I like visuals as much as the next horror aficionado, but please, give me substance with it or at least make it unnecessary.

Morvern Callar (2002)

Don't Try To Understand

[6/10 · 15 January 2005]

...is what her boyfriend wrote. The exact could be said about this film, which tends to sink into art-house 'quicksand'. A challenge to our ability to adopt suspension of disbelief. A girl comes home to find that her dude has offed himself, so she then dresses up, goes out for a night of debauchery and sex, comes home and hacks up the boyfriend into manageable pieces and then totes him into the woods, where she buries his parts, spins a few times with her arms outstretched like Christ, and dangles her hand into the cool water of a creek. Later she takes her close girlfriend for a vacation to Ibiza, then proceeds to abandon said friend in the desert, and finally fraudulently claims her dead boyfriend's unpublished novel as her own and sells the rights for 100 000 pounds. It starts off fairly annoyingly, but then starts to endear a little (or maybe I was just drunk, as I was enjoying a bottle of excellent Australian red during the movie) but finishes off really deadbeat. No real problem with performances, but the too-low audio while the characters were talking, complicated by mumbled Scottish dialect was contrasted with cranked volume during the score which embodied by far the strangest musical choices for a soundtrack in recent memory. I do like many unusual films like those of David Lynch (as another comment mentioned), but Lynch goes strange with every character and the movie as a whole, so then all's fair for the course of his films. The plot in this movie is somewhat vacuous. If this movie asks us to relate or empathize with the responses of the main character, then there are going to be problems for the typical viewer. Perhaps the film is asking us to ask ourselves what we would do.

Irreversible (2002)

Uncompromising

[24 February 2004]

You really have to appreciate a director willing to take such risks. This is a movie so intense and that even those who don't like it can't really say it sucks because then it just appears that they couldn't handle it. I saw it on DVD, but I really wish I had had the opportunity to view it in the cinema. The reactions of a typical audience would have been interesting. Hearing of people walking out of the theatre reminded me of when I viewed 'Natural Born Killers' - but it really is inappropriate to compare those films. Real auteurs will always prefer disgust for their films over indifference. This movie really fuels the existentialist dilemma(I paraphrase, of course): 'pleasure is finite, but pain is infinite'.

Cabin Fever (2002)

A disappointment

[3/10 · 7 February 2004]

I had some high expectations for this film. First, because I was intrigued by the story idea, and second because I am an avid fan of the horror movies of the 70's and early 80's - that was the 'golden era' of the slasher film. I guess we should give Eli Roth an 'E' for effort in trying to pay homage to such great films as 'The Evil Dead' (I own a copy). But, what always impressed me about Sam Raimi (Evil Dead director) was his inventive camerawork and cohesion of his storyline, even though it deals with incredible situations as in this movie. Mr. Raimi skillfully used the 'dutch angle' and dynamic camera to great effect. This movie had zero creative camerawork, and really only resembles 'The Evil Dead' in gore. Even there, 'Evil Dead' has it beat because Raimi knows how to really go over the top. Hearing that Peter Jackson apparently endorsed this film surprises me, because I also own a copy of his 'Dead Alive' AKA: 'BrainDead' which again was incredibly innovative and had logical editing throughout. I can only imagine that he had some vested interest in 'Cabin Fever' and hadn't seen the final print. I think most fans of campy horror like myself can forgive a lot when it comes to weak plot developments (I still don't understand how some blood and a few swings of a baseball bat could incapacitate a pick-up truck - they couldn't think of a more imaginative way to have the truck not start?)but if you're going to get really illogical, then you might as well pull out all the stops and let the boom microphone swing into the scene or have a background extra or technician partially showing at the edge of the frame. If you're going to go bad, go REALLY bad with no apologies.

Dreamcatcher (2003)

How we should respond to this film...

[1/10 · 12 April 2003]

Shoot the Director/Producers and p*** upon the corpses! Throw Tomatoes at Stephen King's house! Toss every copy of this wasted celluloid into one big pile and incinerate it, then have the ashes launched into the deepest regions of space! This movie was so idiotic that I am convinced that an invading alien species had produced it in an attempt to induce mass stupidity of the human race. I didn't happen to notice if a boom microphone ever swung into the shot, but that is the only way I could imagine it being any worse. The fact that most of the reviews here tend to agree with me, makes me have some faith in humanity still. Thank God. For those who liked it, I fear they are 'Darwin Awards' waiting to happen.

Dreamcatcher (2003)

so bad it's offensive

[1/10 · 24 March 2003]

I remember reading Roger Ebert's review of 'Battlefield Earth' when he said watching it was like taking a long bus ride while sitting next to someone who hasn't bathed in a long time: not just bad, but outright offensive. That's exactly how I felt when I left the cinema halfway thru this atrocity (incidentally the first movie I have ever not stayed until the end for). The only reason I don't want to contact the producers and demand compensation is because I would rather forget the whole thing. If you know what's good for you, avoid this one like the Ebola virus. zero stars. minus one/ten.

The Life of David Gale (2003)

provocative

[9/10 · 25 February 2003]

Wow - the critics on the Rotten Tomatoes site seemed to be personally offended by this one, especially Ebert. Many called the plot 'implausible', and yet 'Signs' made perfect sense to some of those same critics. By Mr. Ebert's rating system, this movie stands on par with 'The Doom Generation', which I think is fairly ridiculous. I have lost a lot of faith in Ebert, who I used to respect so much. A critic of his stature has a responsibility to maintain a certain level of objectivity in his assessments. In my humble little opinion, this movie is worth a look. Yes, I think I am against capital punishment, because you can summarize it this way: 'To kill is wrong... if you kill, we are going to kill you'. But one's ideals need have no bearing on the film, and in any case, perhaps the film-maker intended to be a little more ambiguous than many critics allege.

Unbreakable (2000)

Unbearable

[16 February 2003]

Some of the comments here mentioned a slow-burning story... now there's an idea: burn the film slowly, or not so slowly, as the case may be... and speaking of slow things - how about that storyline? Up here in Canada we have glaciers that move more quickly. But that wouldn't matter so much if the story made any sense, lol, I don't know about you, but I'd have that kid committed if he contemplated shooting me to prove I'm a superhero. Actually, now that I think of it, the movie would have improved immeasurably if the kid had popped off a few rounds - that would have been cool, oh well...

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Nothing more than a clever marketing exercise

[4/10 · 25 January 2003]

The Blair Witch Project can be considered a text-book example of 'forward-deployment' marketing, rather than a great film, which it is not. I may be blasted for saying this - but this movie wasn't scary. Not even a little, it wasn't even suspenceful. Proponents praise such things as 'creepiness', but I can think of numerous other films with better examples of this, notably 'Jacob's Ladder'. It was however a brilliant sell to the public, the genius in the marketing was in alluding that the story might be true. I'll admit that was what originally intrigued me. In this sense, we have all been 'had'. Perhaps those fans of the movie know this deep inside and are in denial, trying to validate their praise by looking for something deeper.

Equilibrium (2002)

It's been done...

[7 December 2002]

The plot is nearly a complete rip-off of THX 1138 (George Lucas' feature length version of his thesis film)I guess the 'post-apocalyptic' genre has been done to death, it's time to switch back to the good ole 'Totalitarianist Future' and throw in some 'Matrix' to appeal to contemporary audiences.

Armageddon (1998)

I rate this movie a 9...

[21 August 2002]

... for the total collective intelligence of those who thought it was good. But then again, maybe we should all relax and enjoy it just for what it is (like some have commented here), send our brains on vacation and allow ourselves to be bombarded by the flashy, meaningless imagery similar to the way plants photosynthesize light. LOL - after all, basic concepts in Physics shouldn't apply to a movie involving space flight, right? Not to mention plausible human interraction or behavior. And Mr. Bay - justify your grossly inflated salary and do some research for God's sake!! Rohrschach Ink Blot tests are no longer considered valid for psychological assessments!!

The Sixth Sense (1999)

implausible ending - even for a movie

[3 August 2002]

SPOILER ALERT!! With all the hype surrounding this movie, naturally you are going to see it with high expectations. It's one thing to have an ending which is 'surprise' because it was clever and the audience didn't think of it, but quite another when the 'surprise' is because the ending simply doesn't make any sense. The audience feels cheated in that case. I mean, come on... *SPOILER* - a year living with his wife as a dead person, and he doesn't make the connection until the end of the movie? All I can say is their sex life must have been non-existant. I realize that there is always some measure of 'suspension of disbelief' in films, but when the entire plot devise is centred on something illogical, it should not be forgiven.