Reviews written by registered user

6 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Pulp (1972)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
I can't explain ..., 10 September 2015

Why do I love this movie so very much?

The level of smarm and snark is beyond stellar, Caine is absolute perfection.

Sure it's cliché' filled and spectacularly dated, but I think that is part of why it's so entertaining. Mickey Rooney is an interesting casting decision, and it makes me wonder if part of the reason he is in it was to secure financial backing from the studio. He was after all a huge force in the business at this time.

Back to the movie. There's no point to breaking down technical parts and storyline continuity. It is far greater than the sum of it's parts.

It's the kind of gem you find that reminds you of your reason for searching...

Equal parts grit and ingratiating , it deserves to be watched if for no

other reason than for a grimy window into the world of early 70's movie-making.

Watch it. It's a Sunday afternoon delight.

It's a imperfect, melancholic joy.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
well.., 9 September 2015

First of all, better sound editing would have improved certain scenes greatly. touches like proper ballroom music with reverb that matches the room ambiance is an easy one.

Sound transitions from scene to scene will reduce the "jarring" effect for the viewer and give a natural feel instead of distracting from story.

The weird wobbly camera angles in the beginning are just annoying. Just stop doing that. ugh.

Delivery of the dialogue is relatively strong, but some of the actors need to beware of the "sing-song" delivery they fall into easily. The words are supposed to MEAN something to the character, that's doesn't happen when it's sounds like 12 year olds at the mall. Again, this was only occasional. The ladies in this were capable and did a fine job.

quick tech flaw: The camera shots playfully taken at the creek needed to have the CAMERA LENS OPEN on the camera she's using.. lol. people notice those things, and a good continuity/production assistant would've'e been on top of that. ;)

The above might seem harsh and nit-picky but can make a real difference in product.

Watchable but not Big-Screen quality, good story concept, decent pacing, strong effort all around.

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
timing is everyth..., 5 March 2014

A talented young cast, a reasonably workable premise and yet dis-jointed editing and writing that misses the joke more than it hits make this a disappointment. I very much wanted this to be funnier. there were so many chances and nothing..

I will not put this on the cast,although Catherine O'Hara was under- utilized in this storyline.

Incorporating her into the early "stalker" scenes would have reduced the potential creepieness, and her ability to lift a dialogue would have been wonderful for character development. Smoother more natural directing would have made this a gem.

Spiders 3D (2013)
16 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Um, wow... I apologize for the harshness but we need to rip the band-aid off.., 14 February 2013

OK. Cheesy? -Check Goofy? -Check. I enjoy low-budget monster flicks. One very serious question. How, in an industry filled to overflowing with passable actresses who can at the very least simulate believable expressions and the occasional emotional response does Ms. Campbell get cast? Her vacant expressionless face combined with a spectacular lack of inflection, timing and anything resembling acting is worse than a second-day community college acting student. This movie didn't have much of a chance but the damage inflicted would have been less if they would have picked a random name in the LA phonebook. Maybe, just maybe, she was distracted and unable to "find her motivation" ... no, forget that. She's just awful.

26 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
Not even close.., 5 February 2013

This will be brief. The cast,with many quality proved works behind them can't be blamed for what is obviously a poorly directed, badly written and horrendously edited hack-job. The stunted and forced direction, film- school camera angles and poorly written dialogue are just too much to overcome for even this group of fine actors.

This had to be agony for the actors to sit through if there actually was a premiere, and the wasted storyline that could have been compelling or at the very least engaging was finished off by a lazy cable-network soundtrack and bad staging.

This could have been a very nice story. If this director ever gets another chance to do something like this he need to watch the last Hallmark Hall-of-Fame productions... they do this infinitely better.

17 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
A great little film that proves that they can still be made..., 23 May 2012

OK, It's not an epic, and it certainly could have some smoother edits, but as jaded as I can be after roughly 5000 movies I think that this is a very good film.

First remember the genre'. The story is well paced and shot nicely. They have resisted the urge to cut too fast, and this gives actors the chance to embrace a scene, making it believable. This is better than many big budget, big name parades that present themselves as quality but miss the mark. Fun,engaging and well acted,Wes Chatham,Devon Sawa, Sarah Butler,and Adam Mervis do a lot to develop believable and vulnerable characters within the constraints of a compact but well written script. I look forward to following their promising careers. Butler in particular is need that one big opportunity and she'll light up the screen. Sarah Butler deserves kudos for being extremely endearing quickly and adding real weight to the tension within the story. Devon Sawa, a winner.He just is. I've always been Neal McDonough fan and he has the talent and charisma that makes the viewer hope for more screen time.

A very good movie. AND I am a very jaded reviewer.