brendan-268
Lifetime Total
25+
IMDb Member
14 years
Reviews
Riddick (2013)
Haven't we seen this movie before?
I am a huge fan of the Chronicles of Riddick series.
Pitch Black was a dark horse that came out of nowhere, and even though it borrowed elements from the Alien franchise, it sparkled with an originality and uniqueness that made it a memorable little film.
Then along came the sequel, the Chronicles of Riddick, which has to be one of the best sequels, after The Empire Strikes Back, for taking a franchise to a whole other level rather than simply repeating the same formula from the original hit.
I had been waiting for the third film with baited breath for years, and really couldn't wait to see how this trilogy was going to be developed, or ended.
What I got was a paint-by-numbers rehash of the first film, but without any of the things that made the original so great.
There are literally entire segments and concepts that are stolen from the first film, from the chained up Riddick, to the alien monsters, to the tough blonde female.
What was so frustrating about this film was the fact that they had been handed a golden opportunity to develop an amazing story following on from the ending of the second movie, yet it is all just thrown out within in the opening act of this film with a cheap plot device that doesn't even really make a lot of sense when you stop and think about it.
From there Riddick just follows the formula of Pitch Black, except this time the execution is nowhere near as competent.
When the monsters do arrive the tension hasn't been properly built, and then the final stanza is rushed - the end result being a movie with a forgone and drama-less conclusion.
To make matters worse we have a cheesy ending that literally looks like it was tacked on as a quick and easy wrap up to the film.
As a fan of this franchise I have to say that Riddick was the worst of the three films, and it has squandered what easily could have been a sci-fi trilogy as unique and memorable as the original Star Wars one was.
Pitch Black was a dark horse that came out of nowhere, and even though it borrowed elements from the Alien franchise, it sparkled with an originality and uniqueness that made it a memorable little film.
Then along came the sequel, the Chronicles of Riddick, which has to be one of the best sequels, after The Empire Strikes Back, for taking a franchise to a whole other level rather than simply repeating the same formula from the original hit.
I had been waiting for the third film with baited breath for years, and really couldn't wait to see how this trilogy was going to be developed, or ended.
What I got was a paint-by-numbers rehash of the first film, but without any of the things that made the original so great.
There are literally entire segments and concepts that are stolen from the first film, from the chained up Riddick, to the alien monsters, to the tough blonde female.
What was so frustrating about this film was the fact that they had been handed a golden opportunity to develop an amazing story following on from the ending of the second movie, yet it is all just thrown out within in the opening act of this film with a cheap plot device that doesn't even really make a lot of sense when you stop and think about it.
From there Riddick just follows the formula of Pitch Black, except this time the execution is nowhere near as competent.
When the monsters do arrive the tension hasn't been properly built, and then the final stanza is rushed - the end result being a movie with a forgone and drama-less conclusion.
To make matters worse we have a cheesy ending that literally looks like it was tacked on as a quick and easy wrap up to the film.
As a fan of this franchise I have to say that Riddick was the worst of the three films, and it has squandered what easily could have been a sci-fi trilogy as unique and memorable as the original Star Wars one was.
The Colony (2013)
A poorly executed imitation of a Danny Boyle film
When I first saw the trailer for this film I had high hopes. Some pretty solid journeymen actors, a great premise, and enough of a budget to execute the thing properly.
However, the actual film simply failed to deliver as promised by the trailer.
It's hard to pin down exactly what the problem with The Colony is, but if I had to point to a couple of things I would say; lack of originality, and a confused plot development that feels far too rushed by the time the final credits roll.
Basically this is a non-viral version of 28 Days Later by Danny Boyle (with a spot of Sunshine mixed in for good measure) - identical score, similar story points, same sort of antagonists, and an ultra-violent final clash that bears striking similarities to the final act of 28 Days Later.
It's really the final act of this film where the plot development starts to implode in on itself - basically things are set up relatively well, but then the film rushes to a conclusion, and leaves you feeling like what you've just seen shouldn't have actually unfolded the way that it did.
I was especially perplexed by the final confrontation where not only has our main antagonist developed a terminator-like strength and invincibility (previously his band of merry men were being killed with single gunshots, and single blows from axes, etc), but now our protagonist has also become equally superhuman in his fighting ability.
Then, in a film that has previously featured very little in the way of on-screen blood and gore, suddenly features a prolonged and graphic head bashing, followed by an almost comic decapitation at the mouth.
All in all this one was a dissatisfying movie experience.
However, the actual film simply failed to deliver as promised by the trailer.
It's hard to pin down exactly what the problem with The Colony is, but if I had to point to a couple of things I would say; lack of originality, and a confused plot development that feels far too rushed by the time the final credits roll.
Basically this is a non-viral version of 28 Days Later by Danny Boyle (with a spot of Sunshine mixed in for good measure) - identical score, similar story points, same sort of antagonists, and an ultra-violent final clash that bears striking similarities to the final act of 28 Days Later.
It's really the final act of this film where the plot development starts to implode in on itself - basically things are set up relatively well, but then the film rushes to a conclusion, and leaves you feeling like what you've just seen shouldn't have actually unfolded the way that it did.
I was especially perplexed by the final confrontation where not only has our main antagonist developed a terminator-like strength and invincibility (previously his band of merry men were being killed with single gunshots, and single blows from axes, etc), but now our protagonist has also become equally superhuman in his fighting ability.
Then, in a film that has previously featured very little in the way of on-screen blood and gore, suddenly features a prolonged and graphic head bashing, followed by an almost comic decapitation at the mouth.
All in all this one was a dissatisfying movie experience.
Only God Forgives (2013)
A rather pointless gorefest that fails to live up to Refn's previous effort
I really liked Nicolas Winding Refn's previous offering of Drive. It had a coherent narrative, characters we could care about, and it used the stylistic cinematography with intelligent precision.
Only God Forgives, however, didn't really do anything of these things.
Not only was the stylistic cinematography so totally overused, but this film reeked of imitation, rather than originality.
I would describe it as a collection of concepts stolen from Kubrick, Tarantino and Nicolas Winding Refn's previous movie Drive.
The violence is totally gratuitous and toxic to the structure of the film. In Drive, there are one or two moments of gratuity, but they are brief and can be excused by the story that has been crafted around them. In this film the violence is constant, and it actually overwhelms any attempt at storytelling.
The stylistic cinematography shots are so totally overused that the film becomes a collection of shots all grouped together, rather than a story told on film - at times it literally feels like a film-school audition reel rather than an actual movie.
The only characters in this movie that the audience could ever possibly care about are either killed within the first ten minutes, or have very minor parts in the movie.
There are one or two scenes/moments I really liked about this film (which is why it has 3 stars), but at the end of the day there just aren't enough of them strung together in any coherent way to produce a movie that I would want to watch again, or that has much in the way of redeeming features.
If you want to see Nicolas Winding Refn at his best, then skip this one and see Drive instead.
Only God Forgives, however, didn't really do anything of these things.
Not only was the stylistic cinematography so totally overused, but this film reeked of imitation, rather than originality.
I would describe it as a collection of concepts stolen from Kubrick, Tarantino and Nicolas Winding Refn's previous movie Drive.
The violence is totally gratuitous and toxic to the structure of the film. In Drive, there are one or two moments of gratuity, but they are brief and can be excused by the story that has been crafted around them. In this film the violence is constant, and it actually overwhelms any attempt at storytelling.
The stylistic cinematography shots are so totally overused that the film becomes a collection of shots all grouped together, rather than a story told on film - at times it literally feels like a film-school audition reel rather than an actual movie.
The only characters in this movie that the audience could ever possibly care about are either killed within the first ten minutes, or have very minor parts in the movie.
There are one or two scenes/moments I really liked about this film (which is why it has 3 stars), but at the end of the day there just aren't enough of them strung together in any coherent way to produce a movie that I would want to watch again, or that has much in the way of redeeming features.
If you want to see Nicolas Winding Refn at his best, then skip this one and see Drive instead.
Dark Power (2013)
A thriller so bad it's a comedy
My suspicions about this movie were initially aroused when the opening credits listed two different directors, and within 15 minutes my skepticism had proved to be right on the money.
The acting is terrible, the filmmaking and script is comedically clichéd and bad, the continuity errors are so blatant you'd have to wonder whether they were inserted on purpose.
