45 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Sons of Anarchy (2008–2014)
total crap
20 September 2011
if you ever wondered what a biker's life would be like if a chick wrote the script for it, then watch "Sons of Anarchy".

i've had some experience with real bikers, and most of them are back stabbing weasels who don't have the balls to face men alone. most of them are rats you wouldn't leave in your house alone with your kids or your bitch. the real tough guys can rise to the top and live a little closer to the norm, but the culture prides itself in treating the women they are shagging as little more than whores. they call themselves bitches, and at least in public, are treated as such.

what this show has to do with bikers is like asking what does the wizard of oz have to do with auschwitz. it is total crap, turned into a female soap opera to get hetero partners to watch.

it is total crap, and more crap.

these guys behavior is mainly controlled by the chemical they are on at the time.

crook bikers suck, and so does this show. if it was realistic, the middle class premium purchasers would vomit.

and that is what this piece of Hollywood trash makes me want to do.

what's next? a soap opera about pol pot?
7 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
wwII with other murders
18 September 2011
this film transcends the usual agenda of the usual film financiers.

it is a metaphor to show that there was murder beyond the murder we have all been trained to see.

there were almost 27 million soviets slaughtered in what they call the "great patriotic war", that is their war with the Germans.

but who talks about that.

and that is the point of the film. there are crimes committed far beyond those we have been spoon fed to digest. there is a multitude of German resistance we have not been allowed to absorb, because the group that controls the media needs a total villain deserving no mercy in order to maximize the sympathy and guilt we are all programmed to feel.

if you feel repulsion at this review, then you and i are both victims of this propaganda.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Torchwood (2006–2011)
here we go again
23 July 2011
i really enjoyed the first couple of episodes.

it wasn't the same old bbc half-cramped, half-lame originals -- these were vitalized tw episodes with u.s. talent, more budget, and a feeling that the actors were finally having fun and putting craft and energy into the expanded zone of torchwood.

but then, falling from the sky came the same twisted elephant that crushed the barely breath out of the original torchwood.

fully and blatantly, someone or somepeoples in the production line of tw decided to thrust gay, male sex into this third episode of this fourth series -- a series which until then, wonderfully revitalized, and finally aesthetically validated the idea of the doctor who franchise. these peoples planned to sexually program the youth of Britain by using popularly themed, story-centric flickering pictures. the most common and effective brain-washing technique devised my man--easily proved by the spectacular sales jumps seen when t.v. combines an attractive blend of football, globular breasts, and pick-up trucks.

video based, social engineering is not a new concept at the bbc. for years they have endeavored to finger-pull the prols out of their common muck by the nostrils. it's a simple concept: run a half-hour arts show after something common -- so they can't switch to ITV, 'cause the other side's plot is too far gone to grasp. and that is just one way.

i mean, what else would you call a reality show about being sixteen and pregnant, but socially engineered programming. the bbc is allegedly paid by the people, but gets its mandate from the toffs at the top.

the bbc encouraging art appreciation is one thing, but having a gay character cruise through a suck-face leather bar on what has traditionally been a child's show is bang out of order.

we have a gay oriented bbc group coupling with an L.A. gay production group, and tea-bagging a loyal international, sci-fi audience in a most aggressive distressing fashion. some mature and less angry gays must be as revolted at this turn as i am.

I know i'm writing what most wouldn't have the p.c. guts to. horribly, gay advocates have taken what has been for the past fifty-years, a family, child oriented concept and spun it into a political vehicle that neither parents nor children should ever be forced to squirm around. i mean when you are watching a doctor who spin-off -- the last thing you want to hear from your six-year-old is, "daddy, why are those two men rubbing each other and kissing?"

i have watched my last episode. bbc: straighten out tw -- pun intended.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Womb (2010)
21 July 2011
this is an emotionally and morally complex film.

the setting is bare, the dialog minimal, and all to leave room for the context which is massive.

the isolation serves to preserve the womb till the moment of all release, and therefore the moment of ultimate loss. there are many quiet metaphors in this film.

and it is these quiet choices that show some brilliant forethought on the part of the film-makers. it is brilliant film-making. if you can get past the squirminess of it all. and no doubt some day soon, if science has its way -as it will- this story will come true. just over a hundred years ago most believed that man would never fly.
55 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Songcatcher (2000)
totally wrong
2 July 2011
if after watching the first five minutes of this work, you expect a story of bigotry, unfulfilled ambition and sexual repression, then you have hit the mark.

i haven't seen such a blatant sexist tract since the last one lifetime network featured.

this is so culturally biased, that i thought i was watching an eskimo film with American accents.

if you actually receive any positive emotional charge from this bigoted tract, then i must say that whichever sex you claim, you should seek professional help for your self-esteem issues.

the program blatantly denies any reciprocal attribute that the contemporary culture offered, and skews viewing only from the view of a 20th century divorcée.

humbug, and trash.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
the cream rises, to a network few watch
2 October 2010
this is an enjoyable series--well worth the watch. and if you want to put it in Hollywood lingo, then it is a 21st century "dog day afternoon", without the Attica chant. and if you don't know that film--see it. that's the meat of the series, but after viewing some decent twists in the middle, the end turns into a broke down copy of "heat".

and after watching a couple of episodes, it becomes obvious why the two leads went for this project: the writing and lead parts are exactly what mature actors dream of, and the producers must have convinced them that the small budget would be seen on the screen, and not end up on producer's expense accounts.

i'm an old recon marine, and some of the early tactical stuff had me cringing. but this can be partially discounted by the bandits being regular grunts and not trained for speed, but when the sarge called former marines--soldiers--throughout the series, i about soiled my sheets. we don't do that. we are not ordinary soldiers. i know. i was in the army and the marines.

but again, this is a great series--that is if you're into realistic television. it has many flaws: like dumping a cop in a populated area when he could have been dumped, blindfolded in the woods and thwarted the outcome; and whenever a killshot was needed and should be made by pros, they all shot as badly as the comedic, t.v. A team; and then there's the female vet/swat officer who acts like she was a three tour grunt who knifed tangos in their sleep for fun, instead of realistically being a truck driver who had a rifle in the cab too dirty to fire; and then there was the story's massively overworked murphy's law of extraction; and also the military insignia worn on swat gear (which would be a p.r. death to a police department), most probably used, against technical advice, as a time-saving Hollywood device so the viewers could identify officers wearing gas masks later in the show.

but throughout the strong points fully outweigh the weak. there is well fledged character development. and that is very hard to find. and all good springs from competent writing, a series time frame to grow in, and a production team dedicated to the project. despite obviously disregarding adviser input.

one of my favorites about this series is that it was not produced to go beyond one season--and then only eight episodes. that took balls. look how far they elongated "prison break", now there was a one season show extended over and over again because the ratings were strong.

and how the hell did it show up on spike? it may have been produced first then put up for sale--and spike was the only one ready to buy for the right price--or it may have been flatly rejected because it was too short for a series, and too long for a mini series, and since it fits neither.... anyway, what a shame, and this shows the limited vision of network t.v. executives.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
29 September 2010
I'm an ex-pat Brit living in the us.

and i can tell you most American viewers wouldn't last past five minutes into this show.

the cast is below average in looks, some are deformed, they talk funny; the characters are a mixture of the depressed, depraved, the thick and the stupid. the acting can only be described as a work in progress, and they lead dead end lives in dead end places. there ain't no glamor here.

all this will repel viewers whose identity is cast by fashion and t.v. programming. this show could never find a spot anytime on a us network. episode four would send middle America into a terminal tale spin--but it's not their fault. we don't get this kind of material because the money men who run us television only care about the cash--the baby faced producers would say, "who wants to watch a show about ugly losers?".

and if you want to hold up PBS as a daring non-commercial network, then drink some more koolaid. their emphasis is Lawrence welk for the primary, grey haired donors, and pimping a brainwashing liberal agenda through their political programming. they might find the balls to show a program like this around the 23rd century.

but i love it.

the original film, and this following series, seems to take a cast of mostly inexperienced actors, who may have lived the parts, and coaches them through a working class reality which at its core is full of camaraderie, loyalty, forgiveness and love. not the prettified sitcom love, but a love grown through lifelong community and shared pain, a love of real sacrifice.

