Deimos-remus Reviews

American Pie Presents: Girls' Rules (2020 Video)

Watch Booksmart instead

[1/10 · 9 October 2020]

So, movie night with the buds has led us on a trek through the American Pie saga, which for now, has come to an end. I can't say any of them are necessarily good, but there's been a couple standouts. However, the last three spinoffs are some of the worst movies I've ever seen, and this one follows suit.

I don't understand how American Pie, which, let's face it, is a very dated formula for a comedy film nowadays, is still going on. They can be blatantly misogynistic at worst, mildly amusing at best. That's when we're faced with Girls' Rules, which "tries" (and I mean that in the loosest sense) to subvert the series traditions by resorting to the oft-ridiculed idea of the "all-female reboot". That's not where the problem lies. The problem is that beyond being a whole lot of nothing, unfunny garbage and not veering enough away from the series' formula, the characters actively agitated me as much as the ones found in Naked Mile and Beta House-- they're terrible people, but the movie never acknowledges this fact and they still end up getting what they want, despite being parasites. Piper Curda's plot-thread was especially... gross and manipulative-- her boyfriend breaks up with her (he's never presented as some jerk or anything, so it seems valid on his part), so she pressures him into constant casual sex to get him to...change his mind? But, it's all fine because they get back together in the end. Silly me. Then, in a rather cynical move, it "tries" to go for a Booksmart vibe, by attempting to be thoughtful and charming, but of course it doesn't work. Just watch Booksmart instead.

It was clearly written and directed by men who probably have a thing for high-school age girls, and miserably failing at making something even remotely feministic.

I've spent maybe 5 minutes writing this, and that's already too much time I've devoted to it.

Loqueesha (2019)

An embarrassing vanity project of the worst variety

[1/10 · 21 August 2019]

Making this film in this era is just about the worst idea a comedian could've come up with- I don't understand how this was released, let alone funded. This is the most nauseating vanity project I've ever watched; a comedian, in his self-professed infinite charm, wit and wisdom gets on his soapbox to school the rest of us about The Issues™

The twist? He's vocally masquerading as Sassy Black Lady™ (basically an inarguably offensive modern day equivalent to minstrel shows and blackface) because according to him, minorities and women are completely phasing white men out of the entertainment industry, or more specifically, radio. (as if talk-radio isn't already dominated by male conservatives- something they always seem to conveniently ignore in this discussion). But at the end of the day, It's also just writer-director-editor lead Jeremy Saville lampshading ("hey, as long as I address that the premise is totally racist at some point, I'll move on and it'll be forgiven, right?") it's completely awful- I mean, at one point, bartender Joe (Saville) claims to be a better black woman than a real one. I get that this in jest, but seriously?

It's almost kind of fascinating. On one hand, there's *maybe* a shred of Saville having innocent (yet very very misguided) intentions in making this, but on the other, it's such a clear vanity project about the guy playing himself so he can have a platform to vent about society's problems (or more specifically, the problems that comedians have run into in this modern "PC culture"). With all the lampshading Saville does, it's hard to not see him guilty of the racism he's supposedly denouncing.

Beyond all this, if you weren't offput by its reprehensible premise, the film is technically dull, has very poor production value, and there's absolutely no style or flavor to how it's filmed, acted, shot or edited. It's no doubt, an amateurish production through and through. As a whole, it's just flat-out embarrassing and shameful.

Watership Down (2018)

New adaptation is devoid of both style and heart

[3/10 · 2 January 2019]

Initially, based on the recent reveal of the new Watership Down, a lot of people were getting upset at the perception that it was trying to 'politicize' and 'modernize' the story by adding more non-canonical female characters, but honestly its biggest flaw is just how downright dull it all is. It adapts the story closer to how I thought it would (though the changes it makes ARE baffling), but it's stylistically bankrupt, gray and lifeless.

