Reviews written by registered user
|36 reviews in total|
Sometimes I watch a movie because I'm doing something else that's
fairly dull and want a little action. That was my reason for watching
"Devil's Mile" on Amazon. Adjusting from 5 scale on Amazon to 10 scale
on IMDb, the viewers there are giving it a 7.2. Now that I've seen it,
I have to agree.
The standard creepy elements are all there. This film isn't breaking any new ground, but then that's never stopped people from making and watching movies before. There are even things I was predicting that showed up as expected. It's actually when the female leads get talking seriously that the story moves along. There's a creepy dude that shows up in what seem like flashbacks. He only really begins to make sense to the story when you get near the end... and I did not predict the end.
This movie simply is not as bad as the overall ratings make it out to be. But then, consider the limited number of reviews this film has had.
Every time I see someone give a 1 rating to a film, I ask "did you
really find it worse than 'Manos: the Hands of Fate?'" I have actually
re-watched "Manos" a few times for its unintentional humor. I watched
"The Wicker Man" just once and definitely found it less watchable than
"Manos." At least "Manos" could be forgiven for being completely
produced by amateurs. "Wicker Man" can't use that excuse. I have a few
other high-production value films that I give horrible ratings for
simply because, in the end, they don't rise above the level "Manos" and
other films like it.
Oddly enough, I generally like Nick Cage. I have enjoyed a lot of his films. I don't think he performed any better or worse than normal. This film's problem came from over-rating the value of the script. There are just some things that shouldn't be committed to film regardless of production values. "Wicker Man" was one such film. Cinema Sins wasn't nearly as kind to it as I would have been, and yet they ripped so many new ones only "new ones" were all that was left.
I watched this today and had a good time. It wasn't really more or less
than I expected. Top 250 quality? Hmmm... iffy. The Marvel franchise
really needed something R-rated (like "Kickass") and this seemed to do
the job. I got a kick out of the 4th wall jokes (I like movies that
poke fun at themselves). I thought the pacing was good except for the
sex/romance scenes. There were some funny moments, but it dragged
sometimes there and felt too much like movies from around 1980 where
sex was inserted whether you liked it or not. (I would have had a less
trouble with this, but some fool brought a girl into the theater who
couldn't have been more than 8 years old. I can appreciate bawdy humor,
but that's the stuff for grownups.)
For the most part, the writing is good. Characters are fun. Opening scene is very creative. CGI is what I expected. Deadpool seems to carry the Spiderman dark humor, just raunchier.
For those who gave 1-star reviews, I'm going to get Deadpool, Dr. Forrester and Pearl and make you sit through movies until you give better ratings. "Gigli" anyone?
What a fun romp this film was. Oh, sure, it's a typical action film and
a lot is predictable and no new ground is broken. However, main
character Eggsy is quite likable. Usually characters in this role
initially seem unredeemable, but we know he's got what it takes from
the start. I guess that's a refreshing change from the usual.
It was also fun to see SL Jackson play a very different role than usual. I had to check the trivia section on IMDb to confirm, but I was pretty sure that his lisp in the movie was his own idea. It was.
Overall the film manages to have the right balance of comedy and over- the-top action movie violence. It's a great film for an evening you just want to relax and let your mind check out for a while.
I usually expect crud from this sort of movie. I certainly wouldn't
spend money at the box office, but for a bit of diversion on Neftlix it
did a good job. Acting was decent, pacing not bad, and I think it had a
better reason for the creepy crawlies to be who and what they were. Too
many horror movies follow a pattern of having the nasties seem a bit
like they are being lazy near the beginning, and only in the last
minutes of the film do they finally seem to rise to their alleged
nastiness. Fortunately for "The Veil" we start getting in the swing of
things not long after we've got our characters established. We also get
a bit of "found film" even though this isn't a "found film"...er....
Curl up with some popcorn, or iron your laundry while you watch. You'll get some decent watching from "The Veil."
I hesitate to write yet another review of this since there are so many.
I generally get very frustrated with so many reviewers giving films a
1-star rating because I think to myself "Really? 1? You thought it was
less watchable than 'Manos: the Hands of Fate?'" Well, there, I did it;
I gave it 1-star. I thought it less watchable than "Manos."
So many positive reviewers ask "how can anyone possibly think this movie stinks?" Well, then let me explain: story-trashing plot holes. The first part of the movie had some awkward moments that others have complained about in other reviews, but I'll let those go for the sake of a review. But mid-way through the film (the point most of us are fussing about) all brains go away.
If you watch anything like CSI, that's how the police are at the start. It's really needed for the plot for them to have some brains. That's the first part of the movie.
If you watched "Manos..." you might recall a scene where there is someone firing a gun at someone else outdoors. In the next camera shot, you see two police officers standing on either side of their squad car. They walk forward to the front of the car, peer into the distance to see the source of the gunfire, then look at each other, shrug and return to get in the car and carry on like nothing happened. "Manos" had the excuse the it was an amateur production with a camera with only 30 seconds of film time and lighting that only illuminated to the front of the car. It was inadvertently comic. However, this generally is how the cops take to behaving in the second part of the film.
I'm avoiding film details, but you can read about all plot holes in other reviews, but suffice to say I started saying out-loud "that can't happen" or "in what universe is this supposed to be taking place?"
