PhantomAgony Reviews

The I Inside (2004)

The I in Rubbish

[21 July 2012]

I absolutely hated The I Inside for numerous reasons, one being how poorly executed it was as well as confusing but the main reason why I thought this movie was utter garbage and worth a mere 2 stars was the fact that once the ending reveals the truth behind the madness of the film it is quite clear that the majority of the plot and movie was contrived and pointless.

The ending of the film brings the realization that Simon Cable (Phillipe) died along with his brother and his brother's fiancé, Claire in a car accident in 2000 and because he can simply not accept what happened and feels responsible for the other deaths, he keeps going back in time in his mind to try and change what happened and save them. The problem? If a character wants to change the events that lead to a deadly accident in 2000, common sense says that the character should awake in the year 2000 right before the accident and well, try to change what happened. Such a concept was too simple for The I Inside so they concocted a completely pointless plot where the character of Simon wakes up in the year 2002 after supposedly being poisoned by his wife, Anna and has no memory of the last 2 years.

Simon is told that his brother died in a car accident in 2000 but he survived. The movie amps up the mystery and intrigue when Simon, while wandering around the hospital somehow finds himself entering the year 2000. He will be walking down the hallway in 2002 and then turn a corner and enter for example the lounge and instead of it being 2002, he's back in 2000 in the same hospital. The movie continually shifts from the year 2002 to the year 2000 and back again in the hospital while simultaneously having Simon return to his home in the year 2000 to try and change events that led to the car accident that in his mind, only killed his brother. The movie also adds the idea that whatever happens to people in the year 2000, will happen to them in 2002 which adds more mystery to the plot. For example, in the year 2000, in the hospital, Simon ends up hallucinating and stabbing someone to death, someone who he saw alive in the hospital in the year 2002, only for that person to then die spontaneously and start bleeding out everywhere in the year 2002.

So... why is the movie so bad? Simple - because NONE of that meant anything to the actual plot once all is revealed at the end. The entire 'time traveling' between the years 2002 and 2000, having things happen to people in 2000 and then have it show up in 2002 was, in the end, pointless and had NOTHING to do with the actual plot of Simon not accepting his death from the car accident in 2000 and wanting to go back in time to try and change the outcome. There is no reason at all why he couldn't have just woken up in 2000. The entire 2002 subplot is 100 percent bullshit and it's that subplot that was the only thing that made the film somewhat mysterious.

As for the answer of why the year 2002, the movie tries to justify that entire plot by making Simon's time of death in 2000, at 20:02 as if that is why he keeps waking up 2 years after the accident and then has to shift between the years 2002 and 2000 but it's weak at best. Clearly, the writers came up with the time traveling concept first and then tagged on that his death was at 20:02 to try and make it not seem contrived and ridiculous that he was randomly waking up 2 years after the accident to try and change events that occurred right before the accident. Failure.

As for my explanation for what happened in the film, there is no doubt that Simon was killed in 2000 and everything in 2002 is an illusion. What solidified it for me was the fact that his father was his doctor in 2002 and the puzzle he was putting together in the lobby turned out to be of a photo of him, his brother and his father that we see at the end at the brother's house.

2 stars - the actual movie is confusing, poorly directed and poorly edited and once you find out that the entire 2002 time traveling to the year 2000 was completely unnecessary, and just a stunt to try and make the film interesting, it's hard to not see it as complete rubbish.

Rabies (2010)

a creative take on a slasher film

[3 April 2012]

Rabies, despite the title, has nothing to do with rabies, I think it is supposed to represent how infectious the violence was between the characters as they found themselves in a fight for survival and being paranoid about each other's intentions. Rabies, however, is a really creative, different & entertaining film that I thoroughly enjoyed. It all starts with a female, Tali who has fell down a trap in the woods and her brother, Ofer who is trying to get her out. We learn that the trap was set up by a crazed killer who plans on torchering and killing her. as soon as Ofer goes to try and get help to get his sister free, the madman returns and begins his assault on Tali. This is not a formulaic slasher film where a killer in the woods kills off a group of young 20 somethings one at a time, in fact the killer plays a very small part in the movie and acts more as a catalyst for a series of events that lead to interactions between other characters that stumble into and around the woods.

In addition to Tali, Ofer and the killer, there is also a group of 4 friends on their way to a tennis match who get lost - they end up hitting someone on the road which is how they get involved in the plot & descent into the woods, 2 cops who are called to help the 4 friends and a man who is hunting and surveying the land in the woods with his dog. He also has a girlfriend who we meet at the beginning.

I would definitely recommend this movie. The story line has many unpredictable twists and turns and overall the acting was solid although the girl playing Shir, played by Yael Grobgas was the one weak link. I think her wooden, blank performance was supposed to be a result of her character being in shock but she was just as wooden, blank and unnatural before any bloodshed occurred so I think she's just a horrible actress. That would be my one complaint in this film.

8/10 = rating

Ricochet (2011 TV Movie)

More Romance than Thriller

[1 December 2011]

Ricochet, an adaptation of Sandra Brown's best selling novel of the same name, is part of TNT's new venture - creating made for TV original, crime movies. I have not read the book nor had I heard anything about it prior to watching therefore making this review truly just about the movie since I went into it blind with no expectations or knowledge of the plot.

The beginning of Ricochet is promising and not only held my attention but drew me right into the mystery. In the middle of the night, a judge's wife, played by Julie Benz, is in the kitchen of her home and hears a noise coming from inside the house. She grabs a gun stashed in a cabinet and walks towards the sound only to open a door, say 'Who the hell are you?' followed by gunshots. The police - more specifically partners Det. Hatcher (John Corbett) & Det. Bowen (Kelly Overton) arrive on the scene and find a man dead on the premises who appears to have been caught in the act of a home invasion/looking through property & was shot in self defense by the judge's wife, Elise Laird or so she says. The police immediately question Elise about the incident with her husband, Judge Laird, played by Gary Cole, by her side who was home at the time but upstairs.

Elise ends up contacting Det. Hatcher privately and proclaims that the dead man was sent to kill her by her husband but when asked what his motive would be, she is secretive and doesn't feel like she can tell him until she truly trusts him. Was the shooting self defense as she claims? Did the judge really hire someone to kill his wife? If so, why? Is Elise a cold blooded murderer? What does a local mobster named Savage have to do with everything? The movie presents a solid mystery as far as what is actually going on and why. I don't feel like the full truth surrounding what really happened was predictable or easily guessed from the start of the film.

However, what I did find predictable as well as very cheesy was any and all interaction between Det. Hatcher and Elise Laird. I found that I knew the camera shots the film would use as well as the looks they'd give one another before they even happened as the movie set up a romance between the cop and the female at the forefront of his investigation as he was anything but professional. Their scenes together were far from original or entertaining & I always seemed to know what would occur between them before it did. There is one scene where he comes home, turns on the lights and she had been sitting in the dark waiting for him - I saw that coming a mile away and I'm almost certain it was supposed to be a big twist/reveal for the audience only I never bought the lie the movie was trying to sell anyway so it wasn't. At times this felt more like a boy + girl 'steamy' drama than a true crime thriller namely in the 2nd hour where a full 15-20 minutes is actually dedicated to the two alone getting to know each other. That portion almost took me right out of the movie.

I also found Det. Hatcher to be extremely unlikable. He wasn't as charming or as funny as he seemed to think he was and thought his antics of keeping secrets and lying to his partner, Det. Bowen really frustrating. He'd be deceptive, get caught, act sorry and then 5 minutes later keep new information from her and while I understand that he was protective of Elise because of their 'special connection' I found his actions annoying. I don't know if this is a recurring character in Sandra Brown books or not but if he is, I personally would never read one with him in it.

Acting wise this film is not the strongest. Julie Benz was above and away the best here - I felt that she nailed the mysterious, sexy, secret holding, femme fatal character of Elise Laird perfectly but everyone else around her turned in mediocre performances with John Corbett bringing up the rear. In my opinion, he over acted a lot with poor line delivery which is odd since usually I think he's perfectly fine.

If you like mysteries with romance thrown in then you will probably thoroughly enjoy Ricochet because a gritty, crime thriller this is not. Had this adaptation run on Lifetime instead, I don't think anyone would have questioned it, it would have fit right in although I do feel like the actual mystery in Ricochet was a bit better than you usually see in original Lifetime films.

5/10 Solid watch. Started out very promising but the unoriginal male cop falls for the beautiful female he's investigating routine really downgraded the film once that dynamic got underway.

Tower Heist (2011)

The Heist in Tower Heist is illogical nonsense

[15 November 2011]

Alda plays Arthur Shaw, a wealthy business man who lives in a Penthouse in the Towers, an upscale building in NYC. He is arrested & charged with orchestrating a Ponzi scheme & among the victims is the hotel staff. Their pensions are gone. Mr. Shaw appears broke but Josh Kovacs (Stiller), an employee at the Towers believes he has a wall safe w/ 20 mil hidden in his PH. Shaw remodeled & despite redoing the layout, he kept a certain wall intact, the wall that Josh believes holds the safe. He, along w/ a crew of misfits: Charlie, his bro in law who also works the front desk, Mr. Fitzugh, a former Wall Street guy who lost his job & is being evicted & Enrique, the new elevator operator decide to rob Shaw & get the money back. Slide, a thug from Josh's neighborhood is brought in b/c he knows how to steal & they need to learn.

The 1st hour of Tower Heist is fun. This was never a smart, witty film but it had enough laughs to keep me entertained. However, the last act of the film is just bad. I'm willing to overlook plot holes as long as they aren't integral but in a film called 'Tower Heist', when the actual heist is a poorly executed, mindless letdown, it's unforgivable. Comedy is not synonymous w/ stupidity & I'm not willing to leave my brain at the door to enjoy the logic defying B.S. unfolding on screen - I can't help but expect the plot & actions of the characters to make sense, silly me.

SPOILERS

What was wrong w/ the heist? Here's a few key issues (not all or I'd be here all day):

* There is big talk about inside info the group has about the residents/codes in the building yet during the heist - aside from 'going on Snoopy' & being able to sneak in the side door, they used none of that. Why did they not use their knowledge to even attempt to hide from the security cameras? Their initial plan was to walk through the lobby into an elevator, take it to the PH and rob Shaw. Huh? Was their plan to be seen on every camera in the place so that after they stole the money, the footage could be used at their trials?