Rabbits are indistinct from one another, vocally and visually. The attempt to anthropomorphize their behavior further (as opposed to the book making animal behavior relatable on its own) felt like a shoehorned attempt to make it more humanized, as if these characters could not be sympathized with otherwise, something the 1978 animated film does quite well; the rabbits look and act like rabbits...in this, they don't convince. The choice to try and make the story seem more like an epic (this is directed by the same guy that brought us the forgettable 300 sequel after all) was a very misguided and egregious misunderstanding of the original material as well. This all culminates in attempts at unearned sympathy for characters that I couldn't care less about (despite being very familiar with the book on which it is based) as it never gives any of them the proper amount of attention or care.

How the 1978 film manages to be animated more naturalistically and convincingly, despite the era's limitations (and being done by a very small, but dedicated independent studio), is incredible to me. Perhaps all the budget went to the star-studded voice cast (and the Sam Smith credit music) but the voices didn't add much merit to an already rather bloated adaptation. It's a strange thing that it was likely expensively produced, but undeniably rushed, making it look and feel terribly cheap; I was having flashbacks to the awkwardness of Disney's 2000 flop, Dinosaur, and other stiffly-moving animation from that era.

I wasn't expecting much out of this new series, but I was honestly surprised at how incompetently it all was.

Goodnight, Sugar Babe: The Killing of Vera Jo Reigle (2013)

Amateurishness gets in the way of helping the case

[3/10 · 2 May 2018]

True crime documentaries are fascinating to me, but there's a line that can be crossed when the documentary feels incredibly exploitative and clearly produced for shock value.

Centering on a murder within a family plagued by incest and violence, rather than focusing more on the victim and the hard facts of the crime, the documentary instead chooses to focus on "Sugar Babe" Cheri Brooks and the circumstances revolving around her and her sadistic pleasures. While these circumstances are related to the case at hand, the film chooses to highlight these in a reveling way and the shocking nature of it all as 'gross-out' entertainment; to put the spotlight on just how messed up of a family the victim belonged to.

While one can glean much sympathy for the victim of the crime regardless of the skill behind the filmmaking, the documentary's amateurish way of presenting the narrative felt, for lack of a better word, wrong, and its approach was frankly exploitative of mentally, socially and financially troubled individuals, many of which hadn't much relation to the events. A lack of professional commentary from other, more objective observers made it feel as though it was meant to be seen like some sort of twisted clown show.

In essence, knowing the power documentary filmmaking can have in real cases such as these, and potentially change unfavorable outcomes, the filmmakers are doing a disservice to the case by presenting such an amateur production that doesn't do the locals or commentators any favors by how they're presented. A lack of structure makes the case very hard to piece together and follow, and by sensationalizing the grosser details of the case, makes it come across as disingenuous and made for the wrong reasons.

A Field in England (2013)

Subversive and fresh

[10/10 · 19 September 2016]

Ben Wheatley is an enigmatic and ambiguous director, though understandably very polarizing because of such. By my experience, his films take several viewings to totally appreciate, but when that time comes, it's a treat.

Field in England expertly subverts expectations of a trippy and hallucinatory experience by being filmed in stark, gorgeous, black and white cinematography. It also subverts the expectations that come with a period war film by not focusing on warfare and adding eccentric anachronisms and startling stylistic sequences. The performers are all excellent in their roles, and the story does an incredible job of maintaining its strange and ancient-feeling British folkloric fairy-tale roots.

Certainly one of the most dazzlingly original and unique genre movies to be released in quite some time.

Blair Witch (2016)

Unoriginal and unnecessary followup

[2/10 · 18 September 2016]

Review may contain spoilers, but left it as spoiler-free as I could.

If there's one thing I can applaud about Adam Wingard's Blair Witch, it's that it's not boring (in fact, it was pretty hilarious), and had a scant few moments and ideas that I liked. However, I'm willing to say this is the worst film I've seen in theaters this year, without a doubt. The bar had been set very high mind you, but this felt like a parody... and even if it was a parody, it couldn't even be called a clever one in any sense of the word.

