Change Your Image
capcanuk
Reviews
Dark Encounter (2019)
Very difficult to rate
This is a difficult film to rate. There are very good things about it, but that are so offset by absolutely terrible ones. It feels like a student film where everything is thrown on the screen in the hopes that something will stick.
From this point on, here there be spoilers, yargh.
Carl Strathie, the director/writer/editor of the film, very obviously knows and loves his Spielberg. Nearly half the movie is shots borrowed from either E.T. or Close Encounters. The other half of the film is an even mix of "original" material and shots borrowed from Shyamalan's Signs (and one pull-away shot that is basically ripped right from the film Contact.)
Some commentators here are making comparisons to Interstellar.. I have NO idea what movie they watched, or which version of Interstellar they saw, but there's nothing remotely drawn from that film here.
Let me get the "good" out of the way first: the production values, the acting, and the score and effects are all pretty top notch, considering the small budget. What little there is of effects (particularly the alien we see near the end) are extremely well done.
OK. Now that the good is out of the way, here's where things sour. The main issue with this film is that it's three films. Three stories. And they don't really belong in the same film.
1) There's a story about a family dealing with a tragedy, and with family issues that need to be dealt with. I will be generous and admit that this could work as a foundation for our main cast of characters. The problem is we're not really given any chance to feel anything for the cast.
2) There's a "scary" aliens-attacking-a-remote-household story, with lots of terrorizing noises and bright lights, and people vanishing. This is where most of the Close Encounters scenes are inserted, and most are from the "abduction of Barry" scene in CEot3K (as well as one patently obvious allusion to Signs).
3) And the final act is where things really disconnect. Some in the comments here (those giving ridiculous 9 and 10 ratings) are lauding the "twist" that occurs in the final act. But that twist simply makes no sense at all. It's the kind of ending that would have served better in a horror/ghost story setting, but sticks out like a gangrenous sore thumb in a science-fiction setting.
It's also the scene where we NEEDED to have some sort of emotional attachment to the protagonists in the film for it to work.
And to top it off, it completely contradicts everything the middle act has built up. Evil aliens? No, inter-galactic travellers who have come to... solve a year old cold case?
Like I said, it's very difficult to rate the film. It is fundamentally flawed in its story, contradicting itself in its last act. But has such good production values that it just seems a crying shame for it to have been wasted.
The thing is, I was at no time tempted to turn it off and say "to hell with this film." To an extent, I was captivated by it... flaws and all. However, I suspect a large part of that attraction was really my curiosity to see just how far Strathie could stretch the Spielberg-isms.
I have to say, while the alien we do get to see is only on screen for a mere few seconds, it is amazingly well-done and quite gasp-worthy. It bears a certain family resemblance to the "angels" in the film Knowing.
My one wish is that Strathie learns from his mistakes (somehow, I doubt it, but one can hope...) and can eventually pull off a truly original film. He does seem to have the talent. He certainly has the sci-fi lexicon memorized (though he's going to have to stop cribbing from that lexicon and try saying things in his own words.)
I was surprised to learn that the cast and locations were entirely British. Bravo for that, it was surprisingly convincing as small-town America (even if some of the dialogue did reveal a certain lack of familiarity with American speech patterns.)
I know this review has been rather long, and some of you may even say it was pretentious. But I love movies, and I love sci-fi. I didn't feel right in just trashing this movie, that it merited an in-depth critique of both its good elements and its bad. I doubt the director will ever read this, but I'm cheering him on, in the hope that he lives up to his potential.
Pandora (2019)
Thought it might be promising
I was, at first, intrigued by the concept, though this was based only upon reading blurbs and seeing trailers and previews.
Then the first episode happened. There's an underlying mystery that has to be solved, and obviously it will drag on throughout at least the entire first season (most likely also to be its last season). Who is this Jax girl (played by an obviously too-old actress for the part) and who killed her parents and why?
The cast are all, well, to be charitable, not very good actors. The dialogue they are given is stilted and wooden, and they give it performances of the same caliber. A few pause to chew some scenery on the way, notably Raechelle Banno who plays the emancipated clone Atria.
After a few episodes you come to realize that this is turning into "Beverley Hills 90210 in Space" (actually, with very little time actually spent in space). There's lots of silly immature drama between the characters, and for a "space academy" the students spend considerably more time lounging around or drinking in a bar (appropriately called "The Black Hole") than actually studying.
Do not expect real sci-fi, like Trek, Expanse, or Galactica. This is basically a soap opera set in a barely sci-fi setting.
And I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that the blocking of the actors is of such a horrible quality that it defies description. An example: casually walking down a sidewalk and stopping to chat... but all the extras in the scene are in pairs, walking equidistantly (around 10ft ) behind the lead actors, and they ALL stop at the exact same moment as our leads. They all start to move again once the leads resume walking.
The show is full of this sort of amateurish blocking.
There have been some great sci-fi shows that never got to see a second season for whatever reason.
Pandora is one of those rare shows that really should not even have seen a first season.
EDIT
I have stuck by the series, watching every episode, to be able to say that my review was fair and was not based on simply one episode.
I have to say one important thing to any reading this: No, this series does NOT get better with each episode. As a matter of fact it goes against all possible logic and simply gets worse and worse. Just when you think it couldn't get worse, it goes and surprises you by diving deeper into "terrible amateurish TV" territory.
The acting gets more ridiculous.
The script gets more wooden and stilted.
The narrative gets more ludicrous.
And not one of the actors improves in any way, shape, or form.
Even the filming gets worse! What starts out looking like a low-budget show filmed on inexpensive cameras, eventually morphs into that horrible "soap opera effect" (motion interpolation). This really doesn't do the show any favours as it highlights the weaknesses in set and costume design.
All that said and done, two last episodes coming up, and I will have my final verdict (unlikely to suddenly change) on this abortion of a series.
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
A great monster movie (extremely minor spoiler).
Let's start with some simple ground rules:
1) if you don't like monster movies, do NOT go see this film. You won't like it. It's... a monster movie.
2) if you're looking for subtle drama, interpersonal relationships, depth and realism worthy of an Oscar, do NOT go see this movie. it's not that kind of film, it's a MONSTER MOVIE.
3) If you're a pretentious snob who only likes slow-burn foreign, subtitled films, well, I think you can fill in the rest of what I was going to write.
On to the review (I will attempt not to have any spoilers):
Despite what some others, who gave the film low ratings, wrote, the performances are solid all the way through. I would even say that they are better than Samuel L. Jackson's scene-chewing in Kong: Skull Island (gotta admit, however, that he was a great "villain" in that movie).
Storywise, this is very much like all the TOHO Gojira films, in the sense that the stories tend to be a bit convoluted. You go into a Godzilla movie expecting a certain degree of "cheese" in the whole affair. But the American versions don't quite go as far with it, which is a nice change of pace. They treat the material with a bit more respect than expected.
For those who complained about the paucity of Godzilla in the 2014 film (it actually had more Godzilla screen-time than the 1954 original version), well, this film makes up for it with LOTS of monster time on screen.
It also really helps that these are four of the most iconic monsters from this particular monsterverse.
Effects: Both a pro and a con for me. The effects were absolutely breathtaking for the most part. Yes, Mothra is absolutely awe-inspiring. Ghidora is amazingly well rendered. Godzilla is perfect. But for some odd reason, Rodan (by the way, always my favourite monster from the TOHO collection) is less convincing. I don't know what exactly it was about him, but he had that "man in a rubber suit" look despite being entirely CGI.
Another minor complain has to do with the way the monsters were filmed. Where the 2014 film succeeded like no other by really leaving us with a sense of the MASS of these monsters, In G:KotM there were too many parallel shots, scenes filmed from "monster head level" which had the disadvantage of drawing the viewer away from the scale of the monsters. You really had less of a sense of the massive sizes involved because you were too close to them, too removed from a human-scale point of view. At least, it felt this way to me. Not every scene, most were perfect, but a few, and unfortunately, most were in the climactic final battle sequence.
Very, very minor spoiler here: two major characters die (it's a monster movie, SOMEONE has to die, right?), and my only complaint is that not enough time was given to the audience to really ingest the impact of those two moments. Had the film tacked on an extra 10-15 minutes, and allowed us a bit more time to "feel", at least to me, it would have been better.
Bear McCreary's score to the film was fun, and included references to musical themes from a few of the original TOHO movies (Mothra's theme in particular, which has a very emotional impact). And of course, the original Godzilla theme which has tremendous impact and raises the excitement level. It's not as original a score as that for the 2014 film (which SHOULD have been one of the "Best Score" Oscar contenders), but I was very impressed that McCreary was able to pull off such a huge, symphonic, and EFFECTIVE score for the film.
I saw the film on an IMAX screen, no 3D. And I was blown away. It is definitely meant to be seen on a huge screen.
Somehow, I suspect that the 3D element is probably superfluous, so I would not say "you have to see it in 3D".
This is a fun film, a huge, loud, exciting film. And for fans of the original TOHO movies, it's loaded with winks and nods and allusions. There's even a major plot point from the 1954 Gojira that becomes an integral part of the action in this film.
It's beautifully shot, a BIT on the dark side (and those who complained that the film was too dark MAY have the 3D to blame for that), and the colour palette is a tiny bit too restricted for my taste, but well worth watching anyways, and eventually a definite addition to my Bluray collection.
Lily C.A.T. (1987)
Very much a rip off, only moderately bearable
As others have already pointed out, this Japanese animated film is very much a rip off of "Alien" and "Aliens", from the mixed bag of characters (more on that later) to the visual look of just about everything inside the spaceship.
The monster itself is a blatant rip from John Carpenter's "The Thing". There were also elements of "Leviathan" (already in itself a B-movie).
I watched this on Amazon, and considering their propensity for The Asylum films, I was already going in expecting this to be an average flick. With nothing better to do this winter afternoon, I sat down to watch it (it's quite short, barely longer than an hour).
The mixed bag of characters is a trope of the genre, but in this particular case the writing of those characters was blatantly amateurish. As has been said elsewhere in the reviews for this flick, the characters are annoying and constantly bickering over silly little things. There's a monster on board the spaceship, and yet they can only whine about being interrogated regarding a non-existent crime (one of the "twists" of the story).
Two characters are barely disguised rip offs of Brett and Parker in the original "Alien" film, one belongs in a Saturday morning cartoon with a great dane, two girls, and a guy in an ascot... damned meddling kids!
The rest barely get enough speaking lines for the viewer to develop any sort of appreciation for the characters.
Visually (despite being a cartoon) the entire look of the film was ripped directly from "Alien". The costumes, however, were pure Japanese Saturday morning cartoon, with girls in silly and absolutely not practical outfits, and the guys in "cool" outfits that belong more on "bad boys" from high school than space explorers.
There's one major plot hole in the story (like REALLY major): the bacterium/virus/entity is airborne, meaning everyone on the ship is infected... the captain even dies from it quite suddenly during the obligatory self-sacrifice scene at the end. And yet, the survivors fly down to the planet's surface, supposedly safe. So they weren't infected, like everyone else on the ship? Or are they just idiots dragging a hostile foreign contagion into a pristine eco-system?
There's no real explanation as to why the c.a.t. apparently deliberately infects the crew members, other than a cursory "the crew are expendable" throw-away line at one point. All that was missing to make the rip off perfect would have been for someone to say that "the company planned on using it for their bio-weapons department".
I can tolerate some bad writing, or the occasional clichés and nods of the hat to other films. But the quality (or lack thereof) in this film made it very difficult to tolerate.
I don't understand how anyone can give this film a rating much higher than a 5*, which even then seems terribly optimistic.
Collider (2013)
Promising idea, but not well executed
The basic idea behind this film (series?.. I watched it in 4 "episodes" on Amazon) was intriguing, and the small budget didn't seem to hurt it too badly.
It was an interesting take on a time-travel story, with the characters merely shifting a few years into the future to discover a world on the brink of collapse.
However, and there's always a "however" to these reviews:
Technically, the film suffered from being almost constantly shot in darkness. To the extent that events occurred that were completely lost in the murk leaving the viewer to wonder what they missed.
The editing was also choppy, in a few spots creating what felt like holes in the story as we saw events switch back and forth too rapidly.
This last one is a pet peeve of mine , so please take it with a grain of salt: I REALLY dislike shaky-cam. There were far too many "running down corridors in pitch black using weak flashlights" scenes that were filmed as though the cinematographer was in the middle of an epileptic seizure.
The actors ranged from a bit better than "truly awful" to "not bad at all".
However (there's that word again) the writing of the characters left more than a lot to be desired. There were too many idiots doing idiotic things for the group to have been "random" (which is implied from the start). Every single person in the group was deeply (some severely) flawed. These were not normal humans, they were caricatures. A film can get away with including one character like this, but making ALL of the characters have melodramatic backstories was pushing it. Especially for such a short film.
There are "monsters", which we never really get to see (see previous comments regarding shaky-cam and choppy editing) nor are they ever really explained.
And a word of warning: there's no end, really. We don't quite know whether events are repaired at the end or not.
I didn't regret watching it, but I am grateful for Amazon's "fast-forward 10 seconds" button, because some scenes were interminable and pointless.
Bird Box (2018)
It was "ok"
Count me among those who do not see what the hoopla is about this film.
It's an ok thriller, with some stunts, no special effects, and a few good acting performances..
It has a few shocking moments, but it also lasts 2 hours which is, in my opinion, for longer than the story could support.
A word of warning: do not go into this film expecting answers to anything. It's all "left to the viewer's imagination" (the bad author's get-out-of-jail-free card that gets used and abused far too often).
You'll never know what the actual threat is, nor where it came from, and the ending of the film is a bit of a let-down.
Supercollider (2013)
Dreadful film.. but then, you weren't expecting a masterpiece
This film, Supercollider.. there's just no other way to say it: it's terrible. The strange thing is, it's no worse than most Sy-Fy channel flicks, or the bevy of Asylum mockbusters.
What really sets this film apart from the others is an absolutely painful-to-watch "performance" by the awful-as-usual Robin Dunne. His idea of acting is to stand slack-jawed and hope no one notices he has absolutely no expression. And yes, the "slack jaw" comment is for real. Dunne stands there with his mouth hanging open as though this were a valid acting technique. Of course, his "acting" here is no different from his painful presence on Sanctuary.
The story is cheesy, which is OK. Films that are so-bad-they're-fun can be enjoyable. The effects are typical low-calibre TV fair SFX. So no surprise there. And even the basic premise of the film (based, as for all of this type of film, on very, very poor understanding of science) is quasi-original. I was expecting a typical "evil/stupid scientists inadvertently cause the imminent end of the world" scenario, where the hero gallantly saves the world through a series of increasingly implausible acts of heroism.
No. This was actually sort of interesting, with a twist about parallel universes thrown at you right from the start. So points for taking a rather original direction with this script.
But Dunne... /shakes head. The points we generously gave for script? Yeah, 10 points deducted from Gryffindor for having Robin Dunne on their Quidditch team.
There is simply no way to really describe how painful it is to watch him struggle through this film. The other actors aren't really much better. No, I take that back. The other actors are far better than he, since they at least live up to Sy-Fy/The Asylum standards (not that this film was produced by either of those entities).
I can't recommend this film in any way. If it's on TV and you don't have an appointment for a root canal, then take a gander, try it. See if you can get past the first hour. I actually made it through 90 minutes (after having taken a 20 minute break to do some laundry).
You might think it unfair of me to lambaste a film despite not having seen the entire thing. Except Robin Dunne's "performance" fits into the category "cruel and unusual punishment".
Battle: Los Angeles (2011)
Imminently forgettable... unless you're thinking of enlisting.
Battle: Los Angeles is just a big fluff piece. It has forgettable characters, forgettable action sequences, a forgettable story.
Characters: All the characters are clichés (not "archetypes", as one sadly misguided reviewer described them). They are "dime-a-dozen" clichés on top of that, seen in every other action film whether war movie or straight-up action flick: the grizzled, tired "sarg" on the verge of retirement; the freshly-graduated, straight out of the academy lieutenant who you KNOW will freeze or fall to pieces when the action gets hectic, and then be given his brief fleeting moment of redemption when he sacrifices himself to save the rest of the platoon; the tough female soldier caricature; the tender female civilian, obviously a potential love interest to SOMEONE in the platoon; the miscellaneous racially stereotypical grunts; and last but not least, the "everyman" who will "save the day" and get himself killed (also thus creating the requisite melodrama of an extended death scene).
Action sequences: this film commits, in this reviewer's opinion, a cardinal sin by replacing careful framing and judicious camera angles with a cameraman in the midst of an epileptic seizure. It seems that film schools are churning out automatons who buy into the fallacy that "shaky cam" puts the audience "in the action". In reality, it puts the audience in a state of perpetual near-nausea. It also denies the director of photography the chance to demonstrate ANY skill whatsoever. Framing? Out the window. Composition? Out the window. All in favour of the false idea that this is somehow a "documentary-style" look.
Note to Hollywood: just because news reporters with hand-held cameras get shaky POV doesn't mean that an audience wants to see news footage. We pay to see what your 4 years of film school taught you.
On the subject of action sequences: honestly, while "2012" was a big, silly, over-the-top, roller-coaster of near-misses and improbable coincidences, at least, the action sequences WERE framed properly. The SFX in "2012" were hot. We actually got to see and appreciate the SFX.
Battle: Los Angeles does not give the audience the "pleasure" of seeing its SXF because its film-makers insisted on making every single scene that contained any sort of effects shot a "shaky cam" shot. In this reviewer's opinion, this is a cheap, and unforgivable, way of hiding shoddy SFX work. Complain all you want about the Strause brothers' "Skyline", at least we got to see the effects in their film.
The inevitable comparison pops up: "Skyline" vs "B:LA" (what a sad coincidence, that acronym). People hated the characters in "Skyline". Well, at least they FELT something about the characters. In "B:LA" you are presented with a smorgasbord of characters, and not one you can actually FEEL anything for. We're never given the chance to get past their heavy-handed caricature. It is as if the writers used their style sheets to write the film and forgot that the "character history" pages are meant as background, not as actual elements of the screenplay.
As to the story: it's easy. There is none. Explosions. Running. Smoke. "Go here". More explosions. Big boom. End credits. The film has no development whatsoever. Again, it is as if the "writers" (I use the term very loosely) took a snapshot of an idea. Of a concept. That just isn't satisfying for a near 2-hour film. We need to know that something has developed, that something has been learned, that something from start to finish has changed. We get nothing of that in B:LA.
OK, I've ragged on this film quite a bit. The thing is, it's OK fluff if nothing else is on. I'd call this one a rental if you have a big screen. But now I regret seeing this instead of some of the alternatives that were offered us at the same cinema that evening.
Primeval (2007)
Dreadful series
I was hoping against all odds that this series would be at least amusing, if not "good". Sadly, it is the stupidest thing I've ever seen since "Land of the Lost". Come to think of it, it's pretty much on par with that old cheese fest.
The characters in Primeval are all ridiculous caricatures. They react like complete morons to just about every situation they face. They hesitate - not a few seconds, minutes! - when faced with spur of the moment life and death decisions.
For example, today's episode, Connor wants to use a new experimental device against an anomaly. They have no time, it's not ready, so he leaves it behind. Great, fine, understandable. Except, they return from this "false alarm" outing, but does Connor at least get to work finishing this device? No! he instead mopes around because Abby is meeting some unknown guy.
And of course, what happens next? There is an emergency call for another anomaly... and what does Connor do? "Wait, I can finish it, give me 5 minutes".... you don't HAVE 5 minutes you idiot! Which of course means they are late to the anomaly and a bunch of civilians have found it. Meanwhile, where is the rest of their team? Stuck in "traffic". Uhuh, yeah.
This show is just absolutely idiotic situation after idiotic situation, and the main characters spend all their time delaying and hemming and hawing when they should be RUNNING!!! not slowly trotting to their next destination. They are out to "save the world" from these deadly anomalies, yet never have the good sense to actually get their butts in gear! This is the absolutely worst writing I've seen in a long time for a sci-fi series. Space 1999 was Shakespeare compared to this.
Alone in the Dark II (2008)
incredibly poor film-making
Now THIS film should be tossed onto the dung heap of "worst films ever made". The anti Uwe Boll brigade obviously want to rub it in by giving this film a higher rating than its predecessor. Why the first AitD gets such a poor rating, while this one gets almost double is completely beyond me. In this film the story makes absolutely no sense. The actors are dreadful. The script is just god awful. The SFX are practically non-existent. I was amused when I saw that Lance Henrikson was in this film... he has this tendency to be in just about every bad movie ever made (he's managed to be in three good/great films so far - Aliens; Powder; Close Encounters of the Third Kind). So seeing his name is sort of a warning bell to me. Now, I actually BOUGHT this DVD after reading so many positive things about it, about how it was far superior to the first AitD, how the effects were so much better, the script, the acting... well, I want my money back. I'm thinking of sending a bill to everyone who posted on IMDb about this film. All that to say: rent it if it's at the video club. Buy it if you ABSOLUTELY must have everything that Lance Henrikson ever played in. Skip it if you really, really thought the first film was "bad"... because honey, this one ain't any better, it's FAR worse.
Alone in the Dark (2005)
Not as bad as far too many posters are making it out to be
My rating of 7/10 is relative. I've seen my fair share of truly dreadful films... this wasn't one of them.
First off, its qualities: the film has an interesting look; the beasties are cool (although we don't see them quite enough for my greedy taste); the acting is passable although there IS a bit of scenery chewing going on; the camera work is also passable; the action sequences are OK; the SFX are competent.
It's faults: the ending is a bit muddled and inconsistent with the storyline up to that point; some of the cheap means of achieving "tension" are just too clichéd (the squad sent in for the final battle have a single generator vital to all of their equipment? and only one incompetent nub to set it up? and it's no more protected than my neighbour's hydrangeas?).
I suspect that a lot of the bad-mouthing this film is getting is purely anti Uwe Boll rants. Most of what I've read about this film, the negative stuff that is, is often so completely over the top ("the absolute worst film ever made") that it becomes completely unbelievable.
As for my rating of 7/10, well, I rate it on a scale of 1 to 10 as a horror/sci-fi flick. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of far inferior films in this category. And to me, a 10/10 sci-fi horror flick isn't quite the same as a 10/10 drama. I have considerably laxer requirements for the genre.
V (2009)
excellent sections hampered by very poor ones
This series COULD be pretty good. Now that's a "pretty good" for a sci-fi series, we should understand. Generally, we are a tad more forgiving of sci-fi series, few of us expect them to be Emmy nominees.
The problem with "V" is that it has a few astoundingly well-written parts scattered here and there, amongst some truly cringe-inducing bad parts.
The bad parts are, well, all those annoying moments where characters act in a manner that is just unnatural and disturbing. When a character's actions take you out of the story, when those actions appear to be thrown in only to solve some dilemma the writers had ("oh, how do we motivate this character to do that").
The journalist, Chad Decker, is one of those characters: so poorly written, so two-dimensional, that one cringes and hopes for a commercial break every time he appears on screen. We are to believe that a journalist, a professional newsman, is so easily hoodwinked by the Visitors, that he would knowingly betray his own kind? While it advances the story, and does get a sort of turn-around in the final episode of the 1st season, it is so unbelievable that it breaks the viewer's ability to suspend disbelief - surely a necessary quality for any sci-fi series.
Likewise, the character of Ryan Nichols - throughout the season, so adamant about the evil intentions of his brethren - suddenly becomes naive and gullible in the final episode, falling stupidly into a trap. Yes we see that there is a set-up for next season regarding this character ("oh, is he or isn't he back within the V-fold?"), but the cheap and easy way it was written just makes it convenient for the series' writers rather than fulfilling for the audience.
On the other hand - and I can't just write bad things about this series! - Anna is a captivating character, as is her relationship with her daughter Lisa. The moment in the final episode where Anna suddenly suffers the wracking pain of her first human emotions is quite shocking. And Morena Baccarin makes the most deliciously lovable villain.
One can only hope that the second season will see the writers stop using these cheap and easy ways out to advance their story, and give us true twists and turns, and use some of these great actors to full advantage.
Orphan (2009)
Good idea, (some) good acting, poor execution
I went into this film really wanting to love it. And I can honestly say that certain aspects of it I DID love.
First the good: The basic premise is interesting. Captivating, actually. And the "twist" ending certainly comes as a surprise, thanks in large part to an absolutely stunning performance by the titular child actress. She pulls of a VERY creepy blend of smothered maturity with a sort of innocence.
Most of the acting is more than passable, particularly on the part of the other children in the film.
Where the problems come in is with motivation and plot depth. The writers felt the need to include a "troubled relationship" as the basis for this particular family unit. However, they went overboard and in the end created a completely dysfunctional relationship between the parents.
Where this creates a serious problem is with the supposed adoption. This couple should, and would, have been refused as potential candidates for adoption. The previously lost child, the alcoholism issues in the past, and infidelity, were all serious stumbling blocks to this end.
The writers also felt the need to write the father character as a total jerk... hey, let's not mince words. What happens in the end, well, I almost felt it was well-deserved.
Another problem with the characterizations is that these two adults were so obviously NOT ideal parent material. How many parents could look their child in the eyes and say "are you sure that no one did anything bad to you?" and NOT recognize the look of sheer terror in that child's face?
There are people who WILL be very queasy and uncomfortable towards the end of this film. There is definitely material there that makes you question the sexualization of children in our society.
So a 6 out of 10.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Far from "the best" film I've ever seen
I finally got to watch both parts of Kill Bill last night (yes, I know I'm late).
I have to say that, while it wasn't "the worst movie I've ever seen" (WAY too many people use that idiotic description), it was probably the most self-indulgent and pretentious film I've seen in many a long year of watching MANY movies.
The entire film could, and should, have been edited down to a single 2-hour film. The "hommage" to Asian martial arts films was amusing for a few minutes, but then Quentin proved his usual inept self and slathered the whole thing in Sergio Leone-style spaghetti western music.
I did find parts of the film(s)amusing, but over all it was just too much of the same thing, over and over.
I don't see this film as groundbreaking in any way. It is simply repeating clichés from bad films, and having the incredible pretense to imply that somehow, it is "good".
Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys (2004)
Yes, it IS one of the worst films ever made
How this sort of film ever gets made is completely beyond me. I wouldn't have minded it too much had it actually BEEN a comedy, except everything that made this film farcical was due to dreadful acting (there was much eating of scenery that fateful Christmas morn'), abysmal editing (the pit of hell as seen in this film could not have been any deeper than the depths of depravity required to edit this film so poorly), and absolutely laughable dialogues (no, not laughable "haha", this was PAINFULLY laughable). I really hate trashing a flick, especially one that was so obviously made on a (severely threadbare) shoestring budget. The puppets were great! Don't get me wrong, despite their gruesome appearance, they actually are quite likable characters. Sadly, the director and writer preferred giving that hack Corey Feldman lines! The secondary roles (as if Feldman's scenery chewing stint weren't "secondary" enough) were better, though the material they were given was so dreadful, it wasn't like they had a snowball's chance in hell. Vanessa Angel was over-the-top in her villainy, and would have been quite funny in a comedy setting. All I could think, while watching this film, was that Nikolai Sotirov, as Julian - the hapless assistant to Angel's evil toy-company mogul, got away easy when his eyes were popped out of his head by the evil jack-in-the-box demon. Oh, were we - the helpless audience - only so lucky.
Whatever you do, watch this film at your own peril. THIS is truly dreadful film making.
Maximum Surge (2003)
beyond "not a good movie"
I always take the "this is the worst movie ever made" critiques on IMDb with a massive grain of salt... after all, there are threads stating that "War of the Worlds" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" deserve that moniker. Needless to say, this film most heartily deserves the title of "One of the absolute worst films ever made". If it had been done in fun, with a light touch, as a comedic film, for kids, it MIGHT, just might have been forgivable. This film plods along, taking itself deathly seriously with some of the most dreadful acting I have ever witnessed (and yes, I've watched tons of Hammer films, and even Ed Wood films!). Just take everyone's advice, and steer clear of this stinker.
The Rendering (2002)
Very badly-made TV movie
When I saw this was a Canadian production, I so wanted to enjoy it. I actually really like Shannon Doherty, and her performance was quite acceptable for a made-for-TV movie.
However, this film is so chock-full of inconsistencies and impossibilities, that it makes one wonder how the writers were actually capable of getting jobs in the first place.
It would be pointless to enumerate the countless errors in the plot and character development. Suffice to say that the writers know nothing about the judicial system, neither in Canada nor the US (come on, awaiting trial yet placed in the general population of a prison with all the hardened criminals?).
The police are incredibly incompetent, as they can only be in badly-made TV shows.
The main character (Doherty) at no point confides in either her husband's lawyer, nor her long-time friend the police officer, and this before any of the "don't talk to anyone, or else..." aspect of the plot gets going.
And only in this sort of movie do women go, unarmed and alone, into dangerous situations to face possible serial killer/rapists.
Suffice to say, even on a boring week-night, with nothing on the boob-tube, avoid this stinker of a rental. I'd even go so far as to say, avoid it if it comes on free-TV.
The Zombie Diaries (2006)
Absolutely dreadful.. and that's not an exaggeration.
I saw this film this evening, and I am in shock. I am very well-known for "liking everything". Hell, I loved the remake of War of the Worlds, and am a complete fan of everything M. Knight Shyamalan, if that gives you any idea.
But this film was SO bad, all I can say is: keep any and all sharp objects safely out of reach while watching this movie... because trust me, you will definitely want to slash your wrists before its painful 80 minutes are up. Honestly, the entire film should be part of the "deleted scenes" extras on the DVD!
Dreadful acting, a completely pointless story, with a thoroughly disgusting Saw/Hostel-like sub-plot, and the ever-so-popular "Blair Zombie Project" hysterical epileptic camera.
The only spoiler I will give you regarding the story is the following: in the end, the zombies all die of starvation... because there isn't one single person in the film with a brain worth eating.
This film deserves a lower rating than IMDb allows.
The Room (2006)
Abysmal film-making at its worst
This film is just dreadful. Ther are no words to describe just HOW dreadful it is. oh wait! Yes there are! Whever you read people's comments on IMDb about some film being "the worst film ever made", well, they have obviously never had an hour and a half from their life stolen by sitting through this piece of drek.
From uselessly "atmospheric" scenes that are prolonged far past their usefulness to any sort of story-telling, to characters that are themselves far beyond "cartoons" (amusingly alluded to in the brief television excerpts from those insane bunny rabbits doing "The Shining in 30 seconds").
There are painfully stretched out scenes of slowly walking down a poorly lit corridor (and I mean BAD lighting, not simply "dark", but truly, painfully BAD use of lighting technique), where the only thing that you can think is "at this rate the film will last a week before everyone in the film gets killed off!" The acting is bland and amateurish, with the single exception of Philippe Résimont, who chews scenery with an enthusiasm that I have only seen rivaled in the very worst of community theatre. Every scene in which we have the displeasure of seeing him looks like a drunken brother-in-law at a pool party doing his best imitation of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining". And we're talking about that brother-in-law we all have who couldn't act his way out of a soggy paper bag.
I know, my review is a bit "over the top", but I'm just one of those people who NEVER hates a movie. So I'm rather shocked at the extent this film brought up feelings of revulsion and disgust.
That someone put up perfectly good money to pay for this garbage revolts me.
That I now have to go back and re-adjust all of my former votes on IMDb to bring them up a notch, to leave SOME room for how low I want to rate this film.
This film is NOT full of "cool imagery" nor atmosphere, nor is it by ANY stretch of the imagination "original". It's pure garbage. Don't waste your time.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
An excellent "adaptation", but lacks the real heart of the original
I went into this film with great trepidation. I know this musical like the back of my hand. So it took me a few weeks to get into the right mind-set, telling myself over and over "this is an adaptation, not the original".
And I NEEDED it. The changes that Burton has brought to the play are significant, and the performances are enthusiastic but definitely weak on the musical side.
The choice of Johnny Depp as Todd was, while interesting and at least partially understandable as one of Burton's little "fetish casting" tricks, not the wisest choice. He pulled of a good dramatic performance. With one small problem: Sweeney Todd is not a stage play, it's a musical. his voice is weak, it lacks everything essential to a good Sweeney. Not withstanding my complaint on this issue, he STILL pulled off quite a coup when one considers the fact that he is not a trained singer in the slightest.
Helena Bonham Carter had the same problem as Mr. Depp. While the role of Mrs. Lovett is not quite as demanding vocally as that of Todd, Bonham Carter's wispy voice just did not suit what musical meat there was.
The rest of the cast suffered the same fate. Voices lacking in dramatic power trying desperately to put the weight where it was needed and failing.
The one issue which I think is unforgivable, however, was Burton's insistence on removing the chorus numbers. He explains it in a logical fashion, but fails to understand that the chorus in Sweeney Todd is not just the artificial "let's make the crowd sing" that is so prevalent in musicals. That chorus is an integral PART of the story-telling, and a dramatic person.
"God That's Good!" loses all of its charm and satire when the only people singing are Lovett and Toby (here the part is played by an actual child, in my opinion, the only truly wonderful casting in the whole film).
And the opening credits music, basically the bare skeleton of "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd", just sounds like the orchestra practicing before the singers show up. Without the actual MELODIES the music means nothing! So Burton missed the boat completely on that issue.
Where he again missed the boat was with the cuts. I think that there have been enough 3-hour films that have been monstrous box-office successes that any justification he might come up with for shortening the play so dramatically (under 2 hours) are just so much hot air on Mr. Burton's part.
The over-all tone of the film is dark, which is fine, but some of the humorous lines come across as simply bad writing when they are delivered in the pasty-faced deadpan that Burton obliged his actors to use. "Worst Pies in London" is a confused mish-mash of imagery that is completely incomprehensible when delivered in this fashion. Particularly when the two leads suddenly burst into misplaced laughter.
Sweeney Todd is a masterpiece... the musical, not the film. It deserved to be treated as such. I hope in future Tim Burton stays away from the musical genre which he obviously neither appreciates nor understands.
28 Weeks Later (2007)
This is a dreadful film, and the reasons why are...
28 Weeks Later has to be the most disappointing sequel I've ever seen. This review will contain spoilers, however, it's nothing that the filmmakers themselves haven't spoiled to start with. Let's start with the most fundamental element of film-making: camera work. 28 Weeks Later is one of those pretentious films with the epileptic, hand-held camera that seems so popular with filmmakers who have nothing to actually say or show in their films. There are precious few scenes where the camera isn't both hand-held and in constant frenetic motion. It brings nothing to the film, creates no tension, and brings nothing new to the art of film-making. There are lengthy scenes that compound the camera work problem by also being filmed in simulated night vision. For those of you with a propensity to headaches or vision problems, this alone makes 28 Weeks Later a film to avoid.
On to the story. This is, sadly, one of those films where stupid people do stupid things as the only means the filmmakers could think of to advance a pointless story. **spoilers start** These two kids have just arrived in the "secure zone" and yet are able to sneak out, past heavily armed guards, pas various security measures, and run off into an area they have been repeatedly told is not safe. Armed guards surround the city. Soldiers are everywhere. Everyone has a machine-gun, a pistol, night vision goggles
and yet, the discovery of an infected person, brought into the "secure zone", and absolutely NO precautions are taken? There are no extra guards; there are no extra security measures. To make matters even more "logical", it seems that all the soldiers in the area where this infected person is being kept are all either idiots, unarmed, or conscientious objectors. There is not one useful weapon to be found when it would be most useful. A soldier with a helicopter wants to rescue his buddy, yet the only thing he can think to do is have them crawl throughout the city to a distant spot to pick them up? Are there absolutely NO areas closer? This is just a completely useless gimmick to have the heroes of the story trek across town. I could go on listing plot holes large enough to float the entire U.K through, but I trust my warning will be enough to ward off those who are on the fence about seeing this film or not. Somehow, the kids' father has survived all the way through these events, despite all logic. Like the lone zombie in Day of the Dead who has learned to use a gun and appears to have regained some of his sentience, here we have an infected who defies all logic, including the internal logic of 28 Days Later, to follow his children and pop up at convenient moments for cheap scares and bad melodramatic moments. The filmmakers have created situations that defy logic and normalcy to advance a completely pointless story. Characters perform actions that defy logic. Events happen that defy logic. There is blood everywhere, yet no one seems worried about infection. And I can assure you, if blood is what you feel like seeing, this movie's carnage is on the heavy side. I'm not squeamish, and I actually enjoy a good gory film every once in a while. The problem with 28 Weeks Later is not the gore. It's the pointlessness of it all.
I've seen some really bad films in my day. I've actually enjoyed some of those bad films. The problem with 28 Weeks Later is that it WANTS to be a great film. It WANTS to be a big budget gore-fest. With completely unsympathetic characters, it fails to create any bond with the audience. Even if the epileptic camera work gave us an instant of respite to actually relate to those characters. We are kept at a distance by terrible plot devices, terrible character development, and completely silly events.
Sur le seuil (2003)
Just not worth anyone's time nor money
This is a dreadful, derivative, shlocky pseudo-thriller, It's very poorly filmed, pretty poorly acted (although Jean L'Italien's performance really is captivating... he's probably the only actor worth watching in the film). The script is amateurish in its best moments, and I'll leave the adjectives to describe its worst moments to your vivid imaginations ... since this film maker obviously had none (imagination, that is). I guess we can't lay all the blame on Mr. Tessier, since he did adapt a novel by Québecois author Patrick Senécal. Mr. Senécal is certainly no Stephen King, despite some glaring similarities. As for the actual film-making, the camera work is shoddy, notably in an insert news report (has Mr. Tessier ever actually watched a newscast on television? his farcically inept news crew in the film is as far from reality as could be. I guess he either heartily detests Québecois news media, or just doesn't have a very high opinion of their television techniques). The actors' accents in the flashback sequences are all over the place, making his little group of priests sound more like a gang of street thugs than 1950's parish priests. And the end was being telegraphed almost from the opening sequence of the film. This really leaves very little expectation for any horror aficionados sitting through this dreadful piece of tripe. Why do Québecois film makers think that making a "Hollywood-style" film means selling out, and that to be "true to their heritage" they have to resort to amateur film-making at its worst? Well, after all this... watch à vos risques et périls.
Warriors of Terra (2006)
An OK rental if you're desperate for a horror fix
sadly, the movie starts out OK, with an "original" idea for the monster/creature. They don't flesh it out enough, most of the characters are pretty skimpy as well. The dialogues are OK, nothing to write home to Mom about, but I've heard some incredibly awful dialogue in huge budget films, so....
The SFX, what little there are, are OK as well.
I like what they did with what little they had. It doesn't LOOK as low budget as it really is. Which is a pleasant surprise over-all.
I think what bothered me most about this film was the cheap ending. I know it's all pretty much been done before, and probably better, but it's as if writers of horror movies just aren't even trying.
Oh, and one peeve, at least as far as this film is concerned, is the annoying fade to black effect they use during the creature appearances. It works at the beginning because it's "fresh", but by the end of the film, particularly in the "climactic battle" it's happening every 3 seconds and REALLY gets annoying.
***mildly spoiler-ish*** SPEAKING of which... when guns won't do diddly squat, WHY would a size 6 Reebok suddenly have more effect? Come on, writers, force yourselves! I just dislike endings that rely on an inconsistency to close the story loop.
So! All in all, an OK rental for a dull Friday evening (I'd still rather be out having a beer), but I certainly wouldn't pay more than the cost of a rental for this film.
Within (2005)
How much worse can a movie get?
Well, probably not much! This is about as good an example of "what not to do when making a movie" as you can find. This film is probably almost 75% pure black. In other words, 3/4 of the film is just black screen, no image, nothing. The other quarter of the film is just dreadful cheaply filtered exterior scenes, and nausea inducing flashlight shining right into the camera as the protagonists of the film blindly flail and run screaming around in the darkness of the "oooo, sooooo scary cave!".
It's difficult to say what exactly the director was trying to hide with the dreadful camera work: was it the sub-par acting? the limited set? the cheap costumes and props? More than likely, it was simply the quasi non-existent story.
A serious word of warning: this film is replete with shaky (apoplectic is more like it) camera movements and hysterical strobe lighting (the characters' "flashlights" are to blame). If Blair Witch caused you any discomfort then this film is a definite no-no.
As to the "twist" ending, it's about as shocking as an episode of The Flintstones.
I LOVE bad movies. I'm a massive Godzilla fan (the cheezy 60's ones). I'm one of the few who appear to have loved Alien 3. I love trash like "Attack of the Sabertooth" and "Centipede". Hell, I'm a "bad movie junky". However, this film is just beyond the pale. This is film making - and I use the term VERY loosely - at its absolute worst.
If you're fortunate enough to check this review before renting this flick, then please, do yourself a favour - skip it.
If, unfortunately, you've already rented it and are checking to see what other people thought before you start watching, then requiescant in pacem.
If you want an idea of what this film is like, watch the trailer... then realize that the trailer contains just about every single scene that ISN'T pitch black and frenetic.
Brocéliande (2003)
Dreadful, dreadful, dreadful
Yes, absolutely dreadful, And this coming from someone who loves bad movies - but there's a limit. I enjoy all sorts of horror/suspense films, and have seen some wonderful work from European film makers. Broceliande is sadly not among those those wonderful pieces of film-making. The camera work is worse than amateurish. Not the fashionable, shaky MTV "cameraman needs Ritalin" type of camera work so many film-makers use to camouflage their lack of talent. This is simply bad frame composition and terrible image composition. The acting is farcical when it is not entirely two-dimensional. The dialogues are stilted and unnatural - even more so than your usual run-of-the-mill horror/suspense film delving into pseudo-mysticism. I think that what put me off the most was the horribly choreographed fight scenes at the end of the film. These were bad to the point of being ludicrous. I've seen what a small budget can do, and it can do wonders. This was just bad film-making. Very, very sad.