Reviews written by registered user
|23 reviews in total|
OK. Good premise, good cast, good money. And then - a kind of slow,
almost leisurely, but basically rather sad, car crash. Nobody cares
about anybody. The parents are so self-obsessed I felt like putting a
brick through the screen. It's a good attempt, well (enough) done, but
there's really just no-one to like. At all. In the press (here in the
UK) there have been a few pundits saying there will be fewer films but
they'll cost more. This wasn't cheap, and has decent production values.
It's the script, I suspect. If you're a BIG fan of a cast member, then
go for it. Otherwise it's a stretch.
4 out of 10. Not awful, just a damp squib.
Interesting, isn't it, how some films divide opinion? I really liked this film. There's a decent back-story - in fact two decent back-stories, to be accurate. Good cast, with one or two established actors and a couple of decent new finds. There are a number of gripes about found footage - well, it's not a found footage film, it's actually a beautifully shot horror film, with a few bits of found footage, which imho fit very well to up the tension. I think one of the main 'difficulties', though not for me, is that that the director/writer Steve Stone hasn't fallen for the post-Saw generation of boy-pleasing gore films. This isn't a gore film. It's a horror film, and a really good one, at that. So if you are prepared to sit back, (if you can do that while spending much of the film on the edge of your seat), and watch a really fine film but with a low tits and gore count, then I recommend this film wholeheartedly.
Where on earth do you start with rubbish like this?
There are two reviews as I write this. Both are positive. That males them seriously biased.
The storyline talks about 'Indie horror mainstay' John Vincent. That means he's made three films in 15 years.
He's directed, edited, produced and written them. Oh, and written the music. And presumably done the sound and chosen the 'actors', because all of these tasks are done at around the same level. Really, REALLY badly.
There are long, and I do mean, long, unedited shots of, for example, a priest getting to work unlocking, walking around, taking books out of a cupboard, sitting down, opening the books, making VERY LARGE notes, and so on. Also an inordinately long and boring on foot chase.
All of the suspense, if we could call it that, is spoilt by a sound track which sounds like bad dubbing, but isn't. It just all sounds post production and no-one noticed that it was done in a basement with bad acoustics.
No stand out performances, the best, Michel Bugard, ruined by some really rubbish 'special' effects.
And, now I come to think of it, WHY? Why would vampires, (admittedly vampires dressed in sheets - nice touch), want to kill everyone? Don't they need blood to survive? Why slaughter lunch when you need lunch to stay alive?
To be fair, this may be answered later in the film. I could only manage 30 minutes. And I somewhat resent that.
I don't want to dis the plot summary - written by the writer/director - but it doesn't really give a taste of the film.
Bo is a bit of insufferable gear-head and his wife is seriously fed up with him.
He has a bicycle accident, caused - well - no spoilers, but its largely to do with him being an insufferable gear-head.
And then? And then everything changes. Or, rather, Bo does.
And his wife can't bear it. And continues not to. This is more than concussion, this is transcendent brain damage. I liked Bo after his accident. Respected him.
Not a perfect film, but a film about growth, and hope, and change. Albeit after a knock on the head, but, hey. You gotta start somewhere.
I'm left with warm feelings, escapist feelings, a sense of freedom, of hope.
Hey, that's not bad, is it? I had to suspend clinical disbelief, (I'm a psychotherapist), but I still came away optimistic, touched, moved. Which, quite frankly, isn't bad for a film which is real, gritty, and grounded well on the serious side of any sweet, fairytale line.
Karen Goodman writes well, and directs better. I really hope she goes (much) further.
PS check my other reviews. NO connections to the film at all.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Where do you start?
Let's start (and maybe finish) with - why 1981? I know, I live in the UK, maybe sorority houses are just Oh, so 80s. But my worry is someone saw so many damn plot holes in this that they shoved it into the 80s to try to cover it up.
Its sad, really. There are plenty of struggling writers and potential directors struggling to get films made, and then this happens...
What do I do, now? Go through all the plot holes and farcical inadequacies?
Just for a start - single frontal lobe trauma = death? No
Claw hammer (always clean) = threatening? Not really
Single axe blow? No....
Silly cloudy contact lenses = menacing? Errrr....