This film is an expository and situational retread of the original 1999 hit, without so much as an original bone in its body. The most notable difference is that this one opts for the modern sensibilities of being incredibly loud, fast and obnoxious, rather than being ambiguous and slow-burning. Everything this one does differently than the original is taken from another source, whether it be the gangly monsters popularized by REC or elements of body-horror that I've seen in countless other films, such as The Ruins. The constant use of cheap jump- scares, almost belched out at a rhythmic pace made for a very non-immersive and very predictable experience. Of course, it's also worth mentioning that Blair Witch, being yet another found footage film, falls into every single one of the sub-genre's pitfalls; an overuse of glitchy effects to cover up bad editing or sub-par visuals, the question as to why the characters are still filming at certain points, convenient cuts to another camera source to get a better shot of the action/character, taking the first 15 minutes of the film to remind you that it's found footage, complete with a walkthrough of all the allegedly hi-tech gear they'll use on their trip, etc. It didn't really add to the lore that the first film set up so well either, instead just having the characters spew out random factoids and tidbits from the original as an obvious way of tying the two stories together.

I feel as though this film was doomed no matter what it did though, if it was slow and deliberate like the original, it'd be panned for being too similar. It does follow the exact same formula as the first, but the things it does differently (ie; showing the physical Witch, jump- scares, loud sound design, etc) are things that the original excluded, but much to its advantage. When this film was just called 'The Woods' I was genuinely kinda excited, albeit cautiously optimistic for an original movie from Wingard, but as soon as it was revealed as another Blair Witch follow-up, I figured what we'd be getting into. Can't say I was surprised, and can't say I was disappointed because of it, but its blatant stupidity admittedly caught me off guard.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

First World Problems: The Movie

[1/10 · 13 July 2016]

First world problems of rich suburban kids: The Movie. Or basically, a feature-length episode of Degrassi.

This movie is filled with such whiny, pretentious, self-righteous, self-pity wallowing, predictable, teenage melodrama, that is so falsely attributed to be 'deep' and 'on point' that it's just plain hard to take seriously in any stretch of the word. It's also an enigma; it's a film that many teenagers pretend to identify with, even though its view of typical teenage American life is so hollow, vacuous and falsified...not to mention, very exploitative of real insecurities that teenagers feel, which are only used as superficial character 'defining' traits, never to be elaborated on, to gain audience sympathy. It also only touches on teenagers that live in wealthy suburban areas, making for a very narrow field of their target demographic to represent. It comes across as so insincere and manipulative that it's actually rather infuriating and insufferable.

Green Room (2015)

White Knuckle filmmaking at its best

[10/10 · 12 July 2016]

First off, want to say R.I.P Anton Yelchin. Such a tragedy for someone so young and promising to pass. He was incredible in this, I felt he was really coming into his own as an actor. --- After watching Saulnier's excellent and understated Blue Ruin, the director immediately became one to watch out for. A director that knows how to direct characters with subtlety and nuance, but with intensity and brutality as well.

Green Room is perhaps the most stressed out I've ever been watching a film, and if I'm not clear, that's actually a good thing. Few films ever get such a visceral reaction out of me, but Green Room managed to do that, and then some, delivering on many fronts as a contender for my favorite film of the year. Since the beginning of the year, A24 has been unstoppable, putting out some of the most unique and incredible genre movies to be released in quite some time.

Green Room is certainly violent and grim. Its sense of dread and brutality is unending and relentless, yet never overstays its welcome or becomes cartoonish or fetishistic. It could've very easily gone into Saw, Hostel or Martyrs territory, letting the bloodshed become the most memorable aspect of the experience, but it did something much more. Not only does the brutality feel real and impactful, unlike the aforementioned films, the characters feel totally believable and genuine, completely immersed in their roles. The protagonists are naive and brash, yet fresh and relatable delinquents. The antagonists are subdued, quiet and strategic, yet animalistic and complex. From a character standpoint, it is such a welcome and ultimately more human change of pace.