these people are flawed like the rest of us, but they are not us. at first we reject their world as alien, but we see, through time, they share all our fears and traumas. we too are all common.

and thank god someone is making something about real people.

the great shame is: only a few Americans will ever see this show. we need to raise the bar, and flush out the cobwebbed hierarchy at PBS. i just hope we don't have to wait until the 23rd century for our programming to catch up. i don't think i can wait that long.
20 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Eastbound & Down (2009–2013)
i'm kenny powers bitch
26 September 2010
this show is the Shiite. i know most females will hate this show, but that is the reason why most males will love it. and if your female partner is stopping you from watching it then--you should re-evaluate the power centricity of your male aura.

Kenny is the ultimate male ego, and in showing his powers, he also shows its weaknesses.

this show is beyond funny and crass.

usually to get this kind of funny, you have to go to Britain, but this time the u.s. has the edge and also the greater gonads.

from what I've read, will Farrell produces the show, and I'm glad he was able to produce something i liked beyond his s.n.l. crappola.

evidently this is the second series and I'm so glad it goes on.

keep it up. maybe we can change the specious pattern that is the norm of American comedy.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An Idiot Abroad (2010–2012)
who's the idiot
24 September 2010
if you're complaining that there is no gervais or merchant, then you're not getting it.

gervais has made lots of cash from claiming pilkington is an idiot, but after seeing the man through his own speech and action, then i have to disagree. and i wonder if this isn't another layer of gervais' caustic social commentary.

but if gervais actually thinks carl is a fool, then i have to say the joke is on him.

pilkington is a master of everyday, ultimate truth. a mastery that kicks the crap out of the vacillations of gervais, merchant, Nietzsche and me.

this man's brain boils down the b.s. of both the ancient and modern world, and turns all of it into simple equations -- with answers.

his conclusions must confuse populist, false intellectuals. and they wonder why? their training does not prepare them for carl; and the primary reason is: for many school smart people, the obvious is hard to grasp. and unfortunately; these are usually the same people who end up on television telling us what to think.

but i love his answers.

his shtick is the twisted mirror image of the fool thought sage.
110 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
23 September 2010
this sequel follows an original that featured a decent budget and some very good actors.

and this, the first sequel, follows the pattern of most. that is as you move farther from the original, the budget shrinks.

and the consequences are: less sets, less location shoots, less action, no helicopter or overhead shots, cheaper actors, cheaper scripts and cheaper directors.

now some directors can take less money and turn out comparable or even better efforts than the original--but these are few and far between.

and this movie definitely suffers from sequelitis.

the whole thing feels stretched.
44 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
more stiff mamet
21 September 2010
this is another directing attempt by David Mamet, and as usual he uses it as a vehicle to employ the mainly unemployable actors in his family.

in most of his directorial projects he has produced films so stiff and wooden, and it amazes me that he sometimes finds excellent actors to appear in them. and it must be because as bad a director as he is, he can be just as brilliant a writer.

i think Mamet chose, this time, a stiff cultural period which would hide his wooden direction, and his wife's poor acting. and it worked to a degree.

the problem is that Mamet has gone to england and short circuited a perfect machine for turning out perfect period pieces. it is what the English film industry does best.

his direction has sedated actors, worthy of giving a lively performance, and inspired little more than a walk-through of the lines: sedately matching the abilities of his wife.

it all ends up in a mediocre effort. i wish Mamet should stick to writing, but he probably arrogantly believes he is the only director that can do justice to his words. interviews i've seen by the man, back this belief.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Leap Year (2010)
i think i broke a heel
15 September 2010
i loved the beginning of this film, sure it's a chick flick, but that just goes to show that the appreciation of good film transcends genre, instead of hemming one in to a specific type.

but it was Amy Adams, as well as the slickest of Hollywood camera, scene and editing, that sucked me in at the beginning--the sinking of high heels in to sand almost made me sign the check. and when it comes to Amy--i have seen her play all from pauper to princess, and have observed art in each role.

sure, its the same old chick flick--find a real man (although this time it supplied an off accent englishman) on the eve of wedding story, and it uses the Irish in the same old hick way as the jjs in Hollywood usually do, and i actually almost bought that package of goods this time. but when it came to the meat in the sandwich, and consequently; when it came to finding any kind of chemistry between amy and Matthew Goode, i felt like i was watching pinewood trying to recreate an oldtime English love interest between one more woman and the same old private school backside bandit. i've seen more chemistry between a bird and its worm. it was awful.

and the worst part is: the Hollywood twerps, the ones who make megabucks, and we entrust our cash before we see the film-- show themselves to be just a bunch of tossers who can come so close to doing something well, and then (exhibit any good done was not by them) push a project all the way down with one casting decision that ruins not only the film, but our meager investment. Hollywood.......
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
what not to do in afghanistan
15 September 2010
this film is an Islamic morality tale with two lessons.

one: is the oppressive nature of Islamic law.

two: is how dangerous the ignorance and arrogance of westerners can be in an Islamic country. and how that ignorance can create dangers beyond western comprehension.

and i saw it all coming within the first ten minutes. i cringed so much at the obvious outcome, that i fast forwarded to the end--an end that acted as a metaphor for the u.s. led invasion.

this script does not work in a post 9/11 west--which is no doubt why it was set in a pre 9/11 afghanistan. i can't imagine anyone out there who is not familiar with Islamic oppression, as it has been constantly publicized by western powers to justify the intervention.

overall, this movie is not worth the time it takes to watch it. and i love war movies. it's not worth watching, unless it preaches to a choir to which you belong.
9 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
what happens when you put excellent actors together
12 September 2010
now if you know anything about Molina, then you know he has a terrific acting range. if you don't know his work then i won't waste my time listing it--just do a search.

dawn French has an excellent comedic resume--in Brit comedy.

the point being--when you put a dramatic actor of such acclaimed status as Molina with a comedic pro in the likes of French, then you most probably have a recipe for disaster. but not this time.

Molina proves that not only does he have technique, but also timing. and this is proved by his impeccable comedic timing--the toughest of all to master.

and in being so proficient, and so lauded, he pulls French into a lofty zone i doubt any have seen her achieve before.

this is a mature comedy, and i hate to say it but, if you don't get it--then you are probably too young. it's the opposite of "if it's too loud, then you are too old." these two are able to manage long takes with seemingly little effort.

this quality is what the BBC is famed for. and though often tried, is seldom achieved. and i know what pulled Molina from the big screen into a risky, short term BBC project: and that was the writing. it is supremely subtle comedy.

these two have pulled each other into comic reality. and when it comes to couples--there is nothing funnier than everyday truth. and this team proves it. when i watch the tenderness they show each other, I'm glad to be aging.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Force of Arms (1951)
it's all out of place
12 September 2010
this film was written about, but not about wwII. the location of the ridges of italy was no accident. it was picked to more replicate the terrain of the war being fought at the time of filming--and that was the almost brand new, ugly war in Korea.

so what we have is a prior war standing in for an all too real non-declared war in Korea. the administration called it a police action. and this one was treated as a fart in a tea bag. despite how warlike it felt to the men who were fighting it.

so instead of the us making korean war films, during what they called a conflict, they made wwII films--what a rip-off. no wonder the korean vets call this the forgotten war.

all you can say is: anything that comes out of hollywoods mandated ignorance of non-reality has to be crap.

the true reality being: you can't make a decent war movie without several years passing after the conflict--especially when the war you're filming is not the one you're filming.
3 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Amistad (1997)
spielbergs true masterwork
12 September 2010
this film is spielbergs true love work. forget shiindler's list, that was an obligation to his tribe, a tribe that feels that despite their nationality, their tribe is always ultimate and above. and shindler's list was spielberg's obligation to their pressure--it held no love for his own people--it was a black and white exposition of their endurance and suffering--no more.

but amistad is a visual love poem to the idea of America. an ideal place where the idea of tribalism is no longer needed. where the best in man is recognized and lauded and rewarded and never punished. that is the idea of America. this is the American ideal which today--a place that is the most hated country in the world, but when asked, it is the country in which most would like to live.

this illuminates an America beyond fiction, beyond legend. it is an idealistic constitution that when fulfilled creates a land that admits all worthy, but then holds them to a true account of law. and beyond that allows the common human to withstand the evils of greed and power. America at its best is the place where all tribes may lay down their inherit need for division.

and i see this as not only being spielgerg's dream but mine, and that being the dream of all Americans--often seldom realized, but seemingly always within reach. America, especially beyond its borders, is an idea that transcends the reality of here and now, but within this dream of our land we find the best of us sacrificed to rise painfully, in harsh times for what is right, almost always at cost, and when those few do, America becomes no longer an idea, but a truth--a reality. but always a reality paid dearly by those who make it so true...... America....
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
an insight by the Japanese into the japs of wwII
9 September 2010
I'll just start out by saying that David bowie was a joke in his role. in a pow situation, he pantomimed shaving while having no evidence of any beard, and all the while wearing a kilo of product in his hair. his uniform, after months in the jungle only showed stone wash wear. bowie was a wooden joke who didn't want to ruin his bi-primped, rock and roll image, and i wish they had never cast him.

and the main reason is: this film sports a majority Japanese production team; this along with an authentic story, gives us a real insight into the wwII Japanese psyche--something often ignored in the post-wwII Hollywood movies. the American public was after justification for the bomb, and retribution for their dead.

and for the latter, this is an important film. it was made in 1983, and many jap vets were still living, and for a Japanese production team to coagulate such a homogeneous film is quite amazing.

watch it and blow off bowie. he no longer holds the cultural sway he did back then. it will no longer be a rock and roll sacrilege.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
another Hollywood fake
9 September 2010
I'll admit this film is amusing at times, but it cheapens the real story.

watch "the general", an Irish film with a real Irish cast about a real Irish villain. the true story is filled with irony, and the lead actor is far better than the ersatz spacey. and just for poops and grins, if you want to see how a real actor plays different roles across different times and places then try to find the works of: Javier Bardem--the actor who played the looney in "no country for old men".

but since you mention spacey, we are talking about a one trick pony, who has been hyped throughout his career, maybe because he was sleeping with the right producers, but sex aside, he plays the same smarmy character in every film. he has about as much range as a pop gun.

now you may be asking, why Ireland in 2000? well the answer is simple. this was the period when spacey had retired to London for two reasons: the first is that he had found some Brits to bankroll him in a disastrous theater expedition; the second being he had worn out most of the l.a. and n.y. boy toys. his English backdoor escapades quickly became common fodder for the fleet street tabloids.

i have often wondered why spacey was so popular in the u.s., and i realized that it all goes back to the Greek saying: eat sh*t--a million flies can't be wrong. that logic being for the peasant majority, if entertainment tonight says an actor is hot--then he is hot.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Wild Hunt (2009)
is it real or is it vikinex?
4 September 2010
this film is out of whack, but that is where it is supposed to be.

you have a real viking, rescuing a fake princess from a fake celt, and throughout, all become something they really didn't want to be when the game started.

they are nerds playing at fantasy violence without realizing that their modern skins mask a real violence hidden in their real history, and it just waiting for the right catalyst to prompt its release.

and then there is the ending. it is a mixture and manifestation of both fantasy and reality.

and that is the truth that surrounds us all. we all live in a mix of fiction and the other. and it is up to us which wins out and when.

when we give ourselves up to the impetus of a group, we also relinquish individual immunity from the crimes of that group--just ask albert speer.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Iron Man 2 (2010)
one trick pony
3 September 2010
OMG, here we go again.

Downey don't do it for me. i remember when he was playing the same character twenty years ago, and he is still playing the same overamped teenage twerp at forty plus.

this probably makes no difference to an audience that is too young to have giggled at his inebriated antics--such as being found stoned out of his gourd in stranger's beds, and ending up-repeatedly-in the county jail, while alternately bouncing in and out of court mandated treatment centers.

but if you are past puberty, and the height of expression for you is not the high-five, then you should be getting as sick as i am at watching this johnny one note.

now i don't know if his feeble acting efforts are because he hasn't professionally developed in the past 20 years, or the Hollywood cash team wants him to play the same role over and over and over...

any way it goes; you couldn't call his work a career--it's more like a constant merry go round on the same horse.

then there is what he and Hollywood did to sherlock holmes. for this heresy he should be emasculated and incarcerated. if you want to see a new take on the old detective--see what the bbc has done with a twenty first century sherlock.