Doctors wearing black cowboy shirts and shoelace ties? I mean, what?
And everybody in the film has congenital tunnel vision. They are completely incapable of noticing anyone creeping up on them.
AND the casting director was told to go for faces and ignore bodies.
OK. Anyone would think I didn't like it.
I gave it 2 stars because - OK. I waited 'til the end.
OK, it's a family gig. Lots of Russells. But, I'm sorry. It's adequately acted, even adequately directed, but get someone else to write. Seriously, Justin, (writer, director, producer, editor, cinematographer, sound editor), get a decent script writer on board if you want to find your break-through film.
OK. Tomorrow, after I've slept, maybe I'll feel less than 10, but,
tonight? OK, yeah, a big, resounding 10/10.
It's hard to seriously fit you gently into a world. This time it works just beautifully. OK. I just stopped watching it, and I'm a little be-alcoholled. BUT I am one of those who is really nervous about showing films you really like to those you love, and THIS one I surely will.
I'm reminded of Kevin Smith, in terms of the reality of an intimate, special world, without the - weirdness?
OK. Bottom line. I don't know what to compare this to. Yeah, Kevin Smith, but gentler. What have I loved that'll give ANYONE a clue? Little Miss Sunshine - Steelyard Blues - Blues Brothers - Driving Miss Daisy - The Remains of the Day. And so many, many more.
Check my reviews. I don't often give a recommendation.
This is one. Go for it.
(And I have NO IDEA what the IMDb storyline is talking about. I suspect it's another film :/ )
Mumbling, yes. about as much as Run Baby Run. Archetypal characters, well, tick, but then this is the US.
Personally, I liked it. I didn't expect to, but it was OK. They did a 'Coen brothers-y' thing, not really explaining the back story.
OK. Maybe the two male leads have similar attitudes to women and to their abusers as I do, so maybe that biases me, but I don't think that's all.
I think this has a body. Brains, guts, and a spine. The minor parts are well cast and directed, and the three leads rock.
I'm a bit surprised how slated this has been on IMDb.
I liked it, OK? So sue me....
I was - whatever - absorbed?
PI unearths plot, and pays the price. OK. It wasn't too noir, wasn't over-hip. Mena Suvari (bra on sex scene contract not withstanding) was real, and genuine, and it could almost have been a romcom. (I don't think I've ever had a sex scene with bras on, personally).
And then, it just suddenly revives. A new character, a new phase, act 2.
And then, suddenly, Act 3. People stop being who they were, and use guns. Who knew? Even, when it all calms down, another twist, and we have act 3.1.
My son-in-law is the acid test. If there are plot holes, he disses the film, and I wish I hadn't suggested it.
This got a 'pass' on his radar, (though he agreed with the 'stupid no tits rule'.
Worth a look. I was surprised, a few times. And that no longer happens often.
OK. Well, to start with, Mike Rooker, who has p****d me off for DECADES
with over-acting, and never quite making it, deserves a supporting
Oscar in this. Yes, his script is good, but, at last, HE's good.
The film is just, I dunno, not quite there. Too clever? Don't get me wrong, I liked it, it left me guessing, but that's just it. The back-story, the narrative in the writer's/director's mind, never quite made it to screen.
I'm left knowing I saw something good, something very good, but somehow, just a little, empty. Unresolved. And I'm not trying to say EVERYTHING should resolve - I mean, hey, I live in the UK - we can't even get the weather right - but.... I liked the film (it's gone from 7 to 8 while I wrote this, and the cinematography, script, acting, are all top notch...)
But then hey. I admired, and was irritated by Mulholland Drive. For similar reasons. Very similar. watch it. Definitely watch it. But don't blame me if you get just a little bit lost when the credits roll.
An opening scene which is green screen is a SERIOUSLY bad start. It inspired no confidence, and was seriously un-immersive.
The acting wasn't ALL bad, but was certainly patchy.
Direction OK, script a bit rubbish, the aliens not too bad. OK, to be fair, they died a bit easily, but then masks/CGI/whatever, I thought they were OK.
Just could have been far better.
I wish IMDb didn't have the 10 line limit. This one isn't worth any more than I just gave it.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |