tazkykamen

Creating a quality twist story with a functioning internal logic is not easy. Somewhere Quiet remained somewhere halfway between a failure and an intense experience. The film contains several chilling images, but in most scenes it remains only at the hint of something promising and what is even worse story is predictable. In my opinion, the unreal scenes are not well edited and are the biggest weakness of the film. Marin Ireland plays too affected, Kentucker Audley is bland and Jennifer Kim is unfortunately only average. The ending can be interpreted differently, but I'm not sure if that was the intention.

I have mixed feelings about this film, on the one hand admitting that I was somewhat impressed by the ending, but on the other hand, the way director and screenwriter Anthony DiBlasi has twisted Barker's story is not satisfactory. The short story is called Fear, but it is not an in-depth study of our most penetrating sensation. Instead of its proverbial strangeness, Baker plays a psychological game with the three characters in an attempt to drive them to the brink of madness, to which the main villain pays the price. The film extends the cast to five, and that's where I see his problem. The relationships between them are too broken, but they remain on a superficial level, which the screenwriter tries to hide by piling large amounts of trauma on each character's shoulders, which seems unnatural. Abby is a girl marked with a giant birthmark, and Joshua is the second added character to be created as if by splitting the original hero. They appear onstage just as the director needs to escalate the conflict between Stephen and Quaid and serve as a Deus ex machina. Here, I could conclude by saying that the film, despite the solid performances of Shaun Evans and Jackson Rathbone, is not very good. But in the end, the whole situation is saved by a punch line that turns the failed adaptation into a "premeditated intention."

Everything is wrong in this film. The possession of girls, the father's lost faith, the depiction of the Catholic Church, the depiction of natural magic, the death of one of the girls, a reference to the original Exorcist and, of course, the exorcism itself. Catherine had to gouge out Regan's mother's eyes so that her "deserved" death was somehow supported in the script. But the death of Catherine is the biggest flaw of the film. It is absolutely undeserved (yes, I am talking about deserved and undeserved, because the film plays according to Hollywood rules, it is not an independent film, even if some shots from the trailer gave little hope for that). Her death makes absolutely no sense, just like this whole miserable movie.

The effort to create a ruthlessly realistic thriller failed because the creators failed to maintain a plausible story line. On the one hand, we have a relatively realistic portrayal of violence against a family with a small child. But on the other hand, the transformation of an ordinary future housewife into a fearless heroine is no longer very plausible. And the phantom killer begins to behave as it suits the scriptwriter. In the second half, the screenwriter doesn't skimp on layering one coincidence on another and turns the film into a predictable thriller, and the ending doesn't change anything about it either.

A likable low-budget chamber urban fantasy drama with an even more likable Jillian Harris about one "body" opening and a metaphor? (the protagonist's inability to leave the apartment) about psychological problems. The film could have benefited from more effects and action in the second half and less blah blah chatter, but in terms of atmosphere and sound, it is handled perfectly. Jillian Harris dominates the acting and it's a shame that the director didn't develop her humorous accent, which he shows only in hints. The clichéd neurotic relationship between brother and sister sounds a bit empty, like the whole conclusion, but it is sufficient for the needs of such a genre film.

I don't understand, I really don't understand, why an actress like Radha Mitchell allows herself to be cast in a completely insignificant and desperately stupid supporting role, where she is not given any space for even minimal acting performance. Unfortunately, this is not the only film in which Radha incomprehensibly does not even partially use her potential. To say something about the film itself, originality is not really its strong point. You'll discover the main villain long before the end, and you'll be able to focus more on the annoyingly illogical direction, script and editing. I'm not saying that the creators didn't try to do a professional job, but the effort is not enough when you can't decide whether you're shooting a comedy, crime or slasher.

From an audiovisual point of view, this is a really successful film. Mysterious scenes promise a pure atmospheric experience, but the creators, in the pursuit of a final surprise, commit more and more illogicalities over time, and the initial incomprehensibility of the story, reflected in the rumor about the triplets and the witch, is therefore not only due to the mysterious atmosphere. The creators are equally trying to create an effective, well-thought-out horror film, but they run into the aforementioned illogicalities and an immoral or unethical conclusion that arises due to the initial incomprehensibility of the story, and as a result, it is also not certain whether the film is supposed to be a black comedy or a mysterious horror.

The fantasy horror about the gypsy curse and Judas' silver has a high-quality visual appearance -surrounding forests shrouded in fog, semi-darkness of 19th-century interiors filmed with a distinct dark atmosphere. But what it lags behind is a somewhat problematic monster (apparently inspired by Carpenter's The Thing). It is not clear how he actually takes possession of his victims, and little space is devoted to his attacks in the film. At times, the story is quite illogical, for example, no one notices the attack on the maid despite the bloody sheets hanging in their yard. The dream sequences are also chaotic and make the story unclear.

I think the only thing that works about this movie is the editing. The cast is weird, I didn't like Chris Rock there at all. The rest of the actors are bland except for Samuel L. Jackson, of course, whose role is so small that it cannot even be called supporting. The scenario is absurdly illogical, although the creators definitely wanted to come up with something well thought out, the result is completely predictable. Jigsaw or whoever the hell he is (Spiral is my first movie in the franchise) became his own pop culture caricature and his moral (or what the hell) intentions became, shall I say, embarrassing (though admittedly Hollywood found a way to use him , so that the murderous villain doesn't have to die at the end). The main villain in his name really has omnipotent abilities and capabilities, which is negatively reflected in the script. Mechanical murders are a matter of course, of which only the first one is visually interesting.

The Seventh Day is a crime variety of the exorcism genre where the priests look more like policemen and the possessed victims are old women and children. The search for a demon could thus symbolize the search for a serial killer. The investigation of crime scenes through the main character's ability of sensitivity moves the movie into the realm of mystery thriller. But The Seventh Day is not even a crime movie, certain scenes remind, for example, of the PC game The Suffering. The result is incoherent and superficial, and on top of that, the supporting character of Father Peter, the charismatic Guy Pearce, behaves illogically and ridiculously, when he simply always disappears from the scene when the devil and Father Daniel are about to confront each other, so it is clear what kind of surprise awaits the viewer at the end) From the large family of exorcist movies, The Seventh Day ranks among those more or less critical of the official church and exorcism itself. The visual page is of standard quality, but it does not impress in any way.

This unclassifiable movie is not a low-budget mystery horror about murder, but in fact a visually highly stylized attempt to show the psychological inability to bear solitary confinement in prison. The reason for the imprisonment itself is played out in flashbacks and is rather unconvincing. However, the problem is that the plot cannot move from its place and the relationships between the characters do not undergo the necessary dramatic changes. The best part of the movie -suggestive hallucinations, is thus wasted. It should be appreciated that despite the fact that the camera mostly captures one person in a cell, it is quite inventive along with the editing.

So what do we have here? Evil that is transmitted in a chain from person to person and the main heroine who is pushed by time. Yes, all this has already happened in various variations and maybe that is why the creators do not even try to explain the story and the essence of the evil being in any way. Although there is a hint of the possibility that it could just be a mental illness and trauma from childhood (another non-original idea), the authors remain only with cliché-like outpourings of the actors accusing each other with tears. In any case, the gradual madness of the main character is the best part of the film together with some bizarre scenes.

From the beginning of the film it is clear that nobody will play Hollywood here because Europe and Poland are different coffees) and when I found out that the director is the creator of the film W lesie dzis nie zasnie nikt (2020), I understood the musically and visually successful conclusion. Otherwise, the film is not at all original in terms of content and consists of two incompatible parts. One part is a non-fantastic mystery from a monastery with an atmosphere similar to The Ninth Gate (1999), and the ending is reminiscent of The Last Exorcism Part II (2013). Visually, however, the Hellhole is original and, at least for that reason, it should not be missed.

The Exorcism of God is a strange film, but unfortunately I think it's more ill-conceived than original. It seems to me that someone in the flood of exorcist horrors really wanted to invent something that hadn't existed before and came up with the idea of the opposite exorcism. In other words, the devil will drive God out of man. If you don't think about it further and accept this game, you might have fun in an otherwise quite solid horror movie. However, if you start to think about why the main character was actually chosen, what was so special about him that the devil himself was interested in him, whether it is even possible for the devil to possess or deceive someone who really knew God and the Divine Purpose, then you start to think that the creators were more interested in criticizing religious institutions in the form of a conspiracy. In that case, however, this point becomes incomprehensible because the possession of the devil in the film happened at the expense of helping other people.

This movie is another sad example of our rotten civilization. Our world is drowning in problems and we see two young strong men who, instead of working hard and trying to prove something, enjoy sex with their mothers and that's what the whole movie is about. I'm not saying that even many films of the classics didn't avoid difficult topics, but it always had some idea, a reference.

But this film has no idea and I suggest to the creators that next time they just shoot porn, save money and the result will be better.

I am also disappointed with the actress Naomi Watts that she signed up for such a bad movie.

A static camera from a mobile phone or from a netbook is a cinematic edge, which without an interesting story is doomed to unwatchable boredom that can't be saved even by clever editing. The story of the snuff video would also have potential, but the creators were probably afraid to go to the extreme, so they created a not very credible plot. They handled the static video windows quite well, but many scenes lack the necessary tension. Melanie Papalia rules the entire film. Entire scenes depend on her and without her performance the film would be unwatchable. The fact that the authors avoided the depiction of shocking depraved violence (within tolerance) and chose the path (albeit not very successful) of a story about hackers and kidnappers is a positive thing.

It's not as bad as found footage horror, but the whole pseudo-philosophizing about the Philosopher's Stone dangerously drags it into a childishly embarrassing level. Here it is shown what an advantage Spielberg's approach has in such cases. Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade offer tricks and action instead of pseudo-philosophizing and don't take themselves too seriously.

Dinosaurs were put on the back burner and instead of a sense of wonder or a struggle for survival, the creators served us sentimental clichés and a strange vision of genetically modified coexistence!! Where has Grant and Ian's critical skepticism and message gone from the first film? Paradoxically, this third film is better crafted than its two predecessors, but even as I watched in disbelief at Grady negotiating with raptors in the first World, I knew it couldn't end well. Not even the good old guard (Ian, Elie, Alan) will save it anymore.