* What was the point of the ski hats/masks & covering the cameras in the PH? They walked all over the building without any disguises & then put them on as they entered his room. What about the cameras in the lobby? The stairwells? The elevators? The hallway of the PH floor? The stupidity here was astounding from people who claim to know the ins/outs of the place & who spent time planning the crime.

* Odessa(safe cracker) plans to drug the guard w/ cake. She pours what can only be assumed to be a sedative on the icing. He refuses & then later we see a shot of her licking icing from her lips. The ONLY conclusion to draw is that she ate the drugged cake herself. I expected her to drift off while opening the safe yet that never happened. In fact, nothing ever happened. Why include that shot if nothing was going to come of it? How could she eat the sedative laced cake & not react? Sloppy editing.

* Anything/everything to do w/ the gold car. Hoisting it out the window, hanging from the hood with 1 arm, falling & being caught just in time,etc.. Just painful to watch.

Their initial plan w/ the car was to load it in the elevator & take it down to the garage but how is that possible? The car was on top of the elevator so it needs to stop a floor BELOW so you can open the doors at the floor that you want & pull the car out from atop the elevator car. So.. if the elevator stops at the garage level, you can NOT get the gold car out - it's on TOP of the elevator. Was I not supposed to realize that?

Was I also not supposed to notice that it was basically impossible for them to get the car back up into Shaw's PH to place it in his pool? How did that happen? The car couldn't be wheeled though Shaw's PH doors..too small. That is why it needed to be hoisted down to the renovated PH so they could push it out the large opening to the elevator. Surely, the movie doesn't want me to believe that they took the car back to that renovated floor, shoved the car back out the window & pulled it up to Shaw's PH (don't get me started on physics) even though by this point the building was crawling with FBI agents/ cops on the inside and outside? Right..again, pure idiocy.

I'd also love to know how they were able to drop the HEAVY gold car into the pool without a massive tidal wave splashing over the side & onto the crowd/street below. Of course it was neatly just sitting there at the bottom without a hair out of place. So dumb.

Did they chop that car up in the pool? If not, how did they get it out of the pool w/o people seeing? Am I not supposed to realize how heavy a solid gold car would weigh? Who chopped it up? Did they do it underwater? Seems like a big job to execute on the fly in a PH being surveyed by cops (a robbery just happened there) w/o being seen/heard by anyone especially w/ cameras in there & everywhere. Ugh. Also would love to know how they sent stolen gold parts via the mail undetected.

You will lose brain cells watching this film - it's the epitome of a DUMB comedy. 5/10

Kill Theory (2009)

Criminal Minds Did it Better

[27 September 2011]

NO SPOILERS UNTIL THE END - CLEARLY MARKED

This was your run of the mill, formulaic slasher film. The setup is the same setup you see in all films of this genre.. Group of teenagers/young 20 somethings going away on some trip to a secluded area where cell service doesn't seem to work - you have the usual interaction between the characters to set up who is who, the usual make out sessions to show you who is coupled with who, a few remarks about things that happened prior to the trip you don't care about to give you back story and it's all just a waiting game until the villain strikes. Kill Theory is no different.

Brent and 6 of his friends go on a trip to one of his Father's many homes for a fun weekend. This large home is secluded with the closest establishment nearly 50 miles away. When they arrive, they find Alex, Brent's half sister (her Mother married his rich Father) who was also planning on staying at the home for the weekend so of course she joins the core group bringing the total number of people staying in the home to 8.

The premise of the movie is that there is a deranged mad man who has apparently been stalking the main group for weeks who followed them to the home and has now demanded that by 6am the next morning only one of them be alive - they must kill each other to survive. He gruesomely kills one of them to send the message that he's serious and it's a message left on his/her body that leads them to a video that the man left for them explaining the rules. In the video they see their friend given the option to shoot his/her girlfriend/boyfriend who was sleeping at the time or die himself/herself. He/She refused and he kills him/her on camera. If you want to live, you need to kill your friends, period.

It's an interesting premise but far from new. Criminal Minds did it much better in 2006 with the episode 'North Mammon' - which had better acting, a better script and was a lot more interesting and psychologically disturbing. Kill Theory has a lot of blood and a lot of screaming but not a lot of good acting, not a lot of great dialogue and not a lot of realism given how some people die..or don't die.

Daniel Franzese plays Freddy who, for me, was unbearably annoying throughout the film. It's a bad sign when you spend minute after minute wishing he would shut up and die already and then being afraid that he'll be the survivor at the end and essentially be around the entire film. His hyperventilating and subsequent loud breathing was really hard to sit through as were his constant outbursts, freak outs and screams. I wanted to reach into the screen and kill him myself. He definitely downgraded the movie for me - scenes were hard to sit through because he wouldn't shut the heck up.

3/10 It mildly held my attention but it wasn't anything great. There is a twist at the end that was decent I guess but the majority of the film is your usual formulaic slasher stuff and none of it is spectacular.

SPOILERS -

I didn't have a problem when Brent was shot and then was able to get back up to kill Freddy because he was shot on his side and may not have been fatally wounded but just pretended he was. However, I had a big problem with how Amber seemed to gain strength as her injury should have been getting worse. She was shot point blank at close range with a 9mm handgun straight to the gut - dead center. She of course immediately goes down and starts bleeding heavily and has to be dragged down to the basement where she's left dying on the floor - so when she magically stopped being fatally injured and had enough strength to not only stab Jennifer which takes some force but to then prop herself up on top of her to choke her out? Was that supposed to be insulting to my intelligence? Is there a reason why she seemed to get better as time went on from her gunshot? Even after she kills Jennifer, she doesn't collapse and die but she continues to sit up, is completely alert and then interacts with Michael, the last male standing. Had I not seen her get shot, I wouldn't have even known she was injured based on how carefree she was at the very end.

As for Michael, why would he kill himself? Killing himself for Jennifer would be stupid but at least he loved her and she was his girlfriend but for Amber? He didn't even care about her - she was obsessed with him and other than a hook up, they didn't seem to have anything between them yet this guy is murdering himself for her? STUPID. That was plot motivated since Amber was the one who was going to survive at the end, not character driven because it makes no sense at all why Michael would kill himself just so that girl could live.

The whole sequence at the end hurt my head it was so dumb.

Flypaper (2011)

How many thieves does it take to rob a bank?

[24 September 2011]

VAGUE SPOILERS - NOTHING DETAILED OR CONCRETE GIVEN AWAY

Flypaper is essentially about a bank robbery where 2 sets of thieves stumble into the same bank at the same time causing a dilemma and confusion between everyone. One group is comprised of 3 professionals that come prepared with high tech equipment and skill, Darrien, Gates & Weinstein & the other consists of 2 goofy hicks who go by the nicknames Peanut Butter & Jelly who lack the intelligence & experience that the other group possesses. Hilarity and hijinks ensue as the 2 sets of criminals need to work together to control the hostages as they simultaneously try to steal money from the bank. However, all is not as it seems as people, including the robbers end up dying & it is revealed that it's no coincidence that those 2 sets of thieves showed up at the same bank at the same time - they were set up by another bank robber who is also in the bank and there might be other robbers hidden amongst the group as well who were planning on stealing money.

At one point, the two sets of robbers are arguing about who has better street cred and to settle the score go on a website that ranks the most wanted bank robbers. This is where we are shown the names of some top thieves, thieves whose profiles conveniently don't have pictures attached (just a missing photo question mark). Two top robbers, Vicellus Drum (#1) & Alexis Black (#3) are mentioned aloud which of course had me immediately assuming they were in the bank masquerading as hostages - whether I was supposed to pick up on that or not I don't know. I'll just say that I figured out right away who Alexis Black was so when that twist about her was revealed, I saw it coming a mile away. The identity of Vicellus Drum, however, was a solid mystery. By the way, why would I assume there were more robbers in the bank than the initial ones? It's revealed early on that the system was down for about 2 minutes & someone said aloud that they were surprised that more criminals didn't show up to rob the place after it was revealed that the tech man who controls the bank's security system was selling the information about it being down around. It was a big red flag.

Overall, the movie is funny and clever and most definitely entertaining but my main gripe, a huge hole I just couldn't suspend my belief for.. was the fact that no matter what went on inside the bank, no one outside seemed to be aware and certainly no one called the police. At the very beginning when the robbers first storm the bank, the silent alarm is hit but doesn't work. This is said clearly on screen by the employee trying to set it off. However, throughout the course of the movie there were numerous, loud, bombastic gun fights - no less than 200 bullets were fired from all different types of guns: rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc.. which of course incited lots of screaming. There were also four humongous blasts that created fireballs & did major structural damage to the bank (2, maybe 3 of which were detonated with C-4 / 1 a big gas explosion) yet apparently NO ONE on the street outside or in the surrounding buildings called the cops or heard anything which is just so moronic that it makes my head hurt. This was not a bank in the middle of a rural farmland in Kansas with the closest town being a mile away. This was a bank on a normal city street with a sidewalk full of people right outside the front door and neighboring businesses right next to the bank. How did no one hear the earth shattering bombs that were going off inside the bank? How did no one hear the gunfire that was booming inside? I kept waiting for someone from law enforcement to at the very least knock on the front doors & was wondering how the robbers would deal with it but that never came. I'm willing to suspend belief for a movie but this was just impossible to ignore & definitely downgraded the film for me.

6/10 It wasn't fantastic but it was worth one watch. Lastly, I want to point out that the acting is very strong from everyone in the movie especially Pruitt Taylor Vince & Tim Blake Nelson's bumbling, doofy Peanut Butter & Jelly & Patrick Dempsey's Tripp who is a neurotic, overly stimulated, gifted man with lots of quirks. The characters are fun to watch.

Committed (2011 TV Movie)

Who are the real nuts at the nut house?

[4 September 2011]

NO SPOILERS UNTIL VERY END - CLEARLY MARKED

After the death of her fiancé, Celeste DuPont (Andrew Roth), a clinical psychologist, accepts a coveted position at Millburn Institute, a remote psychiatric facility for the criminally insane located somewhere in New England. When she arrives, she is greeted by her to be mentor, Dr. Quilley who explains to her that at the facility, the patients are called 'guests' and that they let the guests be who they think they are, no matter how grand the delusion. After quickly signing what she thinks is her contract, Celeste is lead to her room at the facility where she will be staying. After finding out that her room is in the same wing as the guests, she questions if the other doctors also have to live amongst the guests and that it makes her uncomfortable. Celeste is told that she is a guest herself and that no doctors live in that wing. After confronting Dr. Quilley about the mix up, she is informed that she actually had signed papers committing herself (not a job contract) to Millburn Institute and that in a moment of lucidity, she had called the facility for help - since she supposedly was not dealing with her fiancé's tragic death well.

Celeste insists that she's not crazy and that it's a mix up while Dr. Quilley and the other doctors, including Desmond (Richard Burgi), who she becomes close with, tell her that she has blocked out the painful memories of her fiancé's passing and that she's crying out for help and they are there to help her & fill in the pieces. Even though Celeste is a guest there, it is important to note that she is allowed to also interact with the other guests as a doctor and consult on cases with the other doctors.

Things are not as they seem. Celeste increasingly has moments where she comes across as crazy for example, she will claim that certain things happened or that she saw certain things that the doctors will tell her simply didn't happen. Of course, when she tries to prove them wrong, she's met with confusion since the proof is never to be found. For example, she claims that one night she was attacked by an aggressive patient at the facility and in the struggle, a lamp and water pitcher were broken yet when she leads the doctors to the room where it happened, everything is in order and the lamp and pitcher are intact making Celeste question her own sanity. Is Celeste really crazy? Did she really murder her fiancé (rather than it being a suicide) like the doctors are telling her she did? She can't remember what happened so she starts to believe them. Do the doctors mean her harm or are they trying to really help her?

Committed answers all these question and takes the audience on a suspenseful, thrilling ride. I certainly didn't buy everything the movie was trying to sell me/trick me with BUT I didn't guess the truth about what was really happening before it was revealed which was really nice. I thought it was slightly above average for a Lifetime film. 6/10.

SPOILERS -

I won't give away the truth about what was really happening at Millburn Institute but I will say that I didn't believe for a second that Celeste was really crazy. I was well aware at all times that the doctors were playing mind tricks on her - I just didn't know why.

Also, at the end I thought the quick cut from Celeste knocking out Desmond/Damon to suddenly the cops being at the facility leading the bad guys away was really sloppy. Earlier in the film Celeste managed to call 911 but the operator didn't believe that she was really in danger but instead, assumed she was a deranged patient who was lying. How did Celeste manage to get the real police to show up? How did she avoid all the other doctors who had a lot to lose if she called the cops? This is never explained which bothered me. It felt rushed.

Deadly Sibling Rivalry (2011 TV Movie)

Just Horrible .. Skip It

[22 August 2011]

Charisma Carpenter plays identical twins Callie/Janna who are cliché responsible/good(Janna) & wild/evil(Callie) twins. As teens they went climbing w/ their Dad & while Janna was above him, his harness snapped & rather than drag both to their deaths (he was holding onto the rope that also held up Janna), he let go sacrificing himself. Rebel Callie was not participating but watched the whole thing happen & blames her sis for their Dad's death.

Flash forward to present day & Good Janna has a child, Fiona, whose bf is motorcycle riding Kayden who she feels isn't good enough for her. Evil Callie gets a call from her friend Tricia, that the cops are on their way so Callie packs up & shows up at a cabin that Janna happens to be at, at the moment. The cabin is family owned & a getaway of sorts. They awkwardly interact & later go for drinks w/ Trisha.

The next day Janna's car won't start so Callie offers her a ride to work. They fight, Callie drives like a maniac & they crash. When the EMTs arrive, Callie is lying unconscious by the side of the car and Janna has cuts only. Fiona rushes to the hospital & it's learned that Callie is in a coma. Janna is released & goes home (not the cabin but real home) w/ Fiona who took time off from school to spend with her Mom while she heals. Janna is forgetful after the accident - not recalling where items are in the home & is more carefree.

Janna is really Callie who took over her sis's identity - a twist obvious from the 2nd the accident happens. I assume Callie messed w/ Janna's car so she'd have to give her a ride but how she knew that the crash would leave her unharmed & Janna in a coma is beyond me. Psychic? Ha. We learn later that Janna had a leg wound that she tied off but when Callie came upon her, she took the tourniquet off, letting her sis bleed out, hence the coma.

Tricia realizes the identity switch & presses for the $ she is owed for items in a secret suitcase. Callie shows up at Tricia's home, tells her that they can store the items in her freezer until they can sell them. As Tricia cleans the freezer out, Evil Callie pushes her inside, closes the lid & leaves her to suffocate inside. She waits for her to die & then leaves with her suitcase intact.

Fiona starts suspecting that her Mom is really in a coma & shares her concerns with the Dr. but they're identical, there's no way to prove who is who & since Callie claims that she's Janna, Fiona can only wait for her Mom to wake & clear things up.

Janna starts to get better making Callie desperate & for an evil twin that means deadly so she breaks into the med closet, sabotages her sister's impending IV which causes Janna to seize which backfires for Callie since the Dr. not only stops the seizing but wakes her from her coma! Janna is now awake only she has amnesia! Oops. Fiona works hard to try & jog her Mom's memory in order to get her back.

Callie admits to Fiona that she isn't her Mom but that they could pretend she is - she's more fun! Fiona freaks out but before she leaves w/ Kayden on his bike, Callie plants lots of pills in her purse, & after, calls an anon tip in about teens selling drugs & gives the license plate #. Stolen pills are revealed to be what's inside the suitcase.

Kayden takes the fall so Fiona is free to try & get her Mom's memory back. Eventually Fi/Janna escape the hospital to go to the family cabin that is filled w/ memories. Evil Callie rushes there after seeing that Janna escaped & correctly guessing where she went. Callie has a gun, shoots at her sis/Fiona & wants them dead. Fiona, in her pursuit to get away from Callie, falls off a cliff but magically catches herself before she plummets to her death. Of course this is the same cliff where the twins' Dad died. Fiona is hanging by a few fingers on the edge of a rock cliff dangling- the acting here is deplorable. She doesn't even seem scared. Janna quickly runs to get climbing gear to save her & finds a harness that had been tampered w/ - Callie shows up, reveals that it was Janna, not their Dad who was supposed to die & that she had sabotaged her climbing equipment! Evil twin strikes again! Good twin hits Callie & runs to the cliff. Rather than use a rope to pull Fiona up, like a dummy, she puts on a harness & climbs down the cliff herself, next to Fiona. Callie appears, tries to knock them off but ends up falling over herself but wait! she manages to grab onto the rope dangling beneath Janna like the cliff scene w/ Janna/Dad. Janna cuts the rope leaving Callie to fall to her death & then off screen saves Fiona somehow.

The cops never show up on screen so how did Fiona/Janna manage to convince them that Callie was posing as Janna since their word didn't work before? Callie was at the bottom of the cliff dead. Who's to say she wasn't murdered? Who's to say who she really was.. Janna or Callie? Also, Tricia's body was found earlier & coma Callie (really Janna) was the main suspect. Fi told the cops Tricia had been at the hospital which would prove her innocence but no follow up about whether they ever found Tricia on the security tapes is mentioned. That would also help prove that Callie was not the one in the coma.

3/10 Bottom of the Barrel even for an original Lifetime film

Wandering Eye (2011 TV Movie)

Standard Lifetime Fair - a Solid 5

[22 August 2011]

NO SPOILERS UNTIL THE VERY END - CLEARLY MARKED

Wandering Eye is your basic Lifetime movie by numbers but that doesn't mean that it's a bad movie, in fact I thought it was enjoyable to an extent and overall a solid 5 - but there's definitely nothing new to see here which isn't necessarily a bad thing if you love formulaic Lifetime films.

Amanda Righetti stars as the lead, Maren Abbott who is married to a Dr who is married to his work. She loves him and wants to show that but as a Surgical Resident, he rarely has time to spend with her. Desperate to be with him, she shows up in his office in her underwear (under a coat) disrobes when he walks in & despite kissing, he quickly cuts it short to run off to a meeting leaving Maren feeling abandoned.

Wandering Eye is a website where married people who have lost the spark can seek out affairs with other married people leaving things guaranteed to be discrete since neither party wants to get caught and ruin their respective marriages. This website has an online call in/advice show that Maren watches via her laptop as she exercises daily. It is this webshow that convinces Maren to sign up for Wandering Eye (using an alias - Alison) and seek out the love and attention she is lacking in her own marriage.

Meanwhile, a couple is shot/murdered and their ring fingers severed (the rings were left behind) and it is revealed that the man and woman were having an affair. The man's wife and 2 kids were away in Florida leaving the woman's husband as the prime suspect for the murders. The movie wastes no time trying to get the audience to suspect the husband of the murders dropping anvils left and right complete with scary thriller music every time he comes on screen, literally. The music would dramatically change to something dark and suspenseful when he would come on screen even if it was for 20 seconds - cheesy and stupid to say the least.

Maren sets up a date with a man named Lucas, played by Frank Chiesurin, and despite being apprehensive, goes through with it. The two meet, exchange info (Lucas is married to a Dr. and has 2 kids) & after Maren doesn't want to take it any further that day, leaves. A second date is scheduled (correspondence is done through the inbox of the Wandering Eye website between their private accounts) & the two meet first at his hotel bar (he is from out of town) but quickly move up to his room. Drinks are poured, followed by kissing but Maren starts crying because she realizes that she can't go through with it after all. Lucas is understanding and she leaves - mere minutes after she leaves, Lucas is shot/murdered and his ring finger severed just like the previous 2 murders.

A connection is made by the police between the 3 murder victims and the website, Wandering Eye. They also realize that Lucas' date escaped with her life but have no way of tracking who she was since she used an alias, Alison and the e-mail she used to sign up for the site is web based. Once it is clear that the site is the connection, the police go to the offices only to learn, via the computer tech there that the system has been hacked numerous times meaning that any and all info of the members has been compromised. The killer is reading private inbox messages to learn about where and when people are meeting and killing them. Who is he/she targeting and why? That is the question. As the police try to save impending victims, 2 more people are murdered while on a date - shot and fingers severed making the victim count now 5 with Maren having escaped barely with her life.

In the end, Maren comes forward knowing that the police are looking for Lucas' date, despite being afraid that her husband will find out and the rest of the movie has Maren working with the police to find the killer. Things heat up when Maren receives a text from the murderer blackmailng her in exchange for her life but in reality, it is a trick to lure her out into the open since just like the police initially, the killer, too doesn't know the identity of Lucas' date which means that it's unfinished business. The killer wants to kill Maren only he/she doesn't know her real name/where to find her.

I personally guessed the killer the second he/she showed up on screen but I don't think it was overtly obvious to the point where it ruins the movie. I did think that the acting of the killer was atrocious which is what made me focus on this person in the first place.

VAGUE SPOILERS STARTING NOW - NO ACTUAL DETAILS

Wandering Eye has your usual Lifetime type ending where the good people live and the bad people die and of course despite the fact that the other 5 victims were killed instantly, no questions asked by gunshots, when it comes to the lead, Maren, rather than being killed when the killer finds her and literally has a gun to her head, instead the killer decides to take her for a ride and reveal his/her motives for the killings to conveniently be thwarted before Maren can die.

5/10 It's good for one watch but that's about it.

Abandoned (2010 Video)

Abandon the idea of seeing this movie - it's horrible

[3 April 2011]

*NO SPOILERS UNTIL VERY END - CLEARLY MARKED*

As a fan of Brittany Murphy it truly saddens me that Abandoned turned out to be her last film due to the fact that it is a complete mess filled with nonsense. This movie is very low budget and the acting is debatable at best but I am willing to overlook all of that if the plot is interesting and there is a good payoff in the end, something necessary in every basic mystery thriller with a twist. I don't hate Abandoned because it was cheaply made - not every film has the luxury of having a big budget or access to well known actors - I hate it simply because it's awful.

Mary (Murphy) and her boyfriend Kevin (Dean Cain) go to the hospital so he can have outpatient orthopedic surgery. The procedure is supposed to last an hour so after spending some time with him in his hospital room as he fills out paperwork, she leaves to wait until he is finished. After hours and no sign of her boyfriend, she starts asking around and shockingly there is no sign of him anywhere; he isn't in the system and no nurses have heard of him. The Dr. that was supposedly doing his surgery wasn't working that day and the nurse, Amanda, that Mary saw with Kevin that morning didn't exist.

What happened to her boyfriend? Does he even exist? Is Mary crazy and making the whole thing up? After a massive search for Kevin turns up nothing and some anti-depressant pills fall out of Mary's purse, people start to suspect that she's unstable which leads to Mary having to prove that she isn't delusional and that Kevin was with her that morning and really disappeared.

Of course there is your basic twist that explains what is really going on and honestly, it's nothing everyone hasn't seen before. It's a mystery/thriller by numbers and the action scenes at the end leave a LOT to be desired. It was a bad sign when I realized that I didn't care at all what happened to the boyfriend half way through. I found the film to be somewhat boring & I had no connection with any of the characters.

One thing I must comment on is Brittany Murphy's hair/makeup in Abandoned. It was distractingly awful and it has nothing to do with how sick she may or may not have been while shooting this film (I am pretty sure she didn't become ill until after) - it has to do with the colors and styling used. Her hair looked like someone put in brillo pad/horse hair like extensions and then crimped them a little and then greased it all down. It looked like her hair hadn't been washed in a month and was also oddly stiff as if it wouldn't move an inch even in a wind storm. The color was beyond atrocious - some weird cat pee orange/yellow color with dark roots and I don't know what happened to her eyebrows but they were odd as well in color. Were they bleached? Was powder brushed over them? I don't even know. The makeup shades were awful, especially the 80's style blush and lipstick. I read that her husband did her makeup but she must have approved it before shooting which is something I just don't understand.

3/10 - Bad acting (Brittany Murphy & Jay Picket are the exceptions), low budget look and awful awful plot and execution. My 2 biggest gripes below.

***************SPOILERS***********

There was a lot of stupid nonsense in this movie but the 2 worst were:

1) The main reason why I rated this film so low was the asinine plot point with the cop/book that was contingent on him saving the day in the end. The movie wants me to believe that it's plausible that he would take Mary's book, quickly flip through it and instantly flip right to the page that just so happens to map out the boyfriend's scheme which clued the cop in and sent him running back to the hospital to rescue Mary. Seriously? I have seen some ridiculous moments in movies but this was easily a Top 10. How many pages was that book? 200 something easy and he flips right to the exact one with the plot that magically was all written on one page for quick, easy reading, reads it and connects the dots. Pathetic.

2) A call goes out that 3 armed suspects in a grey sedan are entering the hospital over the police radio. Super cop shows up, rams a lady in a gray sedan, yanks her out of the car and throws her in the back of his cop car. Huh? No make or model was included in the report so how did Super cop know that the woman was apart of the money scheme? Grey sedans are very popular. She surely didn't have the 2 other suspects with her and wasn't seen carrying a weapon to the point where he would have seen it through the windows of the car. Of course the woman was Amanda and was one of the bad people but still, the way he just grabbed her was ridiculous.

Limitless (I) (2011)

Great Concept with Sloppy Execution & a Contrived Ending

[24 March 2011]

The concept of Limitless is fantastic - what would happen if you could take a pill (NZT) that would allow you to use 100% of your brain (instead of the standard 20%) and function on a level higher than you have ever functioned before? The possibilities for such a movie idea are well, limitless - pun intended - but unfortunately, despite some great acting, especially by Bradley Cooper, who plays Eddie Morra - the lead whose life the movie follows throughout it's duration, the film just could not overcome some major plot holes, sloppy writing and nonsensical moments.

LOTS OF SPOILERS...

Many times throughout the film, the script uses PLOT driven storyline instead of CHARACTER driven storyline in order to go from Point A to Point B which the script called for & in the process, didn't make much sense given who the characters were in the picture. Some examples:

1) The movie needed for Eddie to find the NZT stash & money in his Brother in Law's apartment, steal it, get away with it and then take the pill, feel the effects, and use the money to regain his life. Problem? It's absolutely ridiculous to imply that the cops wouldn't have searched him or at the very least patted him down after calling in a murder & going down to the station for questioning. Of course, the huge wad of cash/pills he shoved down the back of his pants would have been found had they searched him so it didn't happen. It's illogical and absolutely ridiculous that he would be able to steal what he did from the apartment, an apartment that he locked himself in when the police initially arrived - and have no issues.

2) The movie needed for the Russian thug to come after Eddie in order to find the NZT, take it and then make trouble for him the entire movie. Problem? It's not believable that super smart Eddie wouldn't remember to pay back the 100k that he borrowed especially when the money was constantly on his mind and he had just made 2 million off of what he borrowed. This is clear cut plot driven over character driven storyline because it's ridiculous for Eddie, the character, to not remember such a basic task, especially when there was direct danger to his life if he forgot.

3) The movie needed for Atwood's lawyer to steal Eddie's stash of pills causing Eddie to spiral out. Problem? Isn't it far fetched to imply that Atwood's henchman killed the woman in the hotel to frame her murder on Eddie at the oft chance that Eddie would retain the same lawyer that worked for Atwood just so he could get close to him to steal his pills for Atwood to save Atwood's life? Huh? How did the henchman/lawyer even know that the pills would be on Eddie to take? They never used to be - the custom suit w/ hidden pocket was something new. He certainly didn't carry them on him back when the woman was initially killed. This whole setup was contrived and made no sense and was based on a lot of coincidences, ones that no one could have predicted.

That is just a few examples of sloppy storytelling. There are also a bunch of basic nit picks that I have like: 1) Why didn't Eddie, who was fearing for his life, buy a gun & train how to use it under the help of NZT? He hires bodyguards and buys a fortress to live in but doesn't purchase a handgun? 2) Why didn't the scientists who made NZT take it themselves in order to use their super smarts to perfect the drug and make it what Eddie's scientists were able to create in the end without the aid of being under the drug's influence? 3) After drinking the Russian's NZT laced blood, why did Eddie lie there on the ground waiting for the henchmen to return so he could poke one in the eye w/ a needle? Why not get out of there? Did we really need that stupid fight scene? 4)Breaking into the safe with a chainsaw in minutes? Impressive 5) Is it really believable that NZT wouldn't have hit the black market and been all over the place?

Lastly - a huge problem I had with Limitless was the happy, Hollywood, contrived Ending. Withdrawal from NZT? Side effects? Once the drug wears off so does the heightened brain activity? No problem - the movie flashes forward 12 months to give Eddie Morra a rainbows, puppies & sunshine like ending where his labs have now created a pill that works like NZT only there are no side effects and the super smart effects are permanent. How nice! He's all happy now & brilliant forever & running for Senate - he's with his girlfriend & their ordering food and look, he's fluent in a foreign language because he's so smart and YUCK. The ending was so over the top in an 'everything worked out in the end' way. I hated it. I didn't need for Eddie to die or crash and burn or anything like that but Limitless took the concept of a happy ending to another level.

Also, with the ending comes a rushed attempt to villanize De Niro's character of Carl Van Loon who out of no where makes a pathetic power play by trying to blackmail Eddie & is quickly shot down. The whole scene between them fell flat for me and felt incredibly sloppy and quickly put together.

Overall, in spite of all the shortcomings, Limitless is still a really good movie. It's thrilling, fast paced and the basic concept is interesting and makes for an entertaining film - you just can't really think about things like logic or else you will be disappointed. 7/10

Just Go with It (2011)

Formulaic Rom Com with Over the Top Jokes

[7 March 2011]

Within 10 minutes of viewing, it became clear that 'Just Go With It' would be a formulaic, see the ending coming a mile away romantic comedy which is not my type of movie. It was obvious where the script and in turn, characters, were heading as everyone went through the motions to fulfill the nearly 2 hour movie time.

I was open minded once the romantic comedy by numbers format became evident since the trailers/previews advertised what looked like a hysterical, fun film and figured if anything, I'd get a few good laughs out of the experience. However, in the end, the movie was more ridiculous than funny, the usual awkward boy/girl romantic scenes at the end in a rom com were hard to sit through and I found myself questioning the mental capacity of Brooklyn Decker's character, Palmer.

Sandler plays a plastic surgeon named Danny who meets and likes a much younger woman (23) named Palmer (Decker) at a party and after spending a romantic night on the beach with her, she finds a wedding ring in his pocket. While not married, Danny carries one around as a way to attract women with sob stories of a an abusive/drunk/pill popping/tumultuous wife and horrible home life which seems to work. He had become bitter about love after having a bad experience 20 years earlier with his to be first wife who in the end, he didn't end up marrying. Rather than reveal his trick to Palmer, he tells her that he's married but getting divorced and Palmer decides that she needs to meet his wife to see for herself. Enter Katherine, played by Jennifer Aniston who is playing the same person she plays in basically every movie, who plays Sandler's homely assistant/office manager at his plastic surgery practice. She is a divorced single mother of two who, after some convincing, agrees to play his wife. Cue a makeover to create the illusion of a wealthy plastic surgeon's wife where Aniston suddenly goes from drab to fab (cliche much?) & the subsequent meeting between Danny/Katherine/Palmer. All is going well until Katherine gets a phone call regarding her children which Palmer overhears and now there is a whole fake family of Danny/Katherine + her 2 kids which they tell Palmer, of course are his children. Add in fake names for the kids and bribes to get them to play along and you have a comedy.. I guess.