Think I'm being unfair? Just consider the following: A terribly acted security guard character is ham-fistedly inserted into the plot, and the actor plays the role as if he's in a comedy, before finally being killed about 5 minutes later (at which point all of the ridiculous and badly acted build up with the security guard character becomes totally redundant to the film - he literally didn't even need to feature in this film.) The mayor and the security guard are murdered by an assassin who is standing an holding his rifle at his shoulder, but not longer after the assassination, during the crime scene examination we are told that the assassin was resting his rifle on a stairway banister (and the mark that supposedly tips the police expert off to the shooter's position is literally a non-descript random scratch on a wooden stair railing).
Right before the mayor is shot the power goes out, and we are told by the mayor that the power has gone out because of the storm - then immediately after killing the mayor, the assassin walks out into a perfectly clear night, where the power is obviously still on for the entire city (this imaginary storm is then mentioned again in the script about 5 mins later).
A character tells us that the cell phone reception in city hall is almost non-existent due to the thickness of the walls just minutes after another character makes a cell phone call from inside city hall to alert authorities to the assassination of the mayor.
The news of the mayor's assassination is announced by a newsreader who looks like a 16 year old retail sales assistant (on a TV that was literally volume-less just seconds before she comes on), in a tone that wold make her an ideal candidate for George Romero's next zombie flick - and she literally says the following: "This just in, Mayor Stan Wood has been shot, in an apparent assassination attempt at city hall. Preliminary reports indicate that the wounds were fatal." (obviously if the wounds were fatal then this wasn't an apparent assassination ATTEMPT.
I could go on, and on, and on, but all of this takes place in literally the first 20 minutes of this woeful b-grade film, so I'll spare you the rest.
The acting is terrible, the filmmaking and script is comedically clichéd and bad, the continuity errors are so blatant you'd have to wonder whether they were inserted on purpose.
Think I'm being unfair? Just consider the following: A terribly acted security guard character is ham-fistedly inserted into the plot, and the actor plays the role as if he's in a comedy, before finally being killed about 5 minutes later (at which point all of the ridiculous and badly acted build up with the security guard character becomes totally redundant to the film - he literally didn't even need to feature in this film.) The mayor and the security guard are murdered by an assassin who is standing an holding his rifle at his shoulder, but not longer after the assassination, during the crime scene examination we are told that the assassin was resting his rifle on a stairway banister (and the mark that supposedly tips the police expert off to the shooter's position is literally a non-descript random scratch on a wooden stair railing).
Right before the mayor is shot the power goes out, and we are told by the mayor that the power has gone out because of the storm - then immediately after killing the mayor, the assassin walks out into a perfectly clear night, where the power is obviously still on for the entire city (this imaginary storm is then mentioned again in the script about 5 mins later).
A character tells us that the cell phone reception in city hall is almost non-existent due to the thickness of the walls just minutes after another character makes a cell phone call from inside city hall to alert authorities to the assassination of the mayor.
The news of the mayor's assassination is announced by a newsreader who looks like a 16 year old retail sales assistant (on a TV that was literally volume-less just seconds before she comes on), in a tone that wold make her an ideal candidate for George Romero's next zombie flick - and she literally says the following: "This just in, Mayor Stan Wood has been shot, in an apparent assassination attempt at city hall. Preliminary reports indicate that the wounds were fatal." (obviously if the wounds were fatal then this wasn't an apparent assassination ATTEMPT.
I could go on, and on, and on, but all of this takes place in literally the first 20 minutes of this woeful b-grade film, so I'll spare you the rest.
Melancholia (2011)
How do you mess up what should have been a paint-by-numbers success?
In theory this film should be far better than what it actually is. It has a great premise, is shot beautifully, and it features some truly excellent acting, but despite all this the finished work just isn't that good a film.
The entire first act (the wedding) is completely redundant and serves no meaningful purpose to the plot - in fact, it doesn't even make any sense when you stop and think about the fact that the bride and groom literally go from infatuated lovers to divorcée's within a matter of hours.
And the supposed 'impending doom' of the approaching planet that we are promised in the synopsis doesn't even really make an appearance until the final 15 - 20 minutes of the movie.
In the end this film is little more than a fictional snap shot of what would happen if a bunch of over financed, self-obsessed white people were to come face-to-face with an apocalyptic event - and even then it's so one-dimensional that it just doesn't work.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of art house cinema fans just couldn't bring themselves to accept that they'd been sold a bill of goods on this movie, so instead they just ordered another latte to quell their nagging doubts, and pretended that this was A-grade cinema.
The entire first act (the wedding) is completely redundant and serves no meaningful purpose to the plot - in fact, it doesn't even make any sense when you stop and think about the fact that the bride and groom literally go from infatuated lovers to divorcée's within a matter of hours.
And the supposed 'impending doom' of the approaching planet that we are promised in the synopsis doesn't even really make an appearance until the final 15 - 20 minutes of the movie.
In the end this film is little more than a fictional snap shot of what would happen if a bunch of over financed, self-obsessed white people were to come face-to-face with an apocalyptic event - and even then it's so one-dimensional that it just doesn't work.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of art house cinema fans just couldn't bring themselves to accept that they'd been sold a bill of goods on this movie, so instead they just ordered another latte to quell their nagging doubts, and pretended that this was A-grade cinema.
White House Down (2013)
The WORST Roland Emmerich film ever made
Unlike many of my friends, I am not a hater of Roland Emmerich films, in fact I have several of his films in my collection and they are some of my favorites. Emmerich has a knack for making big scale movies that conjures up the good old days of cinematic escapism.
The problem is that White House Down is just NOT up to Emmerich's usual summer blockbuster standards, in fact, it is utter garbage, and quite possibly one of the worst exercises in screen writing that I've seen from a big budget movie. Ever.
It's failings range from clichéd characters, to ridiculously unbelievable plot devices, to the blatant use of tired old caricatures and motivations (all ripped off from other, better movies), to some of the most absolutely ridiculous dialogue you will ever hear uttered by A-list actors.
And the more the movie progresses, the more all of these things begin to pile up on one another until the movie implodes in on itself in an absolute clichéd mess of woeful storytelling and terrible film making.
Look, every sensible movie-goer knows that you need to enter a film of this sort with a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief, however this movie is so ridiculously bad that it plays out like the biggest-budget B movie ever made.
A far more rewarding and well crafted version of this exact same storyline is offered by the movie 'Olympus has Fallen'.
The two things that I am surprised by are; how this film could have come from the same filmmaker who only just recently delivered the movie Anonymous, and why so many quality actors agreed to participate in this mindless schlock.
I guess the pen really is mightier than the sword (in-joke for those who have seen the film), especially when that pen is writing large pay checks for actors willing to sell their soul for a few extra bucks.
The problem is that White House Down is just NOT up to Emmerich's usual summer blockbuster standards, in fact, it is utter garbage, and quite possibly one of the worst exercises in screen writing that I've seen from a big budget movie. Ever.
It's failings range from clichéd characters, to ridiculously unbelievable plot devices, to the blatant use of tired old caricatures and motivations (all ripped off from other, better movies), to some of the most absolutely ridiculous dialogue you will ever hear uttered by A-list actors.
And the more the movie progresses, the more all of these things begin to pile up on one another until the movie implodes in on itself in an absolute clichéd mess of woeful storytelling and terrible film making.
Look, every sensible movie-goer knows that you need to enter a film of this sort with a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief, however this movie is so ridiculously bad that it plays out like the biggest-budget B movie ever made.
A far more rewarding and well crafted version of this exact same storyline is offered by the movie 'Olympus has Fallen'.
The two things that I am surprised by are; how this film could have come from the same filmmaker who only just recently delivered the movie Anonymous, and why so many quality actors agreed to participate in this mindless schlock.
I guess the pen really is mightier than the sword (in-joke for those who have seen the film), especially when that pen is writing large pay checks for actors willing to sell their soul for a few extra bucks.
The Call (2013)
A good thriller... BUT...
Okay, so this movie is a solid little by-the-numbers type thriller, that is well paced, with a solid plot (no unnecessary mucking around, pointless sidetracks, etc - it just stays focused on the story at hand and keeping the plot moving).
It's pretty well acted, although there are a couple of moments (literally only one or two) where Halle Berry's acting gets a little bit clichéd and thin, but for the most part it works well.
In some ways it felt a little bit like a made-for-TV movie, or a 90 minute episode of CSI, but this actually works in its favor because the pace doesn't let up, and the moments where you need to suspend your disbelief are so well set up that you're willing to overlook the obvious flaws.
However, all of the good work was pretty much undone for me in the last couple of minutes where the film completely, unnecessarily and totally inconsistently shifts from being a 'race against the clock' type thriller to a revenge movie.
This final shift is not only totally not in keeping with the rest of the film (i.e. the other 90 minutes of it), but it is also totally inconsistent with the character arcs and development of both female protagonists.
It sharply pulls you right out of the movie and leaves you annoyed at the totally clichéd tripe you are served up in the final moments of the film.
It's a shame, because it really was a solid and very watchable thriller up until that point.
It's pretty well acted, although there are a couple of moments (literally only one or two) where Halle Berry's acting gets a little bit clichéd and thin, but for the most part it works well.
In some ways it felt a little bit like a made-for-TV movie, or a 90 minute episode of CSI, but this actually works in its favor because the pace doesn't let up, and the moments where you need to suspend your disbelief are so well set up that you're willing to overlook the obvious flaws.
However, all of the good work was pretty much undone for me in the last couple of minutes where the film completely, unnecessarily and totally inconsistently shifts from being a 'race against the clock' type thriller to a revenge movie.
This final shift is not only totally not in keeping with the rest of the film (i.e. the other 90 minutes of it), but it is also totally inconsistent with the character arcs and development of both female protagonists.
It sharply pulls you right out of the movie and leaves you annoyed at the totally clichéd tripe you are served up in the final moments of the film.
It's a shame, because it really was a solid and very watchable thriller up until that point.
The Divide (2011)
Vile, poorly crafted torture porn
This film had an excellent premise, and some truly interesting elements (the men in white suits, Mickey's back story, etc.)
Unfortunately none of these are actually expounded upon in any meaningful way, and instead we get almost 2 hours of below par film making and gratuitous torture porn that serves nothing other than the gratification of the director's personal tastes.
Nothing really makes senses in this movie, apart from the character of Mickey - largely because the other characters are woefully underdeveloped.
Eva is meant to be our main protagonist, yet we are told nothing of any real substance about her, and as a result, we're not even sure if she's had any sort of character arc by the end of the film - same goes for the two male antagonists.
Then there's the timeline - a guy who gets a severe dose of radiation poisoning but seems to take weeks and weeks to die (the other option is that this all took place over only a few days, which makes the transition from desperate survivors trapped in a basement to stark raving psychopaths even more ridiculous).
While there's no doubting these actors and the director can do 'bat sh*t crazy' really well, the initial scenes in the basement are bafflingly average and completely unrealistic. Apart from the little girl and her mother, and Eva's husband, no one seems particularly freaked out about the reality of their situation, instead they're all acting as if it's a passing hurricane, or a mild earthquake that has forced them into the basement for shelter - as opposed to the nuclear holocaust they've all just witnessed.
And apart from Marilyn and Mickey the motivations of these characters just don't make any sense - which is probably due to the improvisational nature of a lot of the shooting; not all improv is coherent, as this movie shows (just think about the scene where Sam goes crazy very early on, it seems clearly to be an improvised moment rather than something consistent with his character up until that point, or even afterwards).
Finally, we are treated to a final act which is largely vile torture porn clearly designed to shock and titillate the audience (one gets the sense that he was trying to out-Hostel Eli Roth in places) - at least in the movie Blindness there was a coherent narrative and an attempt at social commentary underpinning their sexual scenes, but in The Divide, it's simply gratuitous ugliness for the sake of gratuitous ugliness.
One other thing of note for me - large chunks of this film feel borrowed from other films and filmmakers. There are some real blatant Danny Boyle moments, complete with John Murphy styled musical scoring etc, and the ending to this movie feels like an alternate version of Frank Darabont's climax to The Mist.
I regret watching this film - it had all the elements in place to be something truly original and well crafted, but instead it just never comes together, and solid story-telling and film making is substituted for a gratuitous 'shock and awe' assault on the senses.
Unfortunately none of these are actually expounded upon in any meaningful way, and instead we get almost 2 hours of below par film making and gratuitous torture porn that serves nothing other than the gratification of the director's personal tastes.
Nothing really makes senses in this movie, apart from the character of Mickey - largely because the other characters are woefully underdeveloped.
Eva is meant to be our main protagonist, yet we are told nothing of any real substance about her, and as a result, we're not even sure if she's had any sort of character arc by the end of the film - same goes for the two male antagonists.
Then there's the timeline - a guy who gets a severe dose of radiation poisoning but seems to take weeks and weeks to die (the other option is that this all took place over only a few days, which makes the transition from desperate survivors trapped in a basement to stark raving psychopaths even more ridiculous).
While there's no doubting these actors and the director can do 'bat sh*t crazy' really well, the initial scenes in the basement are bafflingly average and completely unrealistic. Apart from the little girl and her mother, and Eva's husband, no one seems particularly freaked out about the reality of their situation, instead they're all acting as if it's a passing hurricane, or a mild earthquake that has forced them into the basement for shelter - as opposed to the nuclear holocaust they've all just witnessed.
And apart from Marilyn and Mickey the motivations of these characters just don't make any sense - which is probably due to the improvisational nature of a lot of the shooting; not all improv is coherent, as this movie shows (just think about the scene where Sam goes crazy very early on, it seems clearly to be an improvised moment rather than something consistent with his character up until that point, or even afterwards).
Finally, we are treated to a final act which is largely vile torture porn clearly designed to shock and titillate the audience (one gets the sense that he was trying to out-Hostel Eli Roth in places) - at least in the movie Blindness there was a coherent narrative and an attempt at social commentary underpinning their sexual scenes, but in The Divide, it's simply gratuitous ugliness for the sake of gratuitous ugliness.
One other thing of note for me - large chunks of this film feel borrowed from other films and filmmakers. There are some real blatant Danny Boyle moments, complete with John Murphy styled musical scoring etc, and the ending to this movie feels like an alternate version of Frank Darabont's climax to The Mist.
I regret watching this film - it had all the elements in place to be something truly original and well crafted, but instead it just never comes together, and solid story-telling and film making is substituted for a gratuitous 'shock and awe' assault on the senses.
Take Shelter (2011)
A truly great filmic metaphor
I think a lot of people have missed the real heart of this movie - the fact that it's one long metaphor for counter-culturalism.
It's a well written, well shot, well acted film, but it's real strength is the powerful representation of metaphor.
Despite the rather odd (in my opinion) debate about the ending, I think it's pretty clear that the storm is real at the end of the film, and that's exactly what makes this film a perfect metaphor.
What you are watching here is a modern day retelling of Noah's Ark, the classic commitment to truth even in the face of overwhelming social pressure to reject that truth.
At the end of the film I was very much reminded of the famous George Orwell quote: 'in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'.
Forget about storms just for a second and consider other issues, such as the struggle for civil rights in the USA last century - the proponents of civil rights became equally consumed by their commitment to this issue, and they were also relegated to the fringes by those in the majority.
This film isn't about storms and mental illness, it's about being a dissenting voice in a culture headed in the wrong direction - and it pulls it off with amazing technical proficiency and skill.
It's a well written, well shot, well acted film, but it's real strength is the powerful representation of metaphor.
Despite the rather odd (in my opinion) debate about the ending, I think it's pretty clear that the storm is real at the end of the film, and that's exactly what makes this film a perfect metaphor.
What you are watching here is a modern day retelling of Noah's Ark, the classic commitment to truth even in the face of overwhelming social pressure to reject that truth.
At the end of the film I was very much reminded of the famous George Orwell quote: 'in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'.
Forget about storms just for a second and consider other issues, such as the struggle for civil rights in the USA last century - the proponents of civil rights became equally consumed by their commitment to this issue, and they were also relegated to the fringes by those in the majority.
This film isn't about storms and mental illness, it's about being a dissenting voice in a culture headed in the wrong direction - and it pulls it off with amazing technical proficiency and skill.
The Frankenstein Theory (2013)
A well crafted suspense thriller
I'm really not sure what all the haters of this movie are going on about.
It is a well crafted suspense thriller that hits many of the right notes - it even manages to do what many big budget movies fail to do, save the monster reveal until the very end of the film (which is one of the golden rules of a monster movie).
The acting is pretty good (the girlfriend who appears briefly at the beginning of the film is probably the weakest actor in the entire film, but the rest turn in acceptable performances) - there are even moments where it feels almost like an authentic documentary.
The setting for the film was a smart choice and it is used excellently (I've seen similar films which clearly appear to be different angles of the same small environment, or others where the editing of the film leaves you struggling to make sense of an coherent geography as the journey progresses).
The music and soundscape was great (although the Foley work on the neck snapping effect was a bit average).
A great premise that is well executed on a budget.
If you're looking for a gorefest, or another mindless torture porn movie, then you aren't going to get this film, but if you like suspense films with good atmosphere then you'll probably enjoy this one.
It is a well crafted suspense thriller that hits many of the right notes - it even manages to do what many big budget movies fail to do, save the monster reveal until the very end of the film (which is one of the golden rules of a monster movie).
The acting is pretty good (the girlfriend who appears briefly at the beginning of the film is probably the weakest actor in the entire film, but the rest turn in acceptable performances) - there are even moments where it feels almost like an authentic documentary.
The setting for the film was a smart choice and it is used excellently (I've seen similar films which clearly appear to be different angles of the same small environment, or others where the editing of the film leaves you struggling to make sense of an coherent geography as the journey progresses).
The music and soundscape was great (although the Foley work on the neck snapping effect was a bit average).
A great premise that is well executed on a budget.
If you're looking for a gorefest, or another mindless torture porn movie, then you aren't going to get this film, but if you like suspense films with good atmosphere then you'll probably enjoy this one.
Red Dawn (2012)
I think some of the critics of this film don't seem to realize that it's not art-house cinema!
I read a lot of reviews of this film before watching it, and basically, as a result of this, I expected the remake of Red Dawn to be little more than a mindless piece of team America propaganda riddled with cheesy dialog and clichéd film making.
I was proved wrong.
I think that many of the critics of this film seem to have forgotten that they were watching an action movie in a war setting, and not a war drama.
If you want gritty realism then you need to switch to the documentary, or drama section of the DVD shop - action movies are meant to be escapist and unrealistic in their construction (or do people actually believe that John McClean could really drive a car into a helicopter and walk away to tell the tale?)
As an action movie this film is pretty much pitch perfect.
It is well paced, the action scenes are well crafted and well shot, and it faithfully adheres to a pretty solid action movie formula (good guys vs bad guys, good guys need to undertake dangerous mission and overcome overwhelming odds in order to save the day, etc.) As far as film making in general goes, it's not a bad effort there either - good plot that doesn't get bogged down in pointless distractions; good character arc, pretty solid acting from all involved, etc.
While this film isn't about a real war, and even though it's an action movie, it doesn't treat the subject matter lightly or turn the protagonists into superheroes (in fact, several of the main protagonists are dead by the film's end) with cheesy catchphrases either.
Yes, there does have to be a certain sense of willing suspension of disbelief (which is true of any action film), like with the way in which they are so quickly able to train themselves into a cohesive insurgent fighting team, but at the same time this film also avoids cheesy pro-America rhetoric and silly clichés like the obligatory love-interest plots that are often inserted into films based merely on formula (in Red Dawn any of this stuff is there to serve the plot).
It even manages to make a couple of profound statements about war - one is the rather obvious hint about American intervention on foreign soil and the whole notion of how would Americans feel if this happened to them (Ron Paul anyone?) Then there is the inclusion of the issue of collaboration with the invasion force by some of the invaded population, as well as a well crafted little 'ra,ra' speech about how war is pointless, but fighting for your home and family makes a little more sense of what you are doing.
All in all this is a solid action flick that does a fairly good job at avoiding the usual team America propaganda, and more importantly it doesn't glorify war or turn the heroes into invincible fighters with cheesy one-liners.
Glad I watched it.
I was proved wrong.
I think that many of the critics of this film seem to have forgotten that they were watching an action movie in a war setting, and not a war drama.
If you want gritty realism then you need to switch to the documentary, or drama section of the DVD shop - action movies are meant to be escapist and unrealistic in their construction (or do people actually believe that John McClean could really drive a car into a helicopter and walk away to tell the tale?)
As an action movie this film is pretty much pitch perfect.
It is well paced, the action scenes are well crafted and well shot, and it faithfully adheres to a pretty solid action movie formula (good guys vs bad guys, good guys need to undertake dangerous mission and overcome overwhelming odds in order to save the day, etc.) As far as film making in general goes, it's not a bad effort there either - good plot that doesn't get bogged down in pointless distractions; good character arc, pretty solid acting from all involved, etc.
While this film isn't about a real war, and even though it's an action movie, it doesn't treat the subject matter lightly or turn the protagonists into superheroes (in fact, several of the main protagonists are dead by the film's end) with cheesy catchphrases either.
Yes, there does have to be a certain sense of willing suspension of disbelief (which is true of any action film), like with the way in which they are so quickly able to train themselves into a cohesive insurgent fighting team, but at the same time this film also avoids cheesy pro-America rhetoric and silly clichés like the obligatory love-interest plots that are often inserted into films based merely on formula (in Red Dawn any of this stuff is there to serve the plot).
It even manages to make a couple of profound statements about war - one is the rather obvious hint about American intervention on foreign soil and the whole notion of how would Americans feel if this happened to them (Ron Paul anyone?) Then there is the inclusion of the issue of collaboration with the invasion force by some of the invaded population, as well as a well crafted little 'ra,ra' speech about how war is pointless, but fighting for your home and family makes a little more sense of what you are doing.
All in all this is a solid action flick that does a fairly good job at avoiding the usual team America propaganda, and more importantly it doesn't glorify war or turn the heroes into invincible fighters with cheesy one-liners.
Glad I watched it.
Flypaper (2011)
Not bad, but not good either
This film had all the ingredients and potential to be something memorable, but in the end it petered out to a rather average and predictable ending.
It just felt a little bit rushed, almost like it was paced a bit too fast, and it rushed to its conclusion rather than adding a few more scenes and developing the characters and plot a bit more effectively - at times the frenetic pace of the movie literally left you trying to figure out what exactly was happening (and I don't mean in the good sense, but rather in the 'I've lost track of whose where, doing what' sense).
In fact the speed at which this movie is executed is exactly why it becomes obvious that one particular character is not the bad guy - sure, the accusation is made but the editing just doesn't leave any room for audience doubt, thus causing any possible suspense to be stripped from that scene.
The other area where this film falls down (and majorly so in my opinion) is with the constant f-bombs (and worse, at one point) - it is literally every second word for several of the characters, and as a result it becomes really jarring and starts to distract the viewer from the movie. I guess someone though it would add humor to the film, but in the end it actually becomes a tiring distraction. Overuse of the F word is often a sign of a lack of comedic acting ability, which is exactly the case in this movie. You'll notice that the two hillbilly bank robbers are the most comically well crafted characters in the film, and yet they use the f-word very sparingly. Both actors are comedians by nature, and their skill is what carries the performance, not a cheap recourse to excessive f-bombs.
Had all the makings of a classic comedy, but in the end it just failed to launch.
It just felt a little bit rushed, almost like it was paced a bit too fast, and it rushed to its conclusion rather than adding a few more scenes and developing the characters and plot a bit more effectively - at times the frenetic pace of the movie literally left you trying to figure out what exactly was happening (and I don't mean in the good sense, but rather in the 'I've lost track of whose where, doing what' sense).
In fact the speed at which this movie is executed is exactly why it becomes obvious that one particular character is not the bad guy - sure, the accusation is made but the editing just doesn't leave any room for audience doubt, thus causing any possible suspense to be stripped from that scene.
The other area where this film falls down (and majorly so in my opinion) is with the constant f-bombs (and worse, at one point) - it is literally every second word for several of the characters, and as a result it becomes really jarring and starts to distract the viewer from the movie. I guess someone though it would add humor to the film, but in the end it actually becomes a tiring distraction. Overuse of the F word is often a sign of a lack of comedic acting ability, which is exactly the case in this movie. You'll notice that the two hillbilly bank robbers are the most comically well crafted characters in the film, and yet they use the f-word very sparingly. Both actors are comedians by nature, and their skill is what carries the performance, not a cheap recourse to excessive f-bombs.
Had all the makings of a classic comedy, but in the end it just failed to launch.
Hit and Run (2012)
More of a crash and burn
This film would have been more accurately titled if they'd called it 'The Dax Shepherd Show', because basically it's little more than a promotional vehicle for Dax Shepherd.
It felt like it wanted to be a Coen Brothers film, but couldn't quite pull it off, so instead, for most of its duration, this film plays out like an extended episode of a TV comedy drama.
The pacing is woeful in places. One of the car chase scenes, which should be one of the high points in any film, just aimlessly carries on for no apparent reason, and then comes to a rather dull ending.
It's hard to say why it didn't come off better, because all of the right ingredients were present, perhaps a more experienced scriptwriter and director could have pulled it off? It just felt like the film makers had no clear vision, just a series of concepts that they didn't know how to tie together as a cohesive whole.
It felt like it wanted to be a Coen Brothers film, but couldn't quite pull it off, so instead, for most of its duration, this film plays out like an extended episode of a TV comedy drama.
The pacing is woeful in places. One of the car chase scenes, which should be one of the high points in any film, just aimlessly carries on for no apparent reason, and then comes to a rather dull ending.
It's hard to say why it didn't come off better, because all of the right ingredients were present, perhaps a more experienced scriptwriter and director could have pulled it off? It just felt like the film makers had no clear vision, just a series of concepts that they didn't know how to tie together as a cohesive whole.
Killing Them Softly (2012)
A lot of the negative reviewers seem to have completely missed the point
What a lot of the negative reviewers seem to have completely missed about this movie is that it isn't actually a crime movie - instead it's a metaphor for modern America.
That's why the film contains so many political speeches in its background soundtrack - they're meant to be there to draw the link between what is unfolding on the screen and what is happening in the real America today.
This film is rich with different layers of irony; the most obvious of which is the fact that the men being killed are being punished for simply doing what their killers do themselves day in and day out - commit crime and steal from others.
It seems to me that the mafia bosses are symbolic of the politicians who blame the business sector, and then seek to punish them, for what are actually failings of the system that they continue to prop up and exploit for their own ends. And just consider the fact that after killing several men for being thieves, these exact same mafia bosses then try and rob Brad Pitt's character of what he is actually financially entitled to from them.
The reason both Obama and Bush are heard at different times in the film is because we are meant to realize that this problem is not exclusive to either the left or the right, it is about what America, as a whole, has allowed itself to become as a nation. And also to highlight the fact that both left and right have allowed this problem to persist and grow.
Brad Pitt's speech at the end of the film is really the essence of what this film is about - a cynical examination of the death of the American dream and American idealism.
I think that in time this film will come to be more highly regarded as a clever piece of commentary on present day America - and when it is viewed in that light (rather than as a gangster film) it makes much more sense to the viewer.
That's why the film contains so many political speeches in its background soundtrack - they're meant to be there to draw the link between what is unfolding on the screen and what is happening in the real America today.
This film is rich with different layers of irony; the most obvious of which is the fact that the men being killed are being punished for simply doing what their killers do themselves day in and day out - commit crime and steal from others.
It seems to me that the mafia bosses are symbolic of the politicians who blame the business sector, and then seek to punish them, for what are actually failings of the system that they continue to prop up and exploit for their own ends. And just consider the fact that after killing several men for being thieves, these exact same mafia bosses then try and rob Brad Pitt's character of what he is actually financially entitled to from them.
The reason both Obama and Bush are heard at different times in the film is because we are meant to realize that this problem is not exclusive to either the left or the right, it is about what America, as a whole, has allowed itself to become as a nation. And also to highlight the fact that both left and right have allowed this problem to persist and grow.
Brad Pitt's speech at the end of the film is really the essence of what this film is about - a cynical examination of the death of the American dream and American idealism.
I think that in time this film will come to be more highly regarded as a clever piece of commentary on present day America - and when it is viewed in that light (rather than as a gangster film) it makes much more sense to the viewer.
Flight (2012)
A great film with only one or two flaws
I wanted to give this film a ten, but unfortunately I think there were a couple of things that weren't done right, and which were important enough to have a bearing on the final ranking.
Before I get to those things though, let me start by saying that I think this is a brilliantly acted film that challenges the audience in some important ways.
I think that the casting of Denzel Washington was probably one of the best decisions that could have been made for this role - the fact that Denzel is one of those rare widely beloved actors means that it was easy for the audience to fall for his character without a lot of character development needed. I think that most other actors in that role would have alienated the audience, not because of their performance, but purely because of who they weren't - a popular celebrity.
By using Denzel the audience is quickly forced into the same internal conflict that people would experience in real life were the events in this film to unfold as portrayed - initially we would love the captain and consider him a hero, but then doubt would set in as the story began to unfold, and finally there would be the question of what to actually think about this man and his character in light of ALL his actions.
The audience is quickly pulled into this same journey, with little in the way of back-story required to endear Denzel's character to us, purely because we all know and love Denzel as an actor. Very clever casting.
I also like the story concept for this film - a plane crash that quickly turns into a character study of alcoholism and ethics, and the way in which it challenges the audience to actually consider the question: 'does the end justify the means?' I'm sure many an audience member was tempted, like I was at different points in the movie, to try and rationalize away the captain's unethical behavior purely because we could see a good outcome in doing so. Ironically, this sort of rationalizing is precisely the type of thing that addicts do when they don't want to confront the truth that they are addicted.
Here's what I think they got wrong though...
1. The final moments of the scene with the co-pilot and his wife in the hospital came across as being completely contrived - especially the weird 'praise Jesus' affirmations that his wife kept calling out. I'm really not sure who wrote that scene, but it doesn't truly reflect the mannerisms and speech of any Christian person I've ever met. I see what they were trying to do, but I think that the dialog was sloppy, and contrived and completely out of character with the rest of the acting in this scene, not to mention the rest of the film. Basically it pulls you right out of the movie for those couple of moments - there were far better ways those final few minutes could have been written to achieve what they wanted it to. In fact, I suspect that even the actors didn't get what was going on because suddenly the co-pilot and his wife slip into a mode of simply repeating dialog rather than actually emotionally investing themselves into what they are saying (just think about the difference in that co-pilot character at the start of the film, in the cockpit, and then again at the start of the hospital room scene, to what transpires in the last minute or so when they start talking about religion.)
2. John Goodman's character was wrong for this film.
Most of his scenes completely change, and are at total odds with the tone of the rest of the film. It literally goes from being a serious drama about an alcoholic to a Coen Brothers style black comedy whenever John Goodman's character makes an appearance.
3. The scene in the hotel with John Goodman and the cocaine rescue was completely wrong for this film.
We literally go from a serious scene exploring the temptations of addiction and the serious ramifications of giving in to that addiction, to a scene where a character right out of the Big Lebowski wanders in (catchphrase and all - "I'm on the list"), and then three guys proceed to play out a scene with a comedic tone. The only thing that could have made that scene worse was if they had included canned laughter when the union rep and the lawyer are quibbling over who was going to pay the drug dealer's bill.
And then within minutes of this comedic interchange we are literally into the serious dramatic crescendo of the film - the aviation investigation hearing.
I guess they were trying to portray the irresponsible and enabling nature of certain people that addicts surround themselves with (i.e. their dealers), however this didn't really get conveyed at all in the film - i.e. there was no moment of epiphany where Denzel's character suddenly realizes that this lovable drug dealer is actually a loser who is actively destroying and dragging his life down the toilet, and then confronts Goodman's character. No, instead we have a drug dealer who has his own theme song and catchphrase, and whose vile behavior is turned into schtick comedy scenes.
Ironically these scenes almost completely undo the film by trivializing drug use, drug dealing and substance addiction.
So, all in all, a great film with one or two flaws that were bad enough to cost it a ten.
Before I get to those things though, let me start by saying that I think this is a brilliantly acted film that challenges the audience in some important ways.
I think that the casting of Denzel Washington was probably one of the best decisions that could have been made for this role - the fact that Denzel is one of those rare widely beloved actors means that it was easy for the audience to fall for his character without a lot of character development needed. I think that most other actors in that role would have alienated the audience, not because of their performance, but purely because of who they weren't - a popular celebrity.
By using Denzel the audience is quickly forced into the same internal conflict that people would experience in real life were the events in this film to unfold as portrayed - initially we would love the captain and consider him a hero, but then doubt would set in as the story began to unfold, and finally there would be the question of what to actually think about this man and his character in light of ALL his actions.
The audience is quickly pulled into this same journey, with little in the way of back-story required to endear Denzel's character to us, purely because we all know and love Denzel as an actor. Very clever casting.
I also like the story concept for this film - a plane crash that quickly turns into a character study of alcoholism and ethics, and the way in which it challenges the audience to actually consider the question: 'does the end justify the means?' I'm sure many an audience member was tempted, like I was at different points in the movie, to try and rationalize away the captain's unethical behavior purely because we could see a good outcome in doing so. Ironically, this sort of rationalizing is precisely the type of thing that addicts do when they don't want to confront the truth that they are addicted.
Here's what I think they got wrong though...
1. The final moments of the scene with the co-pilot and his wife in the hospital came across as being completely contrived - especially the weird 'praise Jesus' affirmations that his wife kept calling out. I'm really not sure who wrote that scene, but it doesn't truly reflect the mannerisms and speech of any Christian person I've ever met. I see what they were trying to do, but I think that the dialog was sloppy, and contrived and completely out of character with the rest of the acting in this scene, not to mention the rest of the film. Basically it pulls you right out of the movie for those couple of moments - there were far better ways those final few minutes could have been written to achieve what they wanted it to. In fact, I suspect that even the actors didn't get what was going on because suddenly the co-pilot and his wife slip into a mode of simply repeating dialog rather than actually emotionally investing themselves into what they are saying (just think about the difference in that co-pilot character at the start of the film, in the cockpit, and then again at the start of the hospital room scene, to what transpires in the last minute or so when they start talking about religion.)
2. John Goodman's character was wrong for this film.
Most of his scenes completely change, and are at total odds with the tone of the rest of the film. It literally goes from being a serious drama about an alcoholic to a Coen Brothers style black comedy whenever John Goodman's character makes an appearance.
3. The scene in the hotel with John Goodman and the cocaine rescue was completely wrong for this film.
We literally go from a serious scene exploring the temptations of addiction and the serious ramifications of giving in to that addiction, to a scene where a character right out of the Big Lebowski wanders in (catchphrase and all - "I'm on the list"), and then three guys proceed to play out a scene with a comedic tone. The only thing that could have made that scene worse was if they had included canned laughter when the union rep and the lawyer are quibbling over who was going to pay the drug dealer's bill.
And then within minutes of this comedic interchange we are literally into the serious dramatic crescendo of the film - the aviation investigation hearing.
I guess they were trying to portray the irresponsible and enabling nature of certain people that addicts surround themselves with (i.e. their dealers), however this didn't really get conveyed at all in the film - i.e. there was no moment of epiphany where Denzel's character suddenly realizes that this lovable drug dealer is actually a loser who is actively destroying and dragging his life down the toilet, and then confronts Goodman's character. No, instead we have a drug dealer who has his own theme song and catchphrase, and whose vile behavior is turned into schtick comedy scenes.
Ironically these scenes almost completely undo the film by trivializing drug use, drug dealing and substance addiction.
So, all in all, a great film with one or two flaws that were bad enough to cost it a ten.
Grandma's Boy (2006)
Don't waste your time - a bad film executed badly
Absolute rubbish. I'm really not sure how it has managed to garner such a high rating on IMDb (maybe pot smokers are getting discounts from their dealers if they log on to IMDb and give this movie a high rating?) Basically this is a film about stoners, for stoners that was written by stoners.
It's just a series of jokes about pot and sex all thrown together in one 90 minute montage, and it's not even technically proficient.
There are lots of scenes that do absolutely nothing to advance the plot. There is ZERO character arc for the lead protagonist. There is almost no plot development (which makes for a completely flat and boring film) apart from the initial set up, and then a brief flurry at the very end which is meant to inject drama into the story. However this final attempt to salvage the plot from being a complete flat-line is so poorly executed, credulous and quickly resolved that it simply may as well not even be there. Even the way this film has been shot and edited together is confusing (at one point, because of the way the actor has been directed and the scene has been shot, the impression is given that the female lead may have something to hide - but no, there is no secret, just poor direction, shooting and editing.) Even the supposed love story in this film is nonsensical - the character of the female lead is simply not developed in any substantial way, and so we don't care about her because we just don't know her. She is literally there to play a formulaic part so that the male lead ends up with a girl at the end.
It's just a really bad movie that has been poorly crafted, and which introduces several different themes but never really develops any one of them properly into a cohesive storyline or character arc - it literally starts us off a journey, and then gets lost in pothead woods.
(This is probably the harshest review I've ever written on IMDb yet, by the way).
It's just a series of jokes about pot and sex all thrown together in one 90 minute montage, and it's not even technically proficient.
There are lots of scenes that do absolutely nothing to advance the plot. There is ZERO character arc for the lead protagonist. There is almost no plot development (which makes for a completely flat and boring film) apart from the initial set up, and then a brief flurry at the very end which is meant to inject drama into the story. However this final attempt to salvage the plot from being a complete flat-line is so poorly executed, credulous and quickly resolved that it simply may as well not even be there. Even the way this film has been shot and edited together is confusing (at one point, because of the way the actor has been directed and the scene has been shot, the impression is given that the female lead may have something to hide - but no, there is no secret, just poor direction, shooting and editing.) Even the supposed love story in this film is nonsensical - the character of the female lead is simply not developed in any substantial way, and so we don't care about her because we just don't know her. She is literally there to play a formulaic part so that the male lead ends up with a girl at the end.
It's just a really bad movie that has been poorly crafted, and which introduces several different themes but never really develops any one of them properly into a cohesive storyline or character arc - it literally starts us off a journey, and then gets lost in pothead woods.
(This is probably the harshest review I've ever written on IMDb yet, by the way).
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Still not sure why this film even needed a remake
I'm probably one of the exceptions writing a review here, in that I think that this trilogy of books, and the Swedish films they spawned are over-hyped, overly violent, low-brow fiction which normalize sexual violence and provide us with very little in the way of redeeming features.
Having said that, I have watched both versions of the first film, and I am at a loss to understand why, apart from purely financial driven motives, an American remake of this movie was even necessary.
Yes, there are differences in style, characters, etc, but ultimately what we have here is two films telling the exact same story, released within years of each other, all because some studio exec decided that they needed to Americanize an already (technically) well-made foreign film.
At the very least they could have adapted the setting, or the plot, or something more substantial than the opening credits and the approach to the cinematography.
One last thing - I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that Daniel Craig suddenly dropped his Swedish accent and went back to his native English one very quickly after the film had started.
Having said that, I have watched both versions of the first film, and I am at a loss to understand why, apart from purely financial driven motives, an American remake of this movie was even necessary.
Yes, there are differences in style, characters, etc, but ultimately what we have here is two films telling the exact same story, released within years of each other, all because some studio exec decided that they needed to Americanize an already (technically) well-made foreign film.
At the very least they could have adapted the setting, or the plot, or something more substantial than the opening credits and the approach to the cinematography.
One last thing - I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that Daniel Craig suddenly dropped his Swedish accent and went back to his native English one very quickly after the film had started.
Ink (2009)
Truly amazing - deserves to be seen by everyone
I'll keep this review short and straight to the point - this is probably the best independent film made on a small budget that you're ever likely to see.
It has a great plot, it is well executed, and it has a hugely important message about fatherhood.
I was amazed at how quickly the film pulled me in, and how easily it's obvious budgetary constraints faded into the background as I was drawn deeper into the story - that's truly how good this piece of cinematic storytelling is.
This movie deserves to be remade with the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster, not because the original desperately needs it, but because it would see a much wider audience exposed to what is a truly beautiful and rare gem of a movie.
It has a great plot, it is well executed, and it has a hugely important message about fatherhood.
I was amazed at how quickly the film pulled me in, and how easily it's obvious budgetary constraints faded into the background as I was drawn deeper into the story - that's truly how good this piece of cinematic storytelling is.
This movie deserves to be remade with the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster, not because the original desperately needs it, but because it would see a much wider audience exposed to what is a truly beautiful and rare gem of a movie.
The Factory (2012)
Biggest weakness is the twist
Okay, so one of the greatest strengths of a thriller is normally a totally unexpected twist - but in this case the exact opposite is true.
The film starts out as a dark, claustrophobic thriller - the kind we used to get in the days of SE7EN and Silence of the Lambs, etc. However, the twist the movie delivers, and it's final conclusion, ultimately end up completely derailing this film and turning it into a train wreck of absurdity.
At the end you feel like you've watched two different movies, and in this case that's not a good thing.
There's also some really annoying plot/character issues which start to appear prior to the moment of the movie-derailing twist (looking back now these were warning signs of what was about to unfold).
For example, the daughter goes from being a frightened and confused teenage captive to being the solid rock/savior for the other victims within a matter of scenes, before finally ending the film in the role of avenging angel.
Then there's the confusing motivation of the antagonist - why does he need so many babies? Did he always plan to make babies with his victims? Why was he making babies with his victims anyway? Why would he let one infertile victim live and become so central to his plans when one of the key plot points involves driving home the fact that infertile women are surplus to his requirements, and are killed because of this?
At the end of the day this movie just didn't know what it wanted to be - a dark serial killer mystery with a touch of gritty realism, or an escapist thriller with a mega twist.
If it had just chosen one or other of these two paths it would have probably worked a lot better, but because it tried to do too much, the plot twist and final ending, which would have been great in an escapist thriller, actually end up completely sabotaging the film.
The film starts out as a dark, claustrophobic thriller - the kind we used to get in the days of SE7EN and Silence of the Lambs, etc. However, the twist the movie delivers, and it's final conclusion, ultimately end up completely derailing this film and turning it into a train wreck of absurdity.
At the end you feel like you've watched two different movies, and in this case that's not a good thing.
There's also some really annoying plot/character issues which start to appear prior to the moment of the movie-derailing twist (looking back now these were warning signs of what was about to unfold).
For example, the daughter goes from being a frightened and confused teenage captive to being the solid rock/savior for the other victims within a matter of scenes, before finally ending the film in the role of avenging angel.
Then there's the confusing motivation of the antagonist - why does he need so many babies? Did he always plan to make babies with his victims? Why was he making babies with his victims anyway? Why would he let one infertile victim live and become so central to his plans when one of the key plot points involves driving home the fact that infertile women are surplus to his requirements, and are killed because of this?
At the end of the day this movie just didn't know what it wanted to be - a dark serial killer mystery with a touch of gritty realism, or an escapist thriller with a mega twist.
If it had just chosen one or other of these two paths it would have probably worked a lot better, but because it tried to do too much, the plot twist and final ending, which would have been great in an escapist thriller, actually end up completely sabotaging the film.
Eyes of the Mothman (2011)
Overly long with a confused narrative
This VERY long documentary will probably hold appeal for conspiracy theorists, UFO buffs and anyone with a passion for the Mothman event, however, for anyone else it probably isn't going to be as appealing.
It actually ends up being 4 mini documentaries rolled into one - first one is about the local Indian/colonial history; second is about the Mothman, third is about UFOs and men in black, and the fourth is about the collapse of the 'silver bridge'.
It's kind of like a pot pourri of historical events and theories, etc, rather than actually being strictly a single documentary - as a result it doesn't really have a coherent narrative or flow, it just feels like several things all lumped together in the same film.
Reasonably well produced (apart from some small annoying technical issues in places), but it just isn't a great or memorable documentary.
It actually ends up being 4 mini documentaries rolled into one - first one is about the local Indian/colonial history; second is about the Mothman, third is about UFOs and men in black, and the fourth is about the collapse of the 'silver bridge'.
It's kind of like a pot pourri of historical events and theories, etc, rather than actually being strictly a single documentary - as a result it doesn't really have a coherent narrative or flow, it just feels like several things all lumped together in the same film.
Reasonably well produced (apart from some small annoying technical issues in places), but it just isn't a great or memorable documentary.
The Fades (2011)
Great ending, but took too long to get there
I loved the first episode of this show, but then episodes 2 & 3 completely dropped off the pace and we had to wait until episode 4 for things to get interesting again.
Looking back on it now, it seems obvious to me that the first 3 episodes could have been condensed into a single episode - in fact there are even events in those early episodes that have no real bearing on the subsequent plot development (just consider how the character of Helen, who features a lot in the opening episodes, actually serves very little purpose in the overall plot of the series, and she ends her time on the show well before the real story actually starts to unfold in the later half of the season).
In many ways season one of this series could be described as two different shows. The early part of the season is much lighter, slower, and more like a teen drama than the second half of the series which is far more interesting, pacey and serious.
One thing that disappointed me with this series was some of the early sexual content - is it just me or do the British seem to have a weird fascination with seeing teenage sexuality on TV? As an adult male I have no desire to watch young teens having sex, or young boys pleasuring themselves - and there was definitely no plot-related reason to include such content in the show.
It'll be interesting to see if they can maintain the enthralling momentum and tone that they've finally managed to achieve in the last three episodes of season one through the second season.
Looking back on it now, it seems obvious to me that the first 3 episodes could have been condensed into a single episode - in fact there are even events in those early episodes that have no real bearing on the subsequent plot development (just consider how the character of Helen, who features a lot in the opening episodes, actually serves very little purpose in the overall plot of the series, and she ends her time on the show well before the real story actually starts to unfold in the later half of the season).
In many ways season one of this series could be described as two different shows. The early part of the season is much lighter, slower, and more like a teen drama than the second half of the series which is far more interesting, pacey and serious.
One thing that disappointed me with this series was some of the early sexual content - is it just me or do the British seem to have a weird fascination with seeing teenage sexuality on TV? As an adult male I have no desire to watch young teens having sex, or young boys pleasuring themselves - and there was definitely no plot-related reason to include such content in the show.
It'll be interesting to see if they can maintain the enthralling momentum and tone that they've finally managed to achieve in the last three episodes of season one through the second season.
Kill List (2011)
If Lost and Drive had a love child, this would be it...
This is a film that promises much, but unfortunately undoes all of the excellent work with a couple of simple errors:
1. The third act has no real connection to the previous two acts - if I hadn't read the synopsis before watching this film that third act would have been an absolute shocker, in the bad 'what the heck is this doing here' kind of way.
2. The film is excellently crafted along the lines of a 70's atmospheric horror, but then all of a sudden it becomes a gore-fest of in-your-face graphic violence. The whole point of atmospheric stuff like this is to build up to one final shocking act, or to avoid anything graphic at all and leave us, the audience, to be unsettled by what we haven't actually seen, but have been cleverly led - by way of well used visual, audio and musical cues - to believe to have actually happened.
The problem with this film is that we have graphic violence thrown at us at the start of the second act, and so when what should have been the shocking reveal comes at the end of the third and final act we aren't actually that shocked by what happens anymore.
3. The film never actually provides an answer to all the set ups it gives us earlier in the film, and then it does things in the third and final act that seem completely contrary to all we've seen before that point (think about the scene where the wife, after spending much of the movie in a state of severe emotional neediness and volatility has suddenly, and without any indication of such skills prior to this point, become a highly skilled marksman who is easily and calmly able to dispatch multiple attackers in darkness with a pistol).
Ultimately there isn't a very coherent narrative here, and that's got little to do with the fact that it puts several different genre types together in the same film (which was actually one of the very reasons why I was so interested to see this film in the first place - I mean, who would win if two skilled hit men went up against a group of murderous pagan occultists?) The plot of this film (hugely complex and drawn out conspiracy, involving lots and lots of people, just so that one man will end up killing his own wife and child) is strikingly similar in its nonsensical nature to the mess that was the Star Wars prequels.
Kill List is built on a foundation of amazing visuals, great acting and some excellent slow burning atmospheric tension, but then it goes on to completely undermine and waste all of this by its total lack of attention to plot coherence and completion.
1. The third act has no real connection to the previous two acts - if I hadn't read the synopsis before watching this film that third act would have been an absolute shocker, in the bad 'what the heck is this doing here' kind of way.
2. The film is excellently crafted along the lines of a 70's atmospheric horror, but then all of a sudden it becomes a gore-fest of in-your-face graphic violence. The whole point of atmospheric stuff like this is to build up to one final shocking act, or to avoid anything graphic at all and leave us, the audience, to be unsettled by what we haven't actually seen, but have been cleverly led - by way of well used visual, audio and musical cues - to believe to have actually happened.
The problem with this film is that we have graphic violence thrown at us at the start of the second act, and so when what should have been the shocking reveal comes at the end of the third and final act we aren't actually that shocked by what happens anymore.
3. The film never actually provides an answer to all the set ups it gives us earlier in the film, and then it does things in the third and final act that seem completely contrary to all we've seen before that point (think about the scene where the wife, after spending much of the movie in a state of severe emotional neediness and volatility has suddenly, and without any indication of such skills prior to this point, become a highly skilled marksman who is easily and calmly able to dispatch multiple attackers in darkness with a pistol).
Ultimately there isn't a very coherent narrative here, and that's got little to do with the fact that it puts several different genre types together in the same film (which was actually one of the very reasons why I was so interested to see this film in the first place - I mean, who would win if two skilled hit men went up against a group of murderous pagan occultists?) The plot of this film (hugely complex and drawn out conspiracy, involving lots and lots of people, just so that one man will end up killing his own wife and child) is strikingly similar in its nonsensical nature to the mess that was the Star Wars prequels.
Kill List is built on a foundation of amazing visuals, great acting and some excellent slow burning atmospheric tension, but then it goes on to completely undermine and waste all of this by its total lack of attention to plot coherence and completion.