For a movie so steeped in violence, it's a very humanistic movie, filled with rich and complex characters that feel like they're apart of something completely real and also very intimate and small-scale. The story is not a black and white 'good vs evil' kind of thing, all characters have their own shortcomings and sympathetic sides, making for an incredibly dynamic cast. It's a debilitatingly horrifying film, yet done with the same amount of care and understatement as Blue Ruin. It's a white knuckle thrillfest, and one that pits a lump in your stomach from the intensity witnessed on screen.

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

High-hopes sequel that does not live up to its potential

[1/10 · 12 July 2016]

::This review may contain potential minor spoilers, but no blatant and major giveaways::

The first Conjuring was something of a very nice surprise for me. I'm not one to usually buy into major release Horror films, but heard so many good things about it from audiences and critics alike that I caved in. What I didn't expect was that it ended up being a very solid and very traditionally done ghost story, with effective character development and slow burn buildup. It had its moments of cheap jump-scares and gags here and there, but overall it was surprisingly effective.

Jump forward to the sequel, and there's problems from the start. To parrot its predecessor, the film opens with a previous case of the Warrens (this time the infamous Amityville haunting). Though the Annabelle sequence from the first film felt a bit contrived, it was still effective, it didn't run away with the 'cliche creepy doll' thing too much and the sequence was creepy, despite being relatively mundane. The Amityville sequence thrusts the viewer into a jump-scare filled climax right off the bat, leading the way for the inconsistently toned and paced remainder of the film. The immediate next gripe was setting the scene for London. Using the Clash's London Calling, along with kiddies calling each other that word that starts with 'W' and rhymes with Tanker (a word that apparently makes IMDb's prohibited word list) made the viewer very well aware that the film takes place in jolly old England. I don't think I could've come up with more painfully obvious and groan-worthy (not to mention cliché and distilled) references to English culture if I tried. Already, the movie was off to a bit of a rocky start, but I gave it a chance. I really did. So from here, I will point out some of the things the film did do right.

The performances are all handled well, and the kids are particularly strong in their roles. Wilson and Fermiga are once again, a believable on-screen couple. The strong eerie atmosphere from the first film is back and better than before, as the camera compositions and movements are much more dynamic and interesting. The entities in the Conjuring 2 are a bit of a mixed bag however. On one hand, the old man in the chair is appropriately subdued and fairly nuanced, but then you have a demonic nun, that while creepy enough, has a design that feels old and tried, and felt as though it was trying too hard. Lastly, you got the Crooked Man, which while rather cool looking I must admit, felt pretty out-of-place within the grounded reality the narrative set up thus far, contributing to the film's already inconsistent nature. For a dark horror movie, The Conjuring 2 also felt unnaturally sappy and saccharine. While some moments of levity among the scares and foreboding terror are more than welcome, much of the dialogue reeked of forced sentimentality and hammy cheese, ultimately taking me out of the horror of it all.

So, to recap, the Conjuring 2 is far from being a bad film. It outperforms its predecessor in some ways, but falls very low in others. Its tonal inconsistencies make for a very odd structure, yet one that is still rather predictable. It still looks very good, and delivers on some chilling moments, but isn't nearly as effective as the first in this ever-growing franchise.

The Pyramid (2014)

A total failure in every way

[1/10 · 3 March 2016]

I decided to seek out this movie after seeing "As Above so Below" (a film that admittedly isn't that great, but manages to pull of a good sense of atmosphere, despite its many shortcomings), hoping that I'd be at least treated to some interesting or surprisingly good visuals. I've known that I've exhausted my supply of what I constitute as successful films in the horror genre, so if there are any that even slightly peek my interest, I'll give them a shot.