The majority of the movie takes place in Hawaii - a trip that is taken by Danny/Katherine/the 2 children/Palmer and Danny's cousin Eddie (Nick Swardson), who has a crush on Katherine and makes himself apart of the picture but telling Palmer that he's Katherine's new boyfriend - and of course Katherine has to play along even though she can't stand Eddie.

The lies start out small and then spiral out of control with people clearly coming up with outlandish things on the fly, shocked reactions from the others and then a quick cover and build onto the fake story. It was OBVIOUS that these people were lying and just coming up with random things as they went along yet Palmer bought it all which, for me, just became too ridiculous to believe as the movie went on. It actually became frustrating watching her observe these clearly fake performances and outlandish accents (the daughter played by Bailee Madison and Danny's cousin, Eddie, both speak with over the top faux accents) and cover stories and seemingly buy it all for a good portion of the film. Palmer is supposed to be a smart, competent school teacher yet she was as gullible as a 5 year old and lacked the common sense of an 8 year old. Just too much…way too much and can I just say that the character of Eddie was so unfunny that it was uncomfortable to watch? I usually love Swardson in movies but the whole character was horrible.

Overall, the movie had some funny moments but the lies became so extreme and so excessive that it became ridiculous and just plain stupid by the half way point. It was unrealistic that Palmer would buy the lies and the formulaic boy/girl rom com script only hurt the film. Nicole Kidman plays Devlin, a mean girl sorority sister of Katherine's from the past who Katherine in present day still greatly resents. Of course Devlin just so happens to also be vacationing in Hawaii and runs into Katherine who then, wanting to make a good impression concocts the lie that Danny, the plastic surgeon, is her husband which creates a new set of shenanigans.

Lastly, the time line confused me. Palmer/Danny meet and hook up on the beach. She finds his wedding ring and wants to meet his soon to be divorced from wife. They meet and next thing I know they are on some big trip to Hawaii where Palmer is meeting Danny's fake kids and is now sort of apart of the family. Seems odd since they never even went on a date prior to the trip. It felt really rushed and weird.

5/10 and it's a shame because this is one film I was really looking forward to based on the previews. The only 2 really funny moments that made my laugh hard were 1, when Rachel Dratch makes a cameo as a patient of Danny's on a consultation at his practice and 2, a hula show down between Katherine/Devlin (Aniston & Kidman) that escalates into hardcore competition for a win.

The Number 23 (2007)

The #23 = lunacy & disappointment

[3 March 2011]

I have wanted to see The Number 23 ever since the intriguing trailers aired on TV back when it was in theaters. Finally, years later later I got to see it & it was nothing but an utter disappointment - a plot filled with lunacy & a story filled with nonsensical writing. Let me be clear - I love psychological thrillers, even ones w/ a paranormal twist so The Number 23 was right up my ally which really shows just how bad this movie is & believe me, it is awful.

The only real Pro here is Jim Carrey's dramatic acting. He took dreck & ran with it & his performance is pretty good. Too bad the film he was in, is not.

CONS (Plot holes/Sloppy Writing) -

1) The conviction of the Professor for Laura's murder was hard to believe. Is it really conceivable that he would be hailed the murderer, no questions asked when Laura's boyfriend, the man she was cheating on, turned out to be crazy, had just tried to commit suicide & had left a confession of sorts as well as ramblings all over the wall of the hotel room he had jumped from? When the wrong man was convicted, why didn't the Doctor who read Walter's manuscript come forward? What about DNA evidence? The murder happened 13 years prior - the date of death on Laura's tombstone says 1991. It may not be the 21st century but we saw Laura cut Walter's hand before he killed her. His blood was ALL OVER that crime scene especially mixed all over the knife with her blood yet apparently none of that matters.

2) The son's age - too old. The murder happened 13 years prior, Walter than tried to commit suicide and was hospitalized for a period of time, he then first met Agatha when he was being released & a pregnancy takes another 9 months so the child should not be over the age of 11 tops yet he's clearly a teenager. No mention of the son not biologically being his.

3) In order to allow Agatha to move Laura's skeleton unseen, the movie had Walter/his son leave to find a pay phone to call the police. Cell phone anyone? This movie takes place in I am assuming 2004 since it's 13 years after Laura was killed (1991) so it's kind of unbelievable that they wouldn't have a cell phone.

4) When at first Walter thinks that his wife is 'Topsy Kretts' he mentions how her maiden name was 'Pink' & how it was mentioned in the book, etc.. but later we find out Walter is the the actual author of the book, the book he wrote before meeting his wife so is it just coincidence he used her maiden name? Odd.

5) Walter's Memory Loss - We are to believe that Walter blocked out the whole Laura part of his life. Fine.. the problem comes with the #23 being completely erased from his memory as well. As Walter reads the book, he draws on similarities between his childhood & Fingerling's childhood so that aspect of his memory is intact. We then learned that the #23 came into his life as a child after his Father committed suicide, so why couldn't he remember the #23 as an adult? That makes no sense..he can't have his childhood memories intact but conveniently not the ones about the #23. That's just bad writing again.

6) After Agatha gets the ID from the Doctor right before he committed suicide which really, makes no sense since he turned out to be completely innocent of all crimes - she finds the chest with Walter's manuscript/comics, etc.. Her friend, the Professor randomly shows up... Huh? Who called him? What was that?

7) Is it really believable that Agatha wouldn't take the book away from Walter after he started becoming obsessed to the point where he was having dreams about killing her? The obsession even started rubbing off on her son.. yet she just let them continue to read the book, the book that was causing Walter to descend back into madness.

8) Walter's past. Walter is an obsessive person. Is it believable that he wouldn't be curious about the part of his life that he lost? Wouldn't he want to know why he tried to commit suicide? Wouldn't he go back to the hospital and talk to the doctors? Apparently.. no which is just stupid. Even stupider is the fact that when the book was making Walter go crazy, not once did Agatha bring up his crazy past. Surely she knows that he had spent some time in a mental hospital. Heck, she met him as he was being released so she had to have known and if she didn't, that would be an even bigger plot hole. Obviously the movie didn't want to give Walter's crazy past away too early BUT after knowing the truth, it just makes for some unbelievable dialog between the husband and wife.

9) The dog, Ned. Everyone saw him. He existed yet his presence was some paranormal aspect of the story that was never explained. If he was sent to unveil the truth so justice could be served, why wait 13 years? If it's because Walter had just found the book & the #23 again, then why did the book wait 13 years to find him? Never explained.

10) A nit pick - Walter who is obsessed w/ the book & can't put it down seems to take forever to read the whole thing yet the wife, who surely wasn't obsessed seemed to have finished it in a day.

In a great movie, things like these can be overlooked but in a movie where nothing seems to work, these plot holes & ridiculous moments are evident & unforgivable.

3/10 is my rating.

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

Like the first only not as good

[20 February 2011]

Paranormal Activity, which I rated a 6/10 on IMDb, was a pretty decent suspenseful movie - it wasn't scary whatsoever but it did hold my attention and thrill me with the unknown since there was no way of knowing how the film would end, what the climax of the haunting would be - So.. Paranormal Activity 2? Same ole stuff only not as good because it's already been done before, hence my 5/10 rating.

I could have done without the religious undertones what with the housekeeper chanting stuff while walking around with some incense & then the ridiculous scene where a wooden cross apparently makes a possessed character recoil- b/c it has magical powers I guess. Ugh..it's just a piece of wood. Housekeeper came off like psychotic religious freak and the wood having powers b/c it was shaped like a cross was utter lunacy.

Paranormal Activity 2 wasn't really scary but it was suspenseful and thrilling just like the first. However, unlike in the first movie where Mika vigilantly checks the footage recorded in the home on the look out for any weird behavior, this new family, despite setting up cameras throughout, seem content with barely checking anything and it drove me nuts. Something would happen to someone. There was doubt that said person was telling the truth. Cue to no one checking the camera footage to prove if said thing happened or not. The footage was checked at times but not nearly as much as it should have been. It was ridiculous - cameras are there, check them to see if things happened in your house either while you weren't home or if something weird happened. Ugh.

I am assuming PA3 will be made but I don't know what it could possibly be about - the story about what exactly happened to Katie/Kristi when they were little as well as what happened to their Mother is what needs to be told but unfortunately the camera style of PA won't work since back then, people didn't really have video camera systems and if they did they were grainy & black and white. Hand held cameras were huge and people certainly didn't record their everyday activities 24/7 so good luck PA people in coming up with something decent.

Lastly - I cared more about the dog, Abby, then I did about anyone else in that house. Not really sure what that says about the film, or me.

The Road (I) (2009)

Do you carry the fire?

[20 February 2011]

NO SPOILERS UNTIL END - HAS WARNING

The Road is a raw, emotional, gritty story about a Man (Viggo Mortenson) & his Son's (Kodi Smit-McPhee) fight to survive in a post-apocalyptic world - a world where humanity and the will to live dies a little more each day as desperation and a bleak outlook on life sets in. Charlize Theron, in a smaller role, plays the Mother who abandons her Husband and Son after mentally giving into the realization that things would never get better and not wanting to live in such a world. There is no explanation given as to what exactly happened to cause such chaos but the film begins about 10/11 years after the event occurred.

This is not a glamorous movie - the color scheme is dull with tones of gray throughout as nature around them died off long ago taking animals and most life forms with it. The film is about the journey and relationship during their travels between the Man and his Son as they head south in search for a warmer climate and a better chance for survival. Along the way, the audience is shown the desperation through the main 2 characters as well as through different interactions with people that they come across on their way - there are cannibals who trap humans for food, there are groups with guns who travel in gangs attacking anyone in their sight for belongings and food, etc.. It's quite clear that in this world, people will do anything to survive and there is an internal struggle between what someone will and what will not do to make it - the good people and the bad people and then a question about what really makes one good or one bad in such a world, one filled with desperation and death.

I found the film to be extremely touching and interesting. It had just the right amount of action and suspense coupled with the right amount of quiet, emotion to give this movie depth but at the same time keep the audience entertained. My one gripe is the ending - it is, in my opinion, the one low point of this movie and utterly ridiculous and in a way negates one of the main themes of the whole thing which was the Father preparing his son for a life in this world without him - knowing who to trust and who not to trust and learning how to survive on his own. The ending is some sappy, over the top, nonsensical, Hollywood garbage and it's a shame because 99% of the film that came before it, was utterly fantastic.

8/10 with a point off for the ending.

More about the ending with spoilers...

SPOILER WARNING - SPOILER WARNING

The Father dies and the son is left alone for 1 mere night before some magical family with 2 kids no less, kids which seem to be a rarity in that post apocalyptic world, come along to take him in. To make things even more ridiculous, we are to believe that said family had been following the boy and his Father for weeks? Months? Who knows.. because apparently their entire world revolved around this boy and waiting for his Father to die - since I am assuming they realized he was sick. So, had the Father lived for another year, would the family have stalked them another 365 days? It's such a sappy, dumb ending that completely negates all the Father's life lessons of survival that he spent the movie teaching his son. Apparently, he didn't need any of that b/c the magical family showed up 2 seconds later to claim him.

Also, I think the most ridiculous part is that there is no way that the family didn't come across that underground shelter stocked with food, blankets, candles & matches for heat, beds, books, etc... so we are to believe that they chose to keep following the Man and his son over choosing to survive themselves? They have children - it's just not believable that they wouldn't have stayed in that shelter with the food for at least a couple months until the food ran out. We know that they were in that area b/c of the dog barking and the footsteps and we know that they watched the boy/man so when they left the shelter, the family must have seen the opening and checked out what was underground when the boy/man left. Sorry but it's utter lunacy to imply that the family would pass up the chance to survive with guaranteed shelter and food in a safe, secure place in favor of shadowing the 2 main characters all b/c the Father might die and the boy might need someone.

There is humanity and then there is stupidity and characters acting in ways that just aren't believable in favor of some happy, contrived ending. The Road went for contrived. Shame.

Bella (2006)

Great Story, Horrible Ending

[14 February 2011]

NO SPOILERS UNTIL ENDING - HAS A WARNING

The majority of 'Bella' is a fabulously written, well acted, film that effortlessly draws the audience into caring about the 2 main characters - Nina & Jose (Blanchard & Verástegui). The problem is the ending that manages to be confusing, negate a supposed budding connection between the 2 leads and just creates an overall unbelievable conclusion that takes away from the rest of the film.

Bella is the story of Nina, a waitress at a Mexican restaurant who is laid off by the owner, Manny after arriving to work late for a 3rd time (3 strikes and you are out) and Manny's brother, Jose, who is the head chef at the restaurant, who runs after Nina, having compassion for her plight. Nina reveals to Jose that she is pregnant, has been having morning sickness which was why she has been late for work and with the news, Jose decides to ditch his job and his brother to spend the day with Nina. It is also revealed that Nina doesn't plan on carrying the baby to term but would rather opt for an abortion since she is not ready to raise a child on her own and the Father wants nothing to do with it.

Until the ending, Bella is a movie that takes place over the span of 2 days, not including flashbacks - it follows Nina and Jose as they spend the day around New York City, at Jose's childhood home with his family and then at the beach - returning back to the City the next day. It is an exploration about each character, about his/her past and about his/her future - as they share with one another details about their lives and form a bond through the pain of their pasts.

Jose was a promising soccer star who, after an accident, never played again and is haunted by the tragedy that ended it all whereas Nina's Father died when she was younger, something her Mother never stopped grieving over and as a result, pushed her daughter away ruining their relationship forever.

I found it very easy to get lost in the characters. I cared about Nina. I cared about Jose and I was endeared by their growing connection with each other. If not for the horrendous, disjointed, nonsensical ending, I would have easily rated Bella a 9/10.

SPOILER WARNING

The ending. That is where this film failed miserably. Throughout the movie, it is made clear that the main reason why Nina doesn't want to have the baby is because she doesn't want to be a single Mother, isn't ready to care for a child financially by herself and doesn't have a steady man to provide and care for them both.

The ending of this movie wants us to believe that Nina carried her child to term.. and assumingly bonded with Jose for another 8-9 months and then birthed Bella, walked away from her and essentially Jose and left him and his family to raise her child? Huh?

Nina and Jose connected with each other intensely in the span of 2 days during the movie - is it really believable that after another 8-9 months of him by her side, being a shoulder for her to cry on & someone to care about her that nothing romantic would have formed between them? Isn't this movie supposed to be a romance/love story? Wasn't Nina's main issue that she didn't want to raise the baby on her own? That she didn't want the child to be a burden for whatever man she eventually found in her life? Jose was willing, ready and able to care for Bella so why not raise Bella with Jose as a family? She found a man that wanted to care for and provide for her child so why the heck did she essentially give birth to the baby girl and then disappear from her life for 5 years? That was just ridiculous and not realistic at all. Jose's family home was a mere train ride away and yet we are to believe that she never visited her own child for 5 years? Clearly she wasn't visiting at all or else Nina wouldn't have been worried that Bella didn't know who she was. Just bad. Utterly bad and it negates any bond that we saw being formed between Nina/Jose throughout the movie since apparently a whole pregnancy later and she was able to just walk away from him and her child.

So 7/10 is my overall rating.

Get Smart (2008)

Get Smart? More like Get Stupid

[1 February 2011]

Is this movie funny? YES. There are some hysterical moments but it's all stupid comedy - glorified cartoon like stupid comedy that you need to leave common sense at the door to enjoy.

The action stunts were outrageous - the type where in real life, the people would have died 10x over but b/c it's one of those over the top comedies, people magically live and aren't even hurt. There are also a lot of saved in the nick of time, outlandish moments as well that had me rolling my eyes.

So.. is Get Smart funny? Yes. Was it a good script? No. Did it have a good plot? Definitely not. Witty dialogue? Nope. This movie is just just a kid friendly, brainless comedy that has some laughs but not much else.

Also, female and male characters as leads? Note to movies everywhere: putting them together or creating something romantic between them is cliché and overtly cheapens any movie. That BS nearly ruined the whole thing for me.

Vanishing on 7th Street (2010)

Unexplained disappearance left Unexplained

[29 January 2011]

SPOILER FREE UNTIL THE END WHICH HAS A WARNING...

This movie had so much potential but in the end, it was nothing but an unfinished, unexplained, mess with no questions answered & a cheesy, stupid ending.

Imagine this: a normal morning in your everyday big city - taxis, cars, people, etc.. all going about their lives when suddenly, with no warning, a wave of darkness washes over the city wiping away all electrical light as well as daylight instantly - the darkness lets up and everyone is gone, nothing but their clothing from where they once stood, remains.

Who survives? A man working at a movie theater who had a battery powered headlight(Leguizamo). A man who was sleeping near lit candles (Christensen). A woman who had just stepped out to take a smoke break & opened the lighter at the exact second it happened (Newton)..people who were near prevailing light sources when the darkness came.

Now there is a fight for survival against the darkness that seems to be quickly taking over any light left - daylight becomes increasingly scarce w/ night lasting longer & daytime lasting shorter. Batteries used for flashlights keep dying, lasting at first hours on end but quickly dying out after minutes. Nearly all cars are dead - batteries drained. The survivors are trapped in a city (specifically 7th street) that is being taken over by night, a darkness that will take you unless you are surrounded by light.

Sounds interesting, right? I know.. this movie had so much promise which makes the execution so frustrating. I wish someone would have told me going into it not to try and figure out what was happening. With most psychological thrillers or horror films like this, creepy/odd things happen & then in the end, an explanation is given for what happened & why. I kept trying to find clues, piece them together & figure out what the initial darkness was, why it was light vs. dark, why the daylight was getting shorter, why light sources were dying at rapid rates, etc.. & how the darkness had a mind of it's own since it is shown in the movie that the darkness thinks & has the ability to create fake light sources as well as add in loved ones' voices to draw the survivors out, thinking they are safe and without warning the light goes out and the person is taken instantly.

...but alas nothing is ever explained. The audience is just supposed to accept what happened as an unexplained disappearance & take it for what it is - so beware - don't bother trying to piece together what is happening, that is too advanced of a concept for this film.

I want to be clear that this is NOT some high concept, brilliant movie that answers some questions in a vague, thought provoking manner that leaves the audience drawing their own conclusions.. movies like that can be quite interesting. Just b/c this film doesn't answer questions about what is happening & why, doesn't magically make it 'brilliant' or 'smart' - this film is straight forward with a disappearance of a population, a light vs. dark scenario and the explanation that it's just an unexplained disappearance which isn't any explanation at all.

3/10 Utter failure - anyone can come up with some crazy concept, the true talent is putting all the parts together to explain the truth behind the mystery or what is really happening & this movie doesn't even bother. Also, I found it hard to sympathize/care about any of the leads. I didn't really care if they lived or died (do they even really die? Who knows - again.. what happens to those that disappear was never explained) Also, the movie comes to a halt about 30 minutes in when a place called Sonny's Bar comes into play - and never really get back to where it was going. Finally, expect the usual problem of characters acting stupidly in this movie - when someone is in need of a light source & is desperate, FIRE come to mind especially when surrounded by alcohol in a bar & there is tons of fuel at their disposal from the cars in the streets - too bad no one could take that mental leap.

____________________________________________________________

**SPOILER WARNING NOW - DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED**

Just to be clear, the idea that it's a reboot or some Adam/Eve scenario which I saw some people trying to sell as answers is NOT an explanation - that is just a potential reason for what happened but still doesn't answer anything about how it happened. If the people turn into the darkness/shadows when they are taken, then what was the darkness made of when it initially came - it was obviously large & powerful enough to take over everything & wipe out ALL electrical light so what was that? Why light vs. dark? What was going on with Leguizamo's character's death? etc...

Also - the Adam/Eve idea based on the boy/girl in the end makes NO sense given the ending of the film. If they road off into the sunset w/ daylight shining upon them, then I might buy that (as a reason for what happened, NOT as an actual explanation as to how it happened) BUT that is not the case. As the boy/girl ride off, the shadows/darkness can be seen taking back over the city w/ night fall coming signaling to the audience that whatever is happening is NOT over. If the girl's magical flashlight dies - then I am assuming she & the boy will be gone just like everyone else. There was no indication in the end that the occurrence was over so clearly the 2 kids are not the chosen ones so that theory doesn't work.

7 Days (2010)

Is Revenge the only true Justice?

[26 January 2011]

Is revenge the only real justice when someone you love is killed at the hands of another?

That is the question that '7 Days' asks and in a way lets the audience answer as they watch a Father (Claude Legault) get revenge on his daughter's killer (Martin Dubreuil).

Jasmine Hamel, an 8 year old girl, left her home to pass out invitations door to door for her upcoming birthday party on her way to school. She wanted her Father, Bruno - a Doctor - to accompany her but after just coming home after his shift at the hospital, was too tired. Her Mother (Fanny Mallette) offered to go but Jasmine wanted her Father or no one...so she left alone. Jasmine never made it to school and after a frantic search of the surrounding area, her lifeless body was found. She had been raped and murdered. Grief and blame immediately set in for her parents, especially Bruno who opted not to join his daughter on her walk. A message was also sent from the school about Jasmine's absence which Bruno never received until it was too late. He only learned about his daughter missing from a school friend who arrived to drop off her homework. What if he'd heard the message earlier? Would he have been able to save her? Jasmine's Mother can't shake this thought.

The accused rapist/murderer is quickly found through a DNA match to sperm left on her body and the man is taken into custody... and Bruno's plan begins. Is jail enough of a punishment for the man that took away his daughter? Not for Bruno who decides that torcher and revenge is the only way to make the man truly pay for what he did.

The kidnapping of the accused rapist/murderer and subsequent torcher is the majority of the movie. This is not a film about police work or finding out who killed Jasmine. It's not a film about the man's trial or the search for her when she first goes missing - all of that is a mere backdrop for the true focus of the film - a Father's pain and need for revenge and the sick, twisted journey he takes as he physically torchers and beats the man who took his daughter from him.

It's up to the audience to decide if they support the Father's actions or not and if revenge is truly the only real way to seek justice.

Beware - the torcher scenes are graphic, realistic and very disturbing and there is a lot of full frontal male nudity (the accused rapist/murderer is stripped nude once kidnapped and naked the rest of the film). However, I don't see the film as something only a sadist who enjoys the sub-genre of 'torcher porn' would like - b/c the movie is more about the emotions behind the actions than the actual physical pain.

Does the Father actually kill his daughter's killer in the end when given the chance? Watch and find out.

7/10 Good Movie

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Suspenseful but at times Annoying

[21 January 2011]

Was this movie supposed to be scary because I wasn't really scared at all? I am not a horror movie fan, get scared easily & usually avoid the genre because I don't find pleasure in being terrified which is why it took me this long to finally see this popular film. Perhaps it was the lack of visual effects/quick camera shots/scary music (horror movie standards) but it just didn't scare me. There was a lot of footsteps and banging, etc.. but I couldn't help but imagine the film crew making the sound effects on the stairs as the 2 lead characters lie in the bedroom. I don't know - the movie just wasn't terrifying whatsoever.

What the movie lacked in fear, it made up for in suspense. It was the suspense that kept me on the edge of my seat watching and waiting to see what would happen next. There is absolutely no way to know the ending in advance, assuming one hasn't read spoilers, which makes it a lot better than clichéd movie endings that one can see coming a mile away. There is a nice buildup of action that finally leads to the ending climax.

This movie was shot in a 1st person manner by the 2 lead characters - Katie and Micah. This means that all the footage in the film was created by the 2 leads which means that they end up filming anything and everything to give the audience a portrayal of their lives and a cohesive storyboard. Filming at night when the couple was asleep trying to catch paranormal activity on camera worked for me but the filming of anything and everything, no matter how random didn't. It was weird how they would randomly shoot their lives 24/7 as if they were on some reality show or shooting a documentary when in reality, they were trying to catch the entity mostly at night. Again, this was necessary to actually get the footage to create the film but from a logical standpoint, it didn't work. Why was the camera always on?

As for the 2 main characters - great acting. I bought them as real people truly fearful of what was happening to them or really Katie, specifically, in the home. The movie is fictional but it was done in such a realistic manner that it would be believable that this was a movie about 2 real people and what happened to them.. although, again, it isn't - it's all fiction.

I will say, however, that the first 15-20 minutes of the movie, before I got into the 2 characters and their dynamic, I found them and the movie to be extremely annoying and hard to sit through. This actually takes me back to the previous paragraph where I pointed out the random recordings of anything and everything - that is basically what the beginning of the film is ... it's the intro to the home, the layout of the home and the characters BUT at the same time why the heck is Micah, specifically, annoyingly recording everything? What's the point? He may like cameras but still...the camera was on 24/7 taping randomness for no reason especially at the start of the film. Again, yes, this was the only way to get footage for the movie BUT it was odd.

6/10 Suspenseful but not really scary. It was good and original but nothing fantastic. I'd definitely consider this movie overrated based on the heaps of praise and the box office numbers but it isn't bad either - I'd recommend it because it IS good, it's just not great. I do plan on watching Paranormal Activity 2 so it was enjoyable enough for me to want more.

Lastly, I saw the movie with the original ending which is apparently different from the theatrical version. After watching the theatrical version online afterwards, I'd recommend trying to see the version with the original ending, it was better.

Cyrus (I) (2010)

Genuinely Good Movie

[19 January 2011]

I can understand the frustration from those that saw this in the theater about the disconnect between the trailer, that promoted this as some wacky, hilarious movie with Jonah Hill and John C. Reilly and what the actual film turned out to be but luckily, I rented the film, after hearing good things from friends, and enjoyed it for what it was - a genuinely good film. I'd rather watch a subtle comedy with good drama over some raunchy, IQ dropping comedy any day so I am happy that Cyrus wasn't true to the trailer.

The movie is about John (John C. Reilly), a down on his luck, stuck in a rut, freelance editor who meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) at a party that his ex-wife & now best friend, Jamie (Catherine Keener) and her new fiancé drag him to, and their subsequent relationship especially after John is introduced to Cyrus, Molly's 21 year old son who lives with her.

Basically, Cyrus and Molly have an oddly close relationship that is quite abnormal especially given his age. Whether it be wrestling together, Cyrus walking into the bathroom as his Mother showers or her cradling him to bed - something just isn't right. When John first comes into the picture, Cyrus appears to welcome him with open arms but all is not as it appears. Cyrus is, in actuality, territorial of his Molly, wants John gone and set out to get rid of him by playing with him in subtle, manipulative ways. Eventually, John catches on and it's an all out war with John trying to thwart Cyrus's plans without pushing the fact too hard that Cyrus has issues on Molly, who is ultra sensitive about her son. This does produce some genuinely funny moments between Cyrus and John as they battle behind Molly's back.

Does Cyrus come around and understand that his Mother needs someone other than him to truly be happy? Does John push Molly away with his dislike of Cyrus? Does Molly cut the strings with Cyrus and choose John? Watch the movie and find out.

Overall it was an enjoyable movie with an enjoyable story. I liked it a lot. My only gripe is the total superficial mismatch of Marisa Tomei and John C. Reilly - I don't need her to be paired with a supermodel but he is way below average and not even in her league. I am sick of seeing this one sided mismatch in Hollywood especially when it never seems to be the other way around. However, given the actual characters and their situations, mainly the fact that Molly (Tomei) hadn't been involved with a man since before Cyrus was born (21 years prior), her standards were probably low and desperation had kicked in... plus, her son, the one she was all touchy feely and lovey dovey with was played by Jonah Hill so.. yeah. Other than the physical mismatch - good film and I'd definitely recommend it.

7/10

The Killers (II) (2009)

Hapless Hit men in a Black Comedy

[19 January 2011]

The Killers is a black and white (no color), black comedy Indie film running at a little over 60 minutes about 2 hit men - Mike played by Matthew Jure, a hapless, indecisive, believable loser and Sean played by Ian Attfield, an ex-military man recruited by Mike - and their plans to stalk and then take out a mark that they were hired to kill.

The first half of the movie follows the 2 leads as they stalk their mark. This portion of the film can either be seen as a hit or miss depending on how the characters and dialogue are received by the viewer. If one doesn't find the 2 men interesting and their conversations about literally nothing enjoyable and funny, the movie will come off as boring and hard to watch. However, if one likes the unimportant banter about favorite foods, compensation for parking/lunch by the man that hired them (per diem), and other random things.. then the first half can be quite good. It's a toss up and I fell somewhere in between. Large portions of the first 30 minutes, especially a good 15 minutes at the start are focused only on the 2 leading men in a car parked outside the residence of the man they are shadowing - no other characters, no other backdrops - just chatting awkwardly about the mark's routine, about when to call it a night, about life, about food, etc...that's it.

The second half of the film is when things pick up and Mike introduces Sean to his girlfriend, Danielle (Anna Acton). Sean invites himself over for dinner, Danielle and Sean hit it off and they end up getting drunk together as Mike is left out as the third wheel & previous straight laced Sean becomes a bumbling, alcoholic, psychotic fool.

The second half of the film is also when the 2 hit men decide that it is time to go through with the murder and, as one can expect, things don't go as planned. These hapless hit men clearly don't know what they are doing and hijinks ensue. The ending sequences and conclusion are a bit abrupt but for a low budget Indie film I thought it was a decent effort. I didn't love this movie but I didn't dislike it either - it was merely okay... with the actors, especially Matthew Jure carrying the characters and the dialogue and making the most of it.

5/10

Feardotcom (2002)

Utter Nonsense

[9 January 2011]

Having watched this last night on SyFy without having heard of the movie prior to watching it, I am SHOCKED to find out, based on the IMDb info, that FearDotCom was a real movie. By 'real movie' I mean a movie released in theaters that actually had a big budget (45 mil? What was that spent on?! Certainly not the movie I watched) and that people paid money to see it because I just assumed, based on the quality of the film as well as where I watched it, that it was one of those low budget, poorly acted, nonsensically over the top, made for TV SyFy original movies. I am honestly taken aback by the fact that this wasn't - I don't even know what to say. It wasn't even reminiscent of a good original SyFy movie - it was at the low end of the stick.

FearDotCom is horrible - everything about it is bad. The acting. The script. The camera work with the flashing images that are more annoying than impactful or scary. The weak plot with epic plot holes. The fact that it's like a poor man's rip off of 'The Ring' only that is even too generous of a critique for this dreck. It was just boring and bad and not worth even watching for free on TV late at night. Heck, I couldn't resist flipping the channel quite a few times and am questioning why I even stuck around most of the time in the first place. Wait I know.. nothing else was on.

Lastly, the movie is about a website (feardotcom.com) that when visited, causes death in exactly 48 hours. What I found amazing was the lack of actual victims mentioned on screen. Where were all the victims? We saw what... 3? mentioned and of course I am not including those who fell victim b/c they viewed the site while working the case of the initial people killed. I don't expect feardotcom.com to be the most popular website ever BUT I do expect more than 3? 4? people to visit it. This is the internet - people are on it all the time and sites spread and word gets out. Where were the hundreds if not thousands of people who must have visited the site and also died? It surely wasn't painted as some worldly epidemic - it seemed to be contained to the few people mentioned on screen. Huh? This is not some video tape like in 'The Ring' where you physically need to have the tape to watch it and get your death sentence. It's a WEBSITE - anyone can view it at any time - the death count should have been monstrous. HUGE plot hole.

Skip this - 1/10 .. and I am still in absolute awe that this was a real film and not a made for TV horror attempt. Ridiculous.. and if I didn't think the movie was bad enough, the preposterous ending was something unreal.

SMALL SPOILER WARNING- Lots of plot holes but the spoilerish one I need to voice was the lipstick tube swallowed by the victim who was found in the steel mill. Just like the new victim who we saw taken on screen, she must have been accosted by the Dr. - immediately grabbed, sedated and stripped so how did she magically not only get a chance to swallow her lipstick case which apparently stayed water proof for years, but plant the note in there and wait a minute.. actually write that message about justice/revenge on the back of the address? Makes no sense at all - poor writing/plot to go with the poorly made movie. Go figure.

The Wolfman (2010)

Weak character development, plot and script

[7 January 2011]

I went into The Wolfman with no pre-conceived notions or ideas. I have not seen The Wolf Man (1941) which this film was based off of & didn't know anything about the story, about lycanthropy (werewolves) & the movie does little to educate the viewer about the basics. Throughout the entire film, there was a lot of focus on silver bullets and yet never an explanation as to why. It took me reading IMDb's FAQ to understand that werewolves can only be killed by silver bullets - it would have been nice for someone, anyone in the movie to actually explain that to the viewers but then again, the script was an utter mess.

The main problem with this film is that it's empty of true emotion. The scenery is fabulous and the Victorian-Era backdrop in 1891 England lends itself to a Gothic-horror feel that really suits the picture. The look is fabulous but the actual content leaves a lot to be desired. The character development is criminally neglected - especially Emily Blunt's character of Gwen. We are often told of connections and feelings but never really shown them, making it almost impossible to care about the characters, the supposed bonds and of course connect with anyone on screen.

Gwen's fiancé, Ben Talbot goes missing & she seeks out his older brother Lawrence Talbot, played by Benicio Del Toro, a well known theater actor who moved away years earlier, for help. At first he rejects her request, having committed himself to a contract for 30 upcoming shows of a Shakespearean play, but after a letter from her, he is apparently convinced and returns to his hometown/ childhood estate to reunite w/ his Father (Anthony Hopkins) and find his brother. Ben's body is found with wounds that only a monster could have inflicted and the story goes from there..

This movie is filled with fantastic actors but Del Toro & Hopkins seemed like they were bored/phoning it in and Blunt did the best with what she was given but her character was very underdeveloped. When her fiancé, Ben, was found savagely murdered, aside from a 30 second subtly tearful scene when she is brought his belongings, there is really nothing to convey her devastation or mourning. I certainly didn't feel her pain or really care about Ben or her loss. Even worse and less developed though is the supposed relationship between Lawrence, Ben's older brother, and Gwen. Benicio Del Toro & Emily Blunt have no chemistry whatsoever - there is about a 16 year age difference between them and it shows. Don't worry though - there is no suffering through chemistry lacking intimate scenes since their 'connection' is barely shown on screen & given how important it is to the end of the film, it's unforgivable and a product of sloppy writing/directing. I didn't get a 'love' vibe from Gwen/Lawrence at all and any growing feelings between them were not properly portrayed. It was an utter failure.

A big gripe I had with the storyline/plot was the way the hunt for the initial werewolf that killed Ben and numerous other villagers as well as infected Lawrence (he was bitten by a werewolf which transformed him into one) was dropped the second Lawrence began turning into the beast and the villagers/main detective (played by Hugo Weaving) focused on him. Why did no one seem to care at all about finding the initial werewolf? Why was this dropped? Why did no one ever focus on or care about Lawrence's father especially after Lawrence had called him a 'monster' & his claims about himself being a true monster had been proved correct once the full moon came and many witnessed the transformation?

Be prepared for a big twist about who the initial werewolf who tormented the villagers, killed Ben and infected Lawrence really is as well as one about Lawrence's deceased mother... only you will see both coming a mile away like most of the plot which makes it a failure like most of the film.

Also, look out for a cheesy to the death fight scene between 2 werewolves that is nothing but a CGI overload. I was amazed to read that actual wolf costumes/makeup were used since some of the scenes look incredibly computer generated and fake. The fight scene at the end looks like something you would find in a video game or some computer made re-enactment - it was ridiculous. Even the backdrop in the fight scene that they did have a real set for looked like a CGI green screen. It was awful. I will say that the transformations looked good but some of the action sequences did not.

Lastly, it took me Googling how often a full moon occurs to find out that on average, there is one every month which was shocking because it seemed like in the movie, every other night there was another full moon. I had no idea such amounts of time were passing by - perhaps they should have spent a non full moon night actually developing the characters but alas, that is not what this movie wanted to be - which is why everyone was so wooden and the movie was so empty of real emotion.

4/10 for great scenery and a nice Gothic-horror feel but the actual movie is horrible. The characters, especially the Gwen/Lawrence relationship, which comes into play later on in the film, is underdeveloped and practically non existent making the ending fail on every level. Don't tell me that he loves her to the point where only she can speak to his heart & get through to the man underneath the beast- SHOW me. Where was the build up? Poorly done.

Dead Snow (2009)

Blood! Gore! MINUS Good Storytelling

[1 January 2011]

Luckily, I was able to watch Dead Snow w/ English dubbed in so I didn't have to exercise any brain power reading subtitles (it's a Norwegian film)- unfortunately, I wasn't able to completely shut my brain off during this film which prevented me from truly enjoying it when things like common sense & an expectation of a consistent plot kept getting in the way. This movie makes no sense plain & simple.

Someone in the special effects dept. clearly got a great deal on fake blood & intestines b/c this movie went all out with the spurting blood & gore to the point where it was beyond gratuitous. Also, the sick obsession with guts was baffling - there was literally a scene where one of the characters gets hit in the head with a hammer as he's running through the snowy mountains. He grabs his head, attempts to stumble on but can't move - why? His intestines somehow got caught on a tree limb! Not ridiculous enough? How about 2 people hanging over a cliff literally holding onto a Zombie's intestines as some makeshift rope? I didn't realize that one's intestines could support the weight of 2 adults w/o not only snapping but allowing one of the characters to shimmy back up it to safety. ..& no, the intestines weren't tied to a tree, they were hanging out of a body the whole time!

The slasher type antics actually didn't bother me that much. The movie was low budget & was supposed to be campy & generous w/ the blood which it was - my problem was the (thin) plot & the actual zombies themselves.

Can you even call them Nazi Zombies? Sure they were supposed to be dead & had Zombie makeup on but unlike Zombies in other movies, these Nazis were agile, athletic & could easily outrun the characters in the film. Huh? Aren't Zombies supposed to be slow/sleepy? Not these 'zombies.' They were practical Olympians. Also, Zombies are D- E-A-D so why did these Zombies bleed.. a lot? They were gushing blood as a result of wounds & we actually saw close ups of blood spurting from wounds as one would expect from someone living as his heart pumps the blood out. Why call them Zombies at all?

Now the plot. Unlike other Germans in the Army during WWII, the group stationed in Øksfjord, lead by Colonel Hertzog, were mean to the locals. When it became apparent that the Germans were losing the war & the Russians were closing in, the Germans went too far. They demanded valuables including coins/gold from the locals & whoever refused was killed. After years of being treated poorly, the 3,000 people of Øksfjord got together, gathered all the tools they could find like axes/shovels & took on the 300 soldiers - TRAINED soldiers w/ weaponry for a war and won! Ridiculous! Locals killed some & those that survived retreated up into the mountains where they supposedly froze to death hence our Nazi zombies - the evil that can be awoken at any moment.

We learn the story about the Nazis from a random creepy man that shows up at the cabin, the cabin occupied by the 7 main characters, who are on spring break from school. This man explained the story to the characters and in turn to the audience which is just lazy storytelling. Why was the man randomly in the middle of the mountains? Especially when he knew the legend of the evil that lurked there? Never explained. He just shows up, tells the tale, and leaves. Pure stupidity.

So.. why is the plot an utter failure? Simple. The core group finds a box of gold, vintage gold from WWII in their cabin. When 1 character, who pocketed a piece, drops the coin outside upon going to the outhouse - the attacks start on the cabin. It is made clear especially at the end of the film that the money is what attracts the Zombies and if you take it, you will be found and hunted. Problem? Sure.. 2 people are killed in the film by Nazi Zombies BEFORE the gold is found in the cabin. What? Huh? Why is the female student killed at the very beginning of the film? Why is the random man who told the Nazi story attacked in his tent? Neither of these people had coins/gold on them & the evil hadn't been unearthed yet since the coins weren't found. You simply can't ignore this plot HOLE. It's criminal.

In spite of all the blood/guts being thrown amok in this film, the grossest part has nothing to do with killings. Sex in an outhouse between a hot girl & chubby guy literally on the makeshift toilet after the guy just had a bowel movement? Nasty. Throw in 'sensual' finger sucking right after he wiped? Pukes. How did the girl even know he was done going before she mounted him? Unwatchable.

The whole movie is a campy, gorefest where 7 college students are attacked by athletic, scary Nazi zombies. The plot makes no sense. The death scenes are gratuitous/low budget. One character literally falls off a mountainous cliff & walks away unharmed. Someone uses a cell phone to call for help after a fire breaks out. The problem? The killings started the day prior so why wait until the next day after a bunch of people were already dead to seek help? Is fire more serious than gruesome murders? Just stupidity all around.

Lastly - how did the Nazis turn into Zombies? Don't bother asking this question b/c the movie doesn't even attempt to explain it at all. Like I said, STUPID. 4/10