Change Your Image
Dark_Venom
Reviews
The Mist (2007)
The best horror-adaptation of a King-story, spoiled by the silliest ending imaginable
Let's be straight with this one. No one ever but Frank Darabont should direct Stephen King's stories. Dot. Having been to Shawshank, walked across The Green Mile, this man leads us once more to the dark realm of the living author-legend, and introduces us to The Mist. After tons of failed attempts -yes, even 1408-, up until The Mist's last minutes, I had thought: the best adaptation ever from a King novel. The suspense, the characters, the actors, the faith and heart put in the movie makes it far more than a usual horror. It makes us scared to death of the unknown. We feel surrounded, powerless, and we just count our heartbeats to know whether it's the last one or no. I haven't imagined it to be this great. And then, in the last two minutes, Darabont acts like an idiot: destroys everything that he has built. Destroys the meanings, the uncertainty, the fear, the hopelessness. He comes up with the silliest, unforgettably stupid ending that I've seen since The War of the Worlds. No, I have no problem with David killing all the survivors in his hopelessness, and no, I have no problem with him being the last man to face his fate. The stupidity lies in the sudden disappearance of the mist, in the army coming out of nowhere, and the trucks loaded with dozens of survivors. These images ruined all the fear of the mist, makes all sense disappear, and makes us say "no way, dude, this is just utterly crap". Where has the military been all the time? How come the mist disappears just from one minute to the other? And the mother from the beginning? Come on, people couldn't make 300 yards from the store, but she ends up being saved? And why should we leave the cinema with the feeling that the only man who could be sane through the movie ends up being the one who made a wrong decision? This makes no sense, and the scene, him shouting on his knees when the military drives by, looked definitely ridiculous. And what's the point? "Davey you should have waited 10 minutes with killing off everyone in your hopelessness, because the military just stopped the mist, and is marching towards you"? Silly. So, I still feel positive about the movie as a whole, only disappointment remains in me. The novella's uncertain, interpretable ending would have fitted in this, from every other perspective the best, adaptation. I'm sorry.
Thr3e (2006)
Completely unoriginal
As I have not yet read the original Dekker novel (but, so to say, I am no more interested in it), the movie didn't have expectations to live up to in my eyes. After about a half an hour, my level of interest started to fall, but from a pretty high level as the movie starts out to be quite exciting. I thought then that if nothing original, but I would get a standard "clever killer with ideologies connected to the protagonist's life"-type of suspense thriller. However, all the suspense disappears thanks to the shallow acting and the script that seems to make fun of the genre. The strongest stab in the movie' heart is definitely the completely unoriginal, obsolete "twist", when we learn about Kevin's split personalities. COME ON, have anyone of Hollywood's filmmakers watched the thrillers of the past few years? Identity, Shrooms, High Tension, and so on, a never ending line? The split minded killer ISN'T a great idea, it has been used, and re-used dozens of times. It's getting dumb now instead of being a twist, it only shows that no creativity is left is some of the writers, and if Dekker's original is the same, then in the suspense-authors as well. However, I am pretty sure the lot of people will buy it as an original idea, and I am damn certain that this was the real goal here.
Saw IV (2007)
Let sleeping Saw lie
I loved the first three installments of Saw. They were clever, well-written movies with astonishing twists (though they were a bit predictable), and tons of creative torture-scenes. Personally, I think Saw is a trilogy. I've got every answer I needed, all things have come to an end, and so Saw could be the eighth wonder in my personal film-world. However, as money talks, Hoolywood thought otherwise. They sought out to destroy a monument, and replace it as a never ending franchise. My basic problem is the script, and it is one huge mistake as it has always had a major role in the Saw films. Here, the story is really forced, we don't feel that there is a catharsis to achieve during the film, and it neither has characters to care about nor a story to keep us attended. We can smell the sweat of the writers as they were eager to add something to the Saw-saga that wasn't needed. First of all, they attacked the ideologist Jigsaw's figure, and from a preacher, who was enlightened after his tumor and sought to re-give a meaning to people's life, he turned into an avenger, someone, who made up his work after a personal incident. Secondly, it is the identity of the Jigsaw killer itself. The fans of films like Saw like these movies for the mystery that surrounds the killers, to find out their motivation, and to let themselves amazed and shout that "I knew it would be him!". However, here this is taken away. The final twist gives us a nobody, who is Jigsaw's apprentice, but we don't even know why, who he is, how he got into the whole thing. We get a fact, but not a thoughtful solution as it was with the case of Amanda. Oh, yeah. The twist. It is must-have in all Saw films, so there it is one in Saw IV as well. But, as the movie itself, it is forced, full of idiotic and unnecessary things that offers us large plot holes. Not only will no one be astonished by the twist, but no man will say it is creative, or really motivating for a sequel. Not to mention the fact that this movie is really illogical (huge mistake as neither of the Saw-films were), and leaves us without any satisfaction. Saw IV finally turned the series from a clever thriller franchise into a dull, average horror-saga. I dare say that this franchise has reached its limits, and so everyone should let sleeping Saw lie.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
What makes this the beginning? It should end...
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is probably the only series which hasn't developed neither in a positive nor in a negative way since Tobe Hooper's original. This movie is the sixth in the line, and it can be clearly said: we have seen this one as well. First of all, this film is the prequel of the 2003 remake, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Well, the word "clone" can also be used. Why? Apart from the first and the title screen, nothing really makes this film a REAL beginning. We see only the first steps of the crazy Hewitt family, but they aren't as creepy as they used to be. The whole movie takes after its 2003 predecessor: in the setting, the characters, even the script and the plot as well. A few teenagers, who run into sheriff Hoyt (Ermey), and Leatherface. That's all, folks.
Oh, yeah, Leatherface. Despite being the saga's antihero, he's only in a supporting role in this one. And nothing about "how Thomas Hewitt developed into a monster". No references to his past (except the title screen), no drums, no spotlight - he is just in the movie as he used to be, without any interesting innovation to his figure.. Sheriff Hoyt is the main villain in this one, this is his real beginning, and sadly I have to say, his character really made me tired. What worked in the 2003 version doesn't do the same job here, somehow.
So, just like the other episodes in the Texas series, The Beginning is just like the first one in 1974. Adds nothing, takes nothing, only remains absolutely the same.
Feast (2005)
Indifference that makes you bored
I've never thought after From Dusk Till Dawn that someone would try to make a clone of that movie. Actually, Gulager and Project Greenlight did.
This movie is about monsters invading a pub full of miserable losers. Well, the fountain of my problems is found in the last two words. Yes, the characters! Totally indifferent people, whose fate is totally indifferent, whom we don't care about if they survive or not. Awful dialogues and a truly miserable plot describes the whole movie - every element has been seen elsewhere, mostly in Romero's NotLD and Rodriguez's From Dusk..., but they've been put together to make a totally indifferent film, that makes you think: who cares who dies? Who cares what happens? Why didn't they just all die, it wouldn't have done anything different for you.
The other problem beside the high level of indifference and the pathetic characters is the bad editing. During action scenes this makes the movie so quick we don't even know what happens, can't see a thing. The only good point is gore, which is not limited, that's why I give more than 1 star. But avoid this movie at all costs!
Hard Candy (2005)
Example of ambivalence
Hard Candy is an interesting movie. Generally after having seen a movie, you can decide whether it was good or not, but Hard Candy's case is different.
The plot is really simple, if we look at the core: a 14 years old girl's self-jurisdiction over a 32 years old pedophile. Well, it is far more complicated than that.
Scene by scene we cheer to an other character: once we want Hayle (the girl) to fulfill her goal with Geoff (the pedo), and sometimes we may even think that this photographer guy isn't that bad, he's just a guy who has to suffer for more than he has committed. This thing ends up in not knowing who our character is - not to mention, both of them act illogically, and this makes us think: what happens in this movie?
If we look at Hayle as a psychopathic "judge",then we may recognize a female Jigsaw (so to say, her character has been stolen from that movie). She claims to be a kind of guardian of every teenager who is terrorized by pedophiles. Well, it may sound positive, but she is soooo annoying! I mean, the character doesn't make us have good feelings for her. And Geoff? He is a handsome, talented photographer, who is intelligent, who would never be suspected to be such a pervert. During the movie we don't get an exact clue of him being a real monster, and in a huge part of the film we may find ourselves even cheer for him to survive . Ambivalency in characters continues in the film itself. The story gives us tons of questions, but no answers. This is practically a good idea in an independent film, but I don't really like when the creators do it in a way that the film ends up its own parody. And the tense, psychotic atmosphere sometimes becomes banality, and some illogical scenes makes the film being far from reality (well, if I mentioned Saw as a related film, I shall notice, that it had illogical moments, but it didn't spoil the film). However, the cinematography and the editing is quite unusual, but gives a nice pulse to the movie, so we are not bored.
The problem? The message of the danger of the Internet-pedophiles does not come off the screen. What we see is self-jurisdiction. We can't decide if Haley truly does everything for the girls who are molestated, or she is just a disturbed person. We don't really know if Geoff is a real monster, or only Haley wanted him to be more than an average Internet-worm. We get questions, but no nice dilemmas like Saw. There are no goals and motivations to be judged, only situation which can be subjective. Even if Geoff got what he deserved, the whole story and acting is too ambivalent and confusing to make up as a whole.
Conclusion? Not good, but far from bad - a nice independent movie which can make you think about it, or about the question: what did the creators want to make?
Shadow Hearts II (2004)
Can Europe and the world be saved with magic?
In this revolutionary new conception of RPGs, the answer is yes! This game contains tons of elements and stuff that other programs of this genre definitely lack of.
First of all, the story doesn't take place in a made-up fantasy world, the battleground of good and evil is our "wonderful" planet, during World War I, specifically in 1915. Our heroes travel around the world, and visit places like Paris, Petrograd, Southampton, Yokohama, and other existing -(altough we can only go to Europe and Japan, it is still quite an experience), but also to some imaginary places (eg. dungeons). It wouldn't make the game essential, so I have to mention the story as well. It is truly magnificent how the makers mixed some of the usual RPG background with real persons (to mention two, Rasputin, and King Solomon), and loads of morbid humour. Yes, this game contains jokes that you can not really find in other programs, and if you are not prepared, you can find yourself laughing at the PS2. However, the story itself becomes grimmer and full with sorrow as you approach the end, but every element is balanced, so you won't feel that something changed drastically.
Gameplay: well, actually, it is kinda new. The battles are based on a system called "Judgement Ring" which requires the players timing as they execute commands and action. Be slow or bad in timing, and you mess up attacking; be good, and you win it all. Yes, all. Because as you master the Ring, you will be unable to be defeated. Doesn't matter who in your party is (there are a total of 8 characters, from Princess Anastasia Romanov to a half-Russian, half-Japanese harmonixer), you can't get stuck in this game, so that makes the program less challenging. Moreover, even if you have tons of actions and combos, the battles will become less versatile. Anyway, this is not a huge problem, because the length (50+ hours with all side-quests) and the essential atmosphere makes you forget about the shady parts, and definitely means a wonderful adventure. To everyone.
Rest Stop (2006)
A Decent Cocktail Of Horror Movies
Before watching the movie I had read almost every review on this film, and I was prepared for the worst to come. Thanks to God I was disappointed - in a good way. At the credits I finally realized, why the ratings were so low...but, it is not the film's mistake. Let me explain.
Before saying anything, let's make a quick briefing about the plot: a young girl, Nicole (J. Alexander) and her boyfriend (J. Mendicino)are on they ride to LA, when they stop at a rest stop, because Nicole needs to pee. When she gets back, she find neither her boyfriend nor their car, only a psychopathic killer, who seeks to kill the girl. The whole movie is a cat-and-mouse game, until the credits roll. Sounds simple? Yes. It is indeed. But despite being a mere mixture of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Haute Tension and Wrong Turn, Rest Stop still remains a quite entertaining movie, IF we can forget about the clichés coming at us. Because all the elements in this film have been seen elsewhere, but stealing from the best is not yet a crime, only doesn't worth more than 6 points.
As I read the other reviews, I realized the biggest problems were not with the movie, rather with the audience. The story got them, but what do we expect from an ex-Xfiles maker? Anyway, I still find quite easy to solve the puzzle: the killer is not a real person...keep attention to the crazy family! He is of course not an angel, but let's make sense to it: an evil soul, who haunts the area, and makes his ex-victims appear as a hallucination in order to confuse his current prey.
So, this movie is a bit above average, but still entertaining, and far more underrated than it should be. A nice 6 out of 10.