This is an English film, so you might expect some dry wit… even though you might be slightly disappointed if you expect Monte Python or Fawlty Towers. Be that as it may, the idea of the film is excellent: a group of corporate idiots go to a retreat to undergo team-building exercises, but something or someone begins killing them one by one. It’s reminiscent of Dog Soldiers (an awesome movie) in that respect.
Most of the story relies on characters’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as their interactions. Of course, the oh-so-foolish corporate types are led by their unqualified manager, who is actually an idiot (and probably reminds you of your own managers). Anyway, the comical escapades of the group make the movie more of a “zomedy” film, but they work more often than not. As well, the identity of the antagonist(s) is a play on urban legend.
The acting, considering the genre, was pretty good. The writing was typical of UK movies following Shaun of the Dead. The cinematography was okay, as well, but nothing about which to write home. I guess, in the end, it lies somewhere between “okay” and “alright”. I give it a 6 outta 10, well maybe 5.5 outta 10. I wanted more dark and/or dry humor. Not all the jokes attempted here worked that well. Also, the character (in real business life) of some underling that wants to become the manager, and so plots, lies, and kisses butt, is missing. That’s not that big of a deal, however, as he would be the first one you would want killed.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Closure
Wow. Gillian Anderson on my living room TV again after all these years… (so I rented it, okay?!?!). I admit my X-Files fandom from back in the day, but I still think she’s an underrated actress even while acknowledging that her style limits her exposition. That’s her problem here, also. She plays a physically (and mentally) strong to fierce woman, wholly empowered, but with striking flaws in behavior that make you doubt the character’s credibility. The flaws just aren’t fitting, and the moments in which they’re divulged make the character seem superficially altered after the fact.
Anyway, the storyline wasn’t bad. Its initial realism made it seem foreboding, but simultaneously humanized the perceived threat. By the end of the movie, you’ve almost decided that you should hate the protagonists either as villainous figures or frustratingly weak, spineless heros. I believe much of that arises from the frustrating actions of the protagonists and their poorly scripted interactions.
The ending will leave you wanting, but I will give credit for two points. First, the film seems to explore sexual relationships and acts. We have intercourse between strangers, rape of a female, bonding of the protagonists despite impotence (most obviously depicting the underlying theme of control of self versus others), and the rape of a male. I suggest looking between the lines, as it will really help the experience. Second, we get flesh shots of Anderson. Ergo, I give it a 7 outta 10.
Anyway, the storyline wasn’t bad. Its initial realism made it seem foreboding, but simultaneously humanized the perceived threat. By the end of the movie, you’ve almost decided that you should hate the protagonists either as villainous figures or frustratingly weak, spineless heros. I believe much of that arises from the frustrating actions of the protagonists and their poorly scripted interactions.
The ending will leave you wanting, but I will give credit for two points. First, the film seems to explore sexual relationships and acts. We have intercourse between strangers, rape of a female, bonding of the protagonists despite impotence (most obviously depicting the underlying theme of control of self versus others), and the rape of a male. I suggest looking between the lines, as it will really help the experience. Second, we get flesh shots of Anderson. Ergo, I give it a 7 outta 10.
The Messengers
Although a Sam Raimi production, he was not the director (after watching Spiderman 3, I thank goodness for that small respite from Raimi)! The Pang brothers (of “The Eye”) directed, so I didn’t expect any straight forward, in-your-face horror, shock, or suspense. I already knew the entire film would rely on gloomy eeriness. That’s the Pang “thang,” after all. So, we begin.
The subplots of familial relations and trust, blah, blah, blah, is a little tired nowadays. Add to that performances that couldn’t begin to help. I do say that Miller is pretty believable. McDermot doesn’t fit the character or setting or acting profession, which is one reason that aspects of his character seem so contrived, to the point of patronizing the audience. I won’t give away the bad guy, but you should figure it out with ease, since the movie just doesn’t give that many options from which to choose. The protagonist, the daughter/sister does alright for her age. I’d wager she’s been taking too many acting classes, which makes her performance over-the-top in too many respects.
The plot is alright, but, aside from its obviousness, is just borrowed from other, more familiar stories. The cinematography, when the Pangs are involved, is at least respectable. They always have concrete ideas of how to scare before beginning a film. Thus, they bring a J-horror twist to the film. In the end, however, it’s just not enough. You know the antagonist; you know the plot and story; and so you anticipate a huge, eye-candy climax. But your eyes are left starving. It’s worth a rent during the week if you like soap operas. It’s a 5 outta 10.
The subplots of familial relations and trust, blah, blah, blah, is a little tired nowadays. Add to that performances that couldn’t begin to help. I do say that Miller is pretty believable. McDermot doesn’t fit the character or setting or acting profession, which is one reason that aspects of his character seem so contrived, to the point of patronizing the audience. I won’t give away the bad guy, but you should figure it out with ease, since the movie just doesn’t give that many options from which to choose. The protagonist, the daughter/sister does alright for her age. I’d wager she’s been taking too many acting classes, which makes her performance over-the-top in too many respects.
The plot is alright, but, aside from its obviousness, is just borrowed from other, more familiar stories. The cinematography, when the Pangs are involved, is at least respectable. They always have concrete ideas of how to scare before beginning a film. Thus, they bring a J-horror twist to the film. In the end, however, it’s just not enough. You know the antagonist; you know the plot and story; and so you anticipate a huge, eye-candy climax. But your eyes are left starving. It’s worth a rent during the week if you like soap operas. It’s a 5 outta 10.
Primeval
Has anyone seen the campy '70s flics based on the old urban legend of man-eating crocodiles in NY sewers? Here it is again! Right? No. Really, this is just a remake of parts of The Ghost and the Darkness with the lions replaced by a large crocodile. Initially, potential audience members should realize that this isn't a horror film. Nor is it based in suspense. Most of it is a social commentary about tribes in Africa, corrupt governmental participants, and lack of affirmative involvement by other nations. But Sally Struthers already made us aware of that, right? …And only for a dollar a day.
Apparently, a man-eating croc is plaguing tribes along a waterway in Africa. Two reporters are sent to investigate while civil wars rage across the plains. The male reporter is the typical pretty boy, American stereotype (Manfrey). Essentially, he's just the superficial metrosexual waiting to learn a valuable lesson about the value of people. The female reporter is another stereotype, a pretty girl with the nice figure who wants the world to learn compassion (Langton). Therefore, she picked up a pen to change the world by talking while berating others for only talking about problems instead of acting. What a saint. Unfortunately, the two take their time to learn lessons about compassion… and taking action… and hypocrisy… and how if everyone in the world held hands, they would not be able to hold guns.
The conflicts arise only after a gruelingly long first act. Tribes are factioned and rulers gain power with brutal, iron fist politics. Thus, we have reporters versus warlords. The croc eats people, so we also have everyone versus the croc. But the scenery was nice in places. The acting was okay. The social commentary is old news. The worst part of the entire, damnable thing is that I chose a film expecting to get a reptilian croc (instead of this crock of $&%#). I wait forever through old-hat, social expose to get a couple of glimpses of a croc. I was defrauded. If you like PBS programs on tribal relations and politics (but not culture or the histories-- human and ecological-- that lead to such relations), then the movie is almost good. If you want what the DVD cover and summary offer, go get The Ghost and the Darkness and then watch Crocodile. I give this film a 4 outta 10.
Apparently, a man-eating croc is plaguing tribes along a waterway in Africa. Two reporters are sent to investigate while civil wars rage across the plains. The male reporter is the typical pretty boy, American stereotype (Manfrey). Essentially, he's just the superficial metrosexual waiting to learn a valuable lesson about the value of people. The female reporter is another stereotype, a pretty girl with the nice figure who wants the world to learn compassion (Langton). Therefore, she picked up a pen to change the world by talking while berating others for only talking about problems instead of acting. What a saint. Unfortunately, the two take their time to learn lessons about compassion… and taking action… and hypocrisy… and how if everyone in the world held hands, they would not be able to hold guns.