i know the chucky cheese crowd won't agree with me, but downey please go away. pooh! pooh!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Deep (2010– )
inspired by the film of its title
31 August 2010
this series is inspired by the film of the same title, but starts out as flawed as the original film ends.

what else can i say. this series uses poor c.g. to amuse a somatose audience, and uses filler dialog in the same way.

whoever put this series together deserves a good old fashioned trip to the wood shed.

it has few plot points, obviously filled between with incongruous character reactions and stupid dialog which prompt time-filling conflicts, which stretches this tripe from a ninety minute show, into a British series length.

i was insulted by the watching, but unfortunately i kept viewing to see if it would get better or worse. the good news is it didn't get any worse. it played mediocre all the way through.
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
pillars of cash
31 August 2010
you probably will never read this review.

but this allegedly historical drama is nothing short of pathetic.

anyone who attempts a medieval historical series about the building of a cathedral, attempts as lofty an enterprise as the original architects.

i realize that in our modern c.g. age, showing construction progress is much simpler, but when a production company attempts to low-ball a project that twenty years before, would have been cost prohibitive, to then treat the whole project as low-budget and attempt sex without sex, period language without language, and ambiance without ambiance, show themselves to care only about cash, and pleasing the moral and emotional agendas of a new 21st century peasant audience: betraying the story's medieval effort, where the characters put all forth in the name of art--pushing those characters and the spire beyond their cultural place and into greater heights.

this is a Scott free production--the same scott that brought us "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN", the difference between these two projects is that between sex with and without a condom.

it is somatose tripe.

ridley you should be ashamed--no doubt all the way to the bank.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Robin Hood (2010)
give Hollywood what Hollywood wants
31 August 2010
this film, when compared to other efforts of ridley--especially the illustrious "kingdom of heaven", seems a poor cousin, but its poverty probably resides not in art but in necessity.

if you've read the written works of john ford, then you will know that ford made a devil's bargain with the Hollywood money men--I'll make one money movie for you if you then let me make a movie for me.

and i believe this is the same bargain ridley scott has made for a new breed of jj money men.

and in making it, i believe he did the best he could. it was no means the trashy "robin hood" of kevin costner, but by no means--i hope--the film he would rather have made.

it is a mix of Shakespeare's "the taming of the shrew", and a Hollywood/historical/mythical version of robin hood.

all i can hope for is that his next film is something true. his last one, "body of lies", was terrific. he has paid his dues for his next. i just hope he has not just turned into a prolific producer, churning out mediocre projects in the vein of "the pillars of the earth".
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Point Blank (1967)
a seminal action, psycho, action drama
28 August 2010
this is an excellent film. now modern, educated audiences will immediately spot flaws in structure and editing, but the point to realize is that this film was doing many of the techniques for the first time. it is seminal. and the photography is captivating, and groundbreaking for its time. don't bother watching this in pan and scan. don't waste your time.

it has a recent remake in "payback", but thank god the filmmakers did not try to make the same film. the original was an exploration in psychology and stress effects, the second was a straight out modern action flick with one hell of a lot of visible technique and style. the two things they both share were the need for the fulfillment of honor and then revenge.

but the differences are what makes both of the films excellent, and let them both stand well and alone.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Martyrs (2008)
horror in three parts
26 August 2010
i am just now watching this film for the second time.

i was reluctant to watch this, as most films, without a substantial time gap between viewings. but this film is one, at least for me, that deserves at least a local, second viewing.

the first time i watched, i was engrossed and horrified by the physical and psychological torture. i didn't realize it at the time, but i was numbed by the watching.

in this second look i found myself crying, and sympathizing with the characters, and being reminded of the torture i have experienced in my own life.

this is an amazing film. it is beyond bold.

i also have pity for the mind that spawned it. but I'm glad that it was made.

a look at the highest rating demographic shows females under 18, that's a pity. it shows it was mainly appreciated by the main character's age group, which shows the film is under appreciated intellectually. as gross as it is, this is a very smart film, and transcends the usual horror type.

it is piece of work that transcends the genre.

watch it..

more than once.

for rape and abuse victims, this will be tough.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.