This movie is just an absolute disaster. Not only as a horror film completely filled to the brim with the same trite clichés that have taken over the genre in recent years, but as a found- footage film as well. I'm not a fan of the sub-genre, as I feel it promotes laziness, bad cinematography and stories completely riddled with holes. That being said, the found- footage element of this movie is done so badly, that I have to take note of it. Found-footage dictates that a sequence of events presented in the film's narrative are to be 'unedited' or 'raw' but there are so many characters with access to cameras that it presents a large set of problems. There are so many moments where, as a viewer, you cannot tell who the hell is filming the action taking place, and there are even moments of idle cameras looking at ALL the characters, meaning no character within the story is operating said camera, taking the disbelief of the entire situation even further; an essential element that found-footage films try to preserve, the reality. At one point in the movie, perhaps a first within the found-footage sub-genre of horror, there was even the presence of a scored soundtrack, which had me in shock.

Other complaints were that the acting was below sub-par, the characters were all insufferably irritating and irrational (not to mention they had no presence whatsoever), the cgi monsters looked like total garbage and most importantly the story was just plain lazy, uninteresting and sloppy as all get out.

The horror genre is a very fluid and dynamic one, and as a genre, it has so much potential, but it's a shame that year after year, the film-makers within it always resort to putting out the same incredibly predictable, unoriginal and poorly-made trash. At least there are a few gems within the genre in recent years that give me some hope, showing that horror isn't now completely without merit, but they are far and few between.

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

The horror movie the masses don't deserve

[10/10 · 20 February 2016]

The Witch, much like films like Kubrick's The Shining or Polanski's Rosemary's Baby just makes the viewer feel uneasy and nerved right from the start. A slow-burning, subtle and reserved experience that lets you resonate with the characters and really experience the unraveling of their family unit. What really makes this film special is that there's so many things that it could've very easily done wrong, but handled every aspect with class, tact and respect. The term 'Scary' means something different for everybody, so deeming this film as "un-scary" does not mean a thing, I will say though that this film goes beyond just 'being scary', it's not that kind of film. It's much more unsettling and unnerving, getting under your skin rather than being overtly frightening or gory. Frights last a moment, but the ability to not only get under you skin, but linger there is a mark of a truly great horror film.

It's a story about losing faith, it's a story about guilt and how those things can tear a family apart. For those wanting a 'fire and brimstone' monster feature, you'll be sorely disappointed. This film is much more in the vein of masters like Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman with even a touch of Andrei Tarkovsky. It's amazingly and intimately well crafted and shot, scored, acted and researched. It takes its time to tell the characters' stories, but does so with a strange, otherworldly and totally supernatural feel. It's just as effective as an intense drama as it is a horror film. This is the kind of horror film that will be discussed for years to come, and only comes around once in a blue moon.

I don't want to give away anything in this review, but I will say this: For those that really enjoy the art of film, storytelling, character building and the craft in general, believe the hype. It's excellent.

But for those expecting a gory and fun, cartoonishly-satanist and jump-scare littered monster flick, stay away and don't ruin it for the others trying to enjoy their theater-going experience. You'll end up not enjoying it or will find it to be a tedious and boring watch. Even though at a trim 90 minutes, if you find it boring, you have no attention span whatsoever, but that's besides the point.

To cap it off, this is the kind of Horror film I'm always waiting for, especially considering the droves of wanton garbage that flood the theaters week after week, and after looking forward to the film for nearly a year and a half, I'm glad to say that it delivered on all fronts. It's as flawless of a film as you can get, and for this to be Eggers' debut feature, he's in for a hell of a career.

Going Overboard (1989)

An eerie foreshadowing of Sandler's future career

[1/10 · 9 September 2015]

This is without a doubt the worst film I've ever had the displeasure of watching, and I have to admit that I have no idea what possessed me to do so.

The only retroactively funny (more like pathetic) thing about this "comedy" is how Sandler's lame character Schecky complains about the dropping standards of comedy being reduced to fart jokes, fat people jokes, jokes at the expense of women; standards he himself picks up in the story. The irony is that not only is it the routine that Schecky himself picks up as a comic within this "film", but also exactly what Sandler's routine has turned into in real life and in the rest of his meritless filmography. The overuse of the same jokes with no payoffs and its eerie similarities to the other films in Sandler's career (despite him not being a producer/director on this) is just a testament to his consistent mediocrity. He has not progressed as an actor or comedian in any way since this disaster, and anything that he's in that happens to be good is because of the director or its premise (Punch Drunk Love for example makes a mockery/parody of Sandler's personality in a satirical way that totally works).

How Sandler's career picked up after this is a total mystery. The guy is talentless. Utterly and pathetically talentless.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Kubrick was an unparalleled visionary genius.

[10/10 · 13 December 2013]

Many people say that the Sci-Fi film genre would not be where it is today without 2001...

Those people couldn't be more right.

2001:A Space Odyssey is among a select few sci-fi films I can deem as perfect. Kubrick brings his A-game with his dazzling level of artistry, because I got to say, this is a gorgeous film. Like those select few sci-fis, there's only a select group of movies I can return to with every viewing with a sense of newfound awe, and 2001 is at the forefront of that group.

That being said, 2001 is definitely not for everyone. It's a very slow-burn, and while I like movies like that, others won't and herald it as boring. I have to disagree of course, but I can see how it can be considered tedious to sit through.

The story is great and cryptic, but where 2001 really shines is its visuals, which are undeniably fantastic, a fact that can't be disagreed with.

Also, unlike many novel to film dramatizations, 2001 is pretty accurate to the source material and is enhanced by it.

John Carter (2012)

An expensive mess

[1/10 · 3 March 2013]

I only have a few things to say about John Carter.

I felt that this was a perplexing property for Disney to pick up, as it is not a children's story. The movie had almost no faithfulness to its source material, the accomplished John Carter of Mars series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. From what I can tell from the books and other users reviews, it barely scratched the surface of the novels.

One thing that really irks me about this steaming pile called a movie is that the director Andrew Stanton felt the need to say that Farnk Frazetta, the visual artist and master painter responsible for the look of John Carter, the one who has defined what Barsoom looks like, is dated and cheesy. Frank's art is timeless, and I felt that none of his vision was shown through, which was unfortunate.

Now for the plot and acting. When I heard that Kitsch signed on to play John Carter, I immediately lost interest. Not only did he not look the part, he acted terribly in it, just as everyone else did. The lines were contrived, the dialogue and settings were watered down, and the movie needed some serious grit to it. It being Disney however, they couldn't do much to remedy that, even though they've made darker films, Hunchback of Notre Dame comes to mind. The characters had no depth or development to them whatsoever, events happened too quickly.

The editing such a mess, I can say this is the most annoyed I've been watching a film. The way scenes rolled into each other was way too abrupt, and being an artist myself, the way certain scenes were composed annoyed me as well, like actors faces being cropped just below the top of the head, creating weird tangents for example.

I can appreciate the work that goes into a film like this, but the finished product doesn't display that work, and didn't impress me, visually or through its story and characters.

Overall, a waste of my time, and a contrived mess. For being a huge fan of Sci-Fi masterpieces like Ridley Scott's Alien or Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, this was a horribly mediocre film in a genre that needs to be jump-started with fresh ideas.

Because I disliked it so much, I actually rather glad that it was such a commercial failure, I saw that coming from a mile away.

Avatar (2009)

Does hype alone make a movie?

[3/10 · 20 June 2011]

James Cameron's last movie was the big hit of the decade. The Titanic held the record for highest box office, swept all of the major award ceremonies and is regarded by many as one of the best films ever made. With Cameron being the director of such great sci-fi films as Terminator, T2 and Aliens, his newest project Avatar seemed like a great idea.

So what do you get after waiting almost a decade since Titanic? One of the most unoriginal, overtly preachy and flashy movies ever made. As many before have put, it's very accurate to just call it a 4 hour long Pocahontas in Space. Almost 10 years of development went into a plot that's already been done to death in every shape and form? Of course, on the side you have to add all of the anti-military, anti-capitalist, and environmentalist angles, and mix in some "war for oil" elements. Not to mention the whole "humans suck" schtick, which he already delved a bit into with his previous work, The Abyss. Cameron's anti-capitalist views seem so ironic to me, especially considering that two of his films have grossed the most money of all time, and he's planning on rereleasing them both.

Lame story aside, I even thought the special effects were cheesy. All I can say is that completely CGI characters and worlds will never match up to the animatronics detailed sets of previous movies. When I first heard about the movie, I was quite excited, since I had become a fan of Cameron's previous sci-fi works. When the first trailer came out, I was very disappointed. All of the aliens were too saturated in color, making them stand out like a sore thumb, and the creatures looked like the creatures in the recent star Wars movies, which for the record, means terrible. Even beyond the bland CG, the designs were all rather uninspired. The main aliens are just really tall blue humanoids with cat-like faces. All of the beasts are more or less fusions of two different earth animals.

I think the reason this movie has such a high rating and big following is because of all the hype that surrounded its release. When everyone is so excited about Cameron making a new movie, I'm sure they don't don't notice the horribly unoriginal plot. People wanted this movie to be great, since they had to wait for it so long, and were willing to pass it off as great no matter what. As for me, after having to put up with all of the non-stop hype and discussion about the movie, I wanted it to be bad. And despite watching the movie with an open mind, I wasn't disappointed.

Thir13en Ghosts (2001)

Unlucky 13

[1/10 · 27 July 2010]

This could be naiveness on my part, but I expected to see a dark horror with creepy atmosphere. Boy, was I disappointed! This film has to got be one of the wort horror films ever made, let alone all movies.

The characters are among the most obnoxious ever seen on camera. You're supposed to feel for these characters, but it's impossible because of how unlikeable they are. Arthur(Shalhoub) is an extremely bitter and impatient man, his kids are terribly annoying, the Nanny, Maggie(Diggah) is just as annoying as the kids, Rafkin(Lillard) is just plain boring, and the others seemed unnecessary.

The ghosts were a mixed bag, some had interesting designs, but some went too over-the-top, and some were just rather plain. But due to the terrible camera work and cheesy "flashing" effects, you were barely able to make out any of these ghosts. The mansion that the movie was set in was really "out there" in terms of design, and it didn't help the movie at all.

I think the film would've been much more effective if it were set in a more "traditional" haunted house setting(see "The Others" or Kubrick's "The Shining"), had very dark and ambient lighting, no cheesy effects, and of course, characters you could actually root for.

The Deer Hunter (1978)

Very tedious.

[5/10 · 26 July 2010]

I borrowed this DVD from the library . I had pretty high expectations, considering all of the rave reviews, it being heralded as one of the best war movies of all time, and the fact that it won some Oscar awards. Instead I was treated to seeing a 3 and a half hour long melodrama, where every single scene was dragged out as long as possible.

I know that this film was more about the effect war had on soldiers, their friends and family, as opposed to being in combat, like most other war films, which is why most of the film took place at the home front, rather than on the battlefield. The film was basically divided into 3 parts. The first focused on the main characters, and their relationships, and should have been dedicated to developing the characters, but instead you have to endure watching over an hour and a half of people dancing at a wedding. I constantly found myself fast-forwarding through scenes like these.

Another example of this tedious style, is the scene where the guys are driving down the highway, and they pretend to ditch one of their friends. You then have to watch the car drive off way out in to the distance, turn around to come back, only to start it all over again, 2 or 3 times. Moving on to the Vietnam war, this film makes you think that the whole war experience is about playing Russian Roulette.

Flashing forward, De Niro's character comes back from the war for a short period of time, only to go back to try and find his two friends, and you're forced to believe that Walken's character has been surviving for who know how long, playing Russian Roulette in a fighting ring.

What I find extremely funny about the high status the film has, is the fact the film's director, Cimino, was universally panned for his film, "Heaven's Gate", which is directed in the exact same dragged out style. I'm just glad I didn't have waste any money to watch this film, however, my time wasted will never be refunded.