The conflicts arise only after a gruelingly long first act. Tribes are factioned and rulers gain power with brutal, iron fist politics. Thus, we have reporters versus warlords. The croc eats people, so we also have everyone versus the croc. But the scenery was nice in places. The acting was okay. The social commentary is old news. The worst part of the entire, damnable thing is that I chose a film expecting to get a reptilian croc (instead of this crock of $&%#). I wait forever through old-hat, social expose to get a couple of glimpses of a croc. I was defrauded. If you like PBS programs on tribal relations and politics (but not culture or the histories-- human and ecological-- that lead to such relations), then the movie is almost good. If you want what the DVD cover and summary offer, go get The Ghost and the Darkness and then watch Crocodile. I give this film a 4 outta 10.
The Abandoned
Well, this is the film that one the After Dark Horrorfest in 2006, When I ask myself how this trash could have won, I can only conceive of a few, limited scenarios: (1) nepotism; (2) judges received sexual favors; (3) the judges and producers were one and the same; and/or (4) death threats. By now, you've probably guessed my opinion of this exercise in trite boredom, but I'll continue anyway (so I can here myself talk).
The story is one of those with potential never realized… even when using one's imagination while reading the script—on drugs. The idiosyncrasies were frustratingly common and obvious. The story itself, when finally reaching the end, made no real sense. Perhaps the target audience was some pagan cult. Either way, the director is an obvious fan of David Lynch, but without things like artistry or talent. The acting was subpar, and the dim lighting couldn't overcome it. The anxiety you may experience from trailers is only available during the trailers. Everything in between those highlights should have been left on the cutting room floor. Those are really the high points. Aside fom that, the film really is… boring. It seems too stylistic in an attempted European or "film noir" manner, perhaps, but without succeeding. I would say, "You'll know what I mean when you see it," but I don't want to inspire you to waste cash on even a one-night rental. Seriously, I wouldn't even borrow this from a friend.
Overall, it gets a 1.5 outta 10. Normally, I'll grant 0.5 points because something's in the horror genre, and I naturally allot 0.5 because some idiot invested time in a given film's creation. That's a 1 outta 10 for breathing. In this film, there was one effect that wasn't bad, so to avoid bashing this rip-off completely, I gave that a 0.5 designation. There you go, 1.5.
The story is one of those with potential never realized… even when using one's imagination while reading the script—on drugs. The idiosyncrasies were frustratingly common and obvious. The story itself, when finally reaching the end, made no real sense. Perhaps the target audience was some pagan cult. Either way, the director is an obvious fan of David Lynch, but without things like artistry or talent. The acting was subpar, and the dim lighting couldn't overcome it. The anxiety you may experience from trailers is only available during the trailers. Everything in between those highlights should have been left on the cutting room floor. Those are really the high points. Aside fom that, the film really is… boring. It seems too stylistic in an attempted European or "film noir" manner, perhaps, but without succeeding. I would say, "You'll know what I mean when you see it," but I don't want to inspire you to waste cash on even a one-night rental. Seriously, I wouldn't even borrow this from a friend.
Overall, it gets a 1.5 outta 10. Normally, I'll grant 0.5 points because something's in the horror genre, and I naturally allot 0.5 because some idiot invested time in a given film's creation. That's a 1 outta 10 for breathing. In this film, there was one effect that wasn't bad, so to avoid bashing this rip-off completely, I gave that a 0.5 designation. There you go, 1.5.
Behind the Mask
Note!! It’s not as bad as you would think. I think we all understand, at least unconsciously, two important indicators of cinematic failure. First, if a film goes straight to DVD, chances are the budget wasn't there for good writers, directors, effects, and so on. Second, if your local rental joint only carries a single copy, the production/distribution was probably mapped on the assumption that no one would ever really want to view it, or the fact that the Hollywood wisdom wouldn’t put anything behind the movie. This movie surpasses these presumptions by far.
The story is based on an up-and-coming mass-killer-wannabe who invites a small, inexperienced documentary crew—probably from the local community college's journalism program—to document his first killing spree and the preparation for it. Therefore, the beginning of the film holds a B-rated documentary style. The killer/protagonist is a regular Joe who is an expert on the horror movie genre. He explains with humor galore his unbelievable intentions, training, and plan. As the story progresses, we see that plan unfold, where the film shifts from B-rated documentary to a true horror film with intensity and a surprise twist.
The story is great, and for those with patience, wonderfully executed. The humor of learning the postulated motivations and strategies underlying the archetypal Vorhees, Myers, and similar mass-killers is worth a watch. When the perspective of the story changes, so does the style. The intensity honestly seems to increase five-fold. True, there wasn't a huge budget, but the documentary style was perfectly fitting in the first half. Plus, Robert Englund appears! All the acting was good, though the heroine was sometimes annoyingly unpolished. The plot and the sub-plot were great, and the twist actually caught me… though in hindsight, I don't know how.
Due to the realism and corniness of the flic, where the lack of budget actually was used as an asset, as were the intensity-shift and ultimate plot-twist, I highly recommend this film. I give it an overall 8.5 outta 10.
The story is based on an up-and-coming mass-killer-wannabe who invites a small, inexperienced documentary crew—probably from the local community college's journalism program—to document his first killing spree and the preparation for it. Therefore, the beginning of the film holds a B-rated documentary style. The killer/protagonist is a regular Joe who is an expert on the horror movie genre. He explains with humor galore his unbelievable intentions, training, and plan. As the story progresses, we see that plan unfold, where the film shifts from B-rated documentary to a true horror film with intensity and a surprise twist.
The story is great, and for those with patience, wonderfully executed. The humor of learning the postulated motivations and strategies underlying the archetypal Vorhees, Myers, and similar mass-killers is worth a watch. When the perspective of the story changes, so does the style. The intensity honestly seems to increase five-fold. True, there wasn't a huge budget, but the documentary style was perfectly fitting in the first half. Plus, Robert Englund appears! All the acting was good, though the heroine was sometimes annoyingly unpolished. The plot and the sub-plot were great, and the twist actually caught me… though in hindsight, I don't know how.
Due to the realism and corniness of the flic, where the lack of budget actually was used as an asset, as were the intensity-shift and ultimate plot-twist, I highly recommend this film. I give it an overall 8.5 outta 10.
Shooter
It's hard to find a good action film these days, but this one fits the bill neatly despite its flaws. Let's hop right into it. Walberg plays an ex-sniper who disavowed the job but remains well-practiced (just in case of what?) and well-known to certain officials. In an attempt to help some government agency in determining an assassination plot on the president, Walberg is framed for the attempt. The rest of the film tells how our height-disabled hero will find and then dispatch the officials who set him up for the fall. Gun battles ensue.
Well, there are a lot of unbelievable parts of the movie, and a pretty unbelievable sidekick. But this is an action film with all sights (pardon the pun) on Walberg's heroics. The action is good and starts relatively early. Some over-the-top sequences will leave you chuckling. For instance, there were two parts I couldn't overlook. At the end, a hostage trade occurs on a glacier. Somehow, Walberg and sidekick arrive on the glacier which is only accessible by helicopter (I'm assuming the trade wasn't planned for several months in the future, as time would be of the essence). No way that could happen. Second, Walberg-turn-mercenary assassinates the ultimate antagonist at the resolution. He thus assumes a role of one above the law to kill someone for acting above the law. Do we see the conflicting irony? He loses hero status.
I give it a 6.5 outta 10 because the hero's character isn't a figure like Rambo, and a lot of the action scenes are just laughable. However, it is action, so it must be given the benefit of the doubt… as one would a mentally handicapped child.
Well, there are a lot of unbelievable parts of the movie, and a pretty unbelievable sidekick. But this is an action film with all sights (pardon the pun) on Walberg's heroics. The action is good and starts relatively early. Some over-the-top sequences will leave you chuckling. For instance, there were two parts I couldn't overlook. At the end, a hostage trade occurs on a glacier. Somehow, Walberg and sidekick arrive on the glacier which is only accessible by helicopter (I'm assuming the trade wasn't planned for several months in the future, as time would be of the essence). No way that could happen. Second, Walberg-turn-mercenary assassinates the ultimate antagonist at the resolution. He thus assumes a role of one above the law to kill someone for acting above the law. Do we see the conflicting irony? He loses hero status.
I give it a 6.5 outta 10 because the hero's character isn't a figure like Rambo, and a lot of the action scenes are just laughable. However, it is action, so it must be given the benefit of the doubt… as one would a mentally handicapped child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)