I'm not going to toss out a lengthy review of the acting (it's mixed in other reviews, but I thought it was OK). Nor did I find a problem with the directing and filming. I DID notice a trend among 10-star reviewers in that they felt need to mention Fincher's many other film triumphs as if to say "Gone Girl" required a superb rating (perhaps even given without actually watching it).
It's shocking that this film is in the top 250... not that there are others in the list I don't care for, but at least I understand why they are there. I think (hope) that over time this movie drops out of the top list. It simply doesn't belong there. And maybe those of use reviewing this dog so badly scared off people that they never watch... and then never vote. Time will tell.
I found it interesting to read all the 1-star reviews. I came to one
conclusion after reading them: the reviewers weren't writing about the
movie, but about the real-life people that prompted the story. One
person condemned the writers for coming up with a preposterous story
and he was clearly unaware that it's a true story. Of course, there's
the old saw that truth is stranger than fiction because truth doesn't
have to make sense.
I also find it interesting to see how many people think that even if this movie is a true story, it has to be an anomaly: a totally bizarre twist of human behavior that is just too weird to be made into a movie. But that is exactly what makes a movie interesting. You don't make a movie about a guy who loses his job and finds a new one; end of story. You make a movie about a guy who loses his job and then goes postal and shoots people at his old job and takes them hostage.
But it seems the stupidity shown in the movie are just all too common. If it weren't so common, such websites as failblog.org or the "not-always" family of websites wouldn't be filled with so much content. "Compliance" is just a movie-length failblog entry.
As for the film's actual filming, content aside, the actors manage to convey the sort of banal stupidity that the original people entered into. Such touches as the store manager giving a typical lame "let's hustle" speech at the start of the shift give an air of reality. But the mere fact that this movie made so many people squirm to watch it (particularly one rather shocking bit that was mostly self-censored) compels me to give this film a good rating.
As for the content, I consider this a must-see film. I suppose I could explain many reasons why, but I'll use an example. Just before I wrote this review, I read a news article about a woman released from prison after 20 years because DNA evidence exonerated her of killing her baby. But if she didn't do it, how could there be a conviction by a jury? Unfortunately, too often jurors just figure the authorities have it right and convict. (I'm told the situation is even worse with grand juries.) Bottom line: if you were arrested for something you didn't do, would you want your fate in the hands of the people with the mindset of the people in "Compliance?" Or would you want a jury of people who have seen this movie and were moved by it?
I can actually think of worse movies, so I won't give this 1 star.
Others have covered the movie as a whole, so I'll center on something
The main character *finally* sees a doctor despite her symptoms that should have sent her to the emergency room day 1. I have to conclude from the scene with the doctor that the script writers have never once in their lives been to a doctor. The doctor she visits confines his examination to peek in her ears and a glance at the gangrenous rot at her crotch and then suggests moisturizer. Moisturizer? SRSLY?! I once had a milder rash in the nether regions and that got me a direct diagnosis and a prescription.
I can hear the script writers now: "If we had a doctor actually *be* a doctor, then she would have gone to a hospital, been treated and we wouldn't have the movie we made." That's right, you morons: it's called a "plot hole!" You write something else. Perhaps instead the doctor could have misdiagnosed or the hospital could have been the incubation point for spreading the contraction to others, but, no, the doctor became the yenta next-door saying "oy! just rub a little lotion on your bleeding crotch-rot and you'll be OK." Now transfer this stupidity to the actions of all the rest of the characters in the movie and you've got a good idea of what you're getting into... or avoiding.
I've given this a low rating for one good reason: I did what someone
else suggested I do and that's not compare "Billy Jack" to films of
today but compare it to the films of 1971. Gosh... lessee... OK,
compare it to "Fiddler on the Roof," "A Clockwork Orange," "The French
Connection," "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." Should I go on?
Those of you who were 14-21 back in 1971 need to face a simple fact and
that is "Billy Jack" was a low-budget "message" film that managed to
resonate with your age group. My sons stumbled on me watching this
today and one remarked "the acting and dialog are terrible." They are
majoring in media in college and know the difference between good and
I was 9 when "Billy Jack" came out and the whole hippie thing was already becoming nostalgia by the time I was old enough to have been a part. Consequently, the movie felt more like watching old clichés come to life than anything either nostalgic or inspiring.
That said, the movie isn't really a train wreck. I thought it was worth watching to see the sketches done by Howard Hesseman (Johnny Fever from "WKRP") and his friends from the Committee. The hold-up scene felt like "who's on first?" collided with the Monty Python crew.
I didn't give this the worst possible rating simply because it does an
OK job of looking like a real documentary.
However, don't let that fool you. I know a few reviewers have said "keep an open mind" but there's no room whatsoever in documentaries for suspension of dis-belief... something you must engage in to appear to have an open mind towards this nonsense.
The scientists interviewed to give credence to this series are fringe scientists. For example, their physicist is a goofball who is into chi and psychic healing.
If you get all excited to be informed by this "documentary" that the rooms in the pyramids have "resonance frequencies" then this is for you. If you realize that every enclosed space has a resonance frequency, maybe it isn't quite so exciting.
In summary, "The Pyramid Code" has more in common with "Chariots of the Gods" than real documentaries.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |