This movie isn't going to win any awards, at least not the ones most people have heard of, but it kept my attention the whole way through, which is saying a lot. If you like this genre (think Wolf Creek, Eden Lake, The Hills Have Eyes), then you could definitely do a lot worse than Wrong Turn.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Wrong Turn at Tahoe
(2009)
The return of Cuba?
18 November 2009
Call me a product of the ADD age, but it's not very often these days that I'll actually sit through an entire movie without at least fast forwarding through some parts (you know, like the de rigeur musical montage in romantic comedies). And when I saw Cuba Gooding's name in the opening credits, I seriously considered putting an end to the movie and to my misery right there and then (I still have nightmares about his and Christian Slater's disastrous last effort at movie-making). And yet, as the movie developed, I found myself drawn into the plot and the characters. Mind you, this film is not a treatise on either. The plot and characters are rather simple, and we only get brief glimpses into the origins of the relationship between Cuba's character and that of his boss, but it's all we need. The rest is like a good old fashioned shootout at the OK corral. All in all, I'd say this movie was every bit as good as The Departed, minus the star cast and director.
The House of the Devil
(2009)
If you like boring and not scary, this is for you
6 November 2009
How this movie got 7/10 on IMDb I'll never know. At one point while watching the movie (actually I'll admit that by then I had a browser open in another window, that's how bad this movie was) I noticed that 1 hr and 15 minutes had gone by, and basically nothing had happened, other than the girl exploring every nook and cranny of this house in agonizing detail and scaring herself a little bit in the process. And the ending? There is no payoff, not revelation that makes it all worthwhile. Just a predictable ending to a thoroughly forgettable movie that won't scare you one bit. (end of real comment... the rest is just to meet IMDb's stupid 10-line minimum comment requirement) This movie does indeed have a 70s/80s feel to it, and maybe if it had been made back them it would have been hailed as some kind of masterpiece, but audiences evolve, and to me this movie just doesn't cut it in this day and age.
Star Trek
(2009)
Fun film if you suspend all disbelief
2 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I, like most people who watched this movie, am a fan of the original series and the various movies/spin-offs that have come out in the decades since, so when I'd heard all the positive reviews about this film, and knowing the director behind it, I was full of hope. And while the film is fun to watch, I found it far too contrived to be really enjoyable. What follows contains some mild spoilers.
The crew's first mission after graduating from the Academy is to respond to a situation on the planet Vulcan. The Captain, Christopher Pike, is played by a 50ish Bruce Greenwood, and his second in command is Spock. Kirk is in his early 20s. When the captain leaves the ship, he leaves Spock in command, who eventually leaves Kirk in charge. Then when Kirk leaves, he leaves Chekhov in charge. How realistic is it to have a 22 or 23 year old in command of a starship? Or a 17 year old Chekhov?? This is where the suspension of disbelief starts. Kirk has zero practical experience yet he's soon in command of the Enterprise. So he's the third most senior officer on board? And Chekhov the fourth at the age of 17??
At another point in the story Spock drops off a troublesome Kirk on a frozen planet, and as Kirk is running for his life to escape the local wildlife, he runs into a cave where Spock (from the future) just happens to be hiding. Realistic? You decide.
Finally, at the end of the movie we pretty much have the entire crew we all know and love together on the Enterprise, all 20somethings (except for Spock). So are we supposed to believe that the whole crew stayed together for 20 years, at which time they would have started their "five-year mission"?
If you can ignore those three huge suspensions of disbelief, or if you're new to the series and know absolutely nothing about the military chain of command, then you'll be sure to enjoy this movie a lot more than I did.
The crew's first mission after graduating from the Academy is to respond to a situation on the planet Vulcan. The Captain, Christopher Pike, is played by a 50ish Bruce Greenwood, and his second in command is Spock. Kirk is in his early 20s. When the captain leaves the ship, he leaves Spock in command, who eventually leaves Kirk in charge. Then when Kirk leaves, he leaves Chekhov in charge. How realistic is it to have a 22 or 23 year old in command of a starship? Or a 17 year old Chekhov?? This is where the suspension of disbelief starts. Kirk has zero practical experience yet he's soon in command of the Enterprise. So he's the third most senior officer on board? And Chekhov the fourth at the age of 17??
At another point in the story Spock drops off a troublesome Kirk on a frozen planet, and as Kirk is running for his life to escape the local wildlife, he runs into a cave where Spock (from the future) just happens to be hiding. Realistic? You decide.
Finally, at the end of the movie we pretty much have the entire crew we all know and love together on the Enterprise, all 20somethings (except for Spock). So are we supposed to believe that the whole crew stayed together for 20 years, at which time they would have started their "five-year mission"?
If you can ignore those three huge suspensions of disbelief, or if you're new to the series and know absolutely nothing about the military chain of command, then you'll be sure to enjoy this movie a lot more than I did.
Tell Your Friends