Shanghai (2010)
Well worth the watch!
Not sure why people haven't been more generous in their reviews of this film.
It was a great piece of film making with a great premise, good characters, excellent acting, and scripting, and it is beautifully shot.
This isn't an Oscar contender, but then it doesn't have to be to actually be a good and entertaining film worthy of a viewing.
I really enjoyed the way it placed a murder mystery into such a tense and dramatic period of history - World War II effectively becomes another central character in this film, and to great effect actually, because we all think we've got the big secret figured out right up until the very end when we discover it's not actually what we thought we 'knew' it to be.
I also really enjoyed the fact that it presented us with a strong notion of the fact that even during moments of huge historical importance, at the centre of these events are still real human beings, just like you and I, with real human concerns and affairs that consume their attentions (as well as the big things like world war).
A solid little flick, definitely worth the watch!
It was a great piece of film making with a great premise, good characters, excellent acting, and scripting, and it is beautifully shot.
This isn't an Oscar contender, but then it doesn't have to be to actually be a good and entertaining film worthy of a viewing.
I really enjoyed the way it placed a murder mystery into such a tense and dramatic period of history - World War II effectively becomes another central character in this film, and to great effect actually, because we all think we've got the big secret figured out right up until the very end when we discover it's not actually what we thought we 'knew' it to be.
I also really enjoyed the fact that it presented us with a strong notion of the fact that even during moments of huge historical importance, at the centre of these events are still real human beings, just like you and I, with real human concerns and affairs that consume their attentions (as well as the big things like world war).
A solid little flick, definitely worth the watch!
The Son of No One (2011)
Almost a great piece of film making, almost
I simply can't agree with the other reviewers who gave this film a scathing review.
I suspect a lot of the bad reviews came from people expecting a crime thriller, rather than what this film actually was - a crime drama.
This was a classic slow burn police drama about a cop who is once again haunted by a past he thought he had successfully left behind him years ago.
It is well acted, well scripted, well shot, well scored - almost like an indie movie, rather than a crime drama.
In theory this film was supposed to be about redemption, but the failure to actually create a proper redemption narrative is exactly where it all came apart, and where I believe it slipped from being a great film to something that was worth the watch, but not a keeper.
Ironically, it's only in the last moments of the film that things are ruined - and rather oddly I have to say, because everything is building towards the lead character taking that final step towards redemption by making a very public confession about his past, and the corruption within his police department, but nothing even remotely like this happens.
The film simply ends with him getting on with his life, as if no heinous act of murder and corruption has just taken place, and thus allowed him to carry on with life as usual in the burbs.
From a technical perspective it actually feels like they either ran out of money, or time, or they didn't know how to end this film so they just finished with an el-cheapo stock footage 'newspaper with important headline on the table in foreground' shot.
In fact, the previous couple of minutes before that were a little bit problematic as well - the way Ray Liotta died was highly contrived and clichéd, and totally counter to where the film had been heading, and what it had built up to over the previous 80 minutes or so.
Some of you may be thinking; 'but didn't they do the same sort of thing in 'No Country for Old Men?' - yes, but the very reason they did that was to make a point about suffering and evil in the world. If this film was trying to do the same thing it failed quite badly I'm afraid.
Real shame, because other than that this was a good film.
I suspect a lot of the bad reviews came from people expecting a crime thriller, rather than what this film actually was - a crime drama.
This was a classic slow burn police drama about a cop who is once again haunted by a past he thought he had successfully left behind him years ago.
It is well acted, well scripted, well shot, well scored - almost like an indie movie, rather than a crime drama.
In theory this film was supposed to be about redemption, but the failure to actually create a proper redemption narrative is exactly where it all came apart, and where I believe it slipped from being a great film to something that was worth the watch, but not a keeper.
Ironically, it's only in the last moments of the film that things are ruined - and rather oddly I have to say, because everything is building towards the lead character taking that final step towards redemption by making a very public confession about his past, and the corruption within his police department, but nothing even remotely like this happens.
The film simply ends with him getting on with his life, as if no heinous act of murder and corruption has just taken place, and thus allowed him to carry on with life as usual in the burbs.
From a technical perspective it actually feels like they either ran out of money, or time, or they didn't know how to end this film so they just finished with an el-cheapo stock footage 'newspaper with important headline on the table in foreground' shot.
In fact, the previous couple of minutes before that were a little bit problematic as well - the way Ray Liotta died was highly contrived and clichéd, and totally counter to where the film had been heading, and what it had built up to over the previous 80 minutes or so.
Some of you may be thinking; 'but didn't they do the same sort of thing in 'No Country for Old Men?' - yes, but the very reason they did that was to make a point about suffering and evil in the world. If this film was trying to do the same thing it failed quite badly I'm afraid.
Real shame, because other than that this was a good film.
Hors la loi (2010)
A well made film that completely misses the mark unfortunately
There's no doubting that this is a well made film with some top acting talent, however there are two elements to the storytelling the let it down massively in my humble opinion.
1. It doesn't seem to know exactly what it's central theme/message is.
Initially the film presents a very unbiased picture of the evils committed by both sides of this particular struggle, and it also shows quite clearly how the actions of the brothers and the FLN movement moved into violent injustice and terrorism when it suited them to do so.
Basically the film starts by presenting a clear warning about the dangers of political ideology, and the fact that using violence and terrorism is never a good or fruitful thing to do, but then this message starts to get lost when, by the end of the film, it almost appears as if all the violent injustice was justified by the outcome of Algerian liberation (the end justifies the means).
I'm not sure the director intended this, it's just the way it can be read by the structuring of the film.
2. It didn't quite know whether it was a character exploration, or an historical exposition
The films starts by establishing the three brothers as the central characters, but then quickly moves into a series of FLN related terrorist activities, and the police response to these, before finishing up focusing briefly on the brothers again at the end.
To me this was a real shame, because I think that what this film never really gave us was any sense of the interior motivations and struggles of the three brothers - and this made them look like little more than mindless thugs willing to kill and maim for their ideology without the usual interior human ethical conflict - basically they come across like psychopaths at times during this film. In fact, in places it even has you rooting for the other side and almost feeling that they were justified in the atrocities they perpetrated in response to the FLN.
As a result of this lack of character exploration after the first 30 minutes or so later scenes of a character-focused nature seem a little bit contrived and out of place, like the scene with the two brothers sitting on the bus listening to American 50's rock and disagreeing about its musical quality - if more focus had been given to the characters themselves earlier on, then this scene would have made a lot more sense, and we would have been far more connected to it as an audience, but instead it just came across as odd, like a very hollow attempt at instilling some sort of sense of normalcy and humanity.
This film is well made, but unfortunately these two storytelling failings take all the gloss of what could have been a 10/10 production.
1. It doesn't seem to know exactly what it's central theme/message is.
Initially the film presents a very unbiased picture of the evils committed by both sides of this particular struggle, and it also shows quite clearly how the actions of the brothers and the FLN movement moved into violent injustice and terrorism when it suited them to do so.
Basically the film starts by presenting a clear warning about the dangers of political ideology, and the fact that using violence and terrorism is never a good or fruitful thing to do, but then this message starts to get lost when, by the end of the film, it almost appears as if all the violent injustice was justified by the outcome of Algerian liberation (the end justifies the means).
I'm not sure the director intended this, it's just the way it can be read by the structuring of the film.
2. It didn't quite know whether it was a character exploration, or an historical exposition
The films starts by establishing the three brothers as the central characters, but then quickly moves into a series of FLN related terrorist activities, and the police response to these, before finishing up focusing briefly on the brothers again at the end.
To me this was a real shame, because I think that what this film never really gave us was any sense of the interior motivations and struggles of the three brothers - and this made them look like little more than mindless thugs willing to kill and maim for their ideology without the usual interior human ethical conflict - basically they come across like psychopaths at times during this film. In fact, in places it even has you rooting for the other side and almost feeling that they were justified in the atrocities they perpetrated in response to the FLN.
As a result of this lack of character exploration after the first 30 minutes or so later scenes of a character-focused nature seem a little bit contrived and out of place, like the scene with the two brothers sitting on the bus listening to American 50's rock and disagreeing about its musical quality - if more focus had been given to the characters themselves earlier on, then this scene would have made a lot more sense, and we would have been far more connected to it as an audience, but instead it just came across as odd, like a very hollow attempt at instilling some sort of sense of normalcy and humanity.
This film is well made, but unfortunately these two storytelling failings take all the gloss of what could have been a 10/10 production.