nickel1976 Reviews

Interior (2014)

Very amusing. I think I was supposed to watch this stoned.

[6/10 · 24 April 2024]

Film maker says 2001. I say yeah...and Pink Floyd's "The Wall".

But that was the feel of it. There are several differences.

This is apparently a movie that uses the short film "Séance" as its foundation. I saw the short film and immediately followed it up with this one. I gave the short film a higher rating, though.

It's a haunted house horror. A lot of regularly used tropes are - once again - used. Someone is trying to catch paranormal activity on camera, tries desperately during the day time, gets a very boring show from the supposed ghost. Then it gets dark and things start to happen.

Eventually, the plot spins around and introduces the absurdity of a cynical photographer doing what he knows about to catch a ghost. He is self-assured and when "Emily" exposes him to his weaknesses, he falls apart and doesn't even really notice it. Reality becomes the enemy in his mind as he cannot discern what is real and what isn't. There's a lot of tongue-in-cheek references about voyeurism and what it must feel like to be on the side of the camera where you don't know you're being filmed. However, as the film wore on, the story seemed to disassociate from the effects of visual and audio stimulation. For a little too long. I didn't really understand it. But I'm completely sober, lights on, and while the soundtrack was pretty well crafted, it went a little overboard. That's one of the big reasons why Pink Floyd's "The Wall" comes to mind. Thing is, Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is presented as a musical, in a twisted sense. This isn't.

Which is why I think I should have been stoned or high while I watched it.

Too bad I really don't care to. I have been high, I've been stoned, I didn't like it. I'd watch it drunk but naaahhhh...you gotta be high or stoned.

Maybe someone will see it with some good drugs in their system and provide a detailed review, Aldous Huxley-style.

Mr. Harrigan's Phone (2022)

Stephen King doesn't always write horror!

[8/10 · 4 March 2024]

It's time for a facepalm moment.

King probably rolls his eyes when he sees reviews of films that have been made with his fiction sometimes. In fact, a lot of reviews on this page emphasize the trap that the world has yet to discover it is in. In a sense I do wonder if King wrote this story with a cynical smirk on his face, waiting for those who didn't fully understand the message to 'speak aloud' their expectations about the content. That there would be reviews stating "this is mislabeled" or "this isn't scary" or "the story really didn't have a compelling ending" or - the bizarre review claiming it's an iPhone advertisement - and they would be supported by several readers. All of these takes on the story and the reactions...they prove his point.

While King has been known lately to insert a little bit of social commentary to his fiction, the message wasn't shoved. It was offered, as is this review, as is every review on this page. From here, I can find other films like this by clicking a button the web page. I can expect IMDB to make suggestions. I can get reviews of the latest so-and-so screen offering right off the bat, watch the trailer from here, and decide whether to watch the film or not.

Would I have been able to do this when I was a child in the 80s? Hell no. In the 80s I would watch commercials that advertised a film. I might check the newspaper to see what the showtimes were, and then used a landline to call my friends to go see it at a later date. Now, I press a few buttons and BOOM! I'm showing the film on my 65" HD 4K TV that might actually be just short of the size of the screen I'd see in the theater. Then, I would walk home with my friends talking about it all.

Which situation would you rather be faced with?

It's easy to pick situation #1, especially lately because so many people out there have been brought up fully exposed to the "press a button, get what you want" type of life. The idea that people used to do the latter seems - at its surface - undesirable.

It's not.

I admit I didn't read the short story (and I ought to). The film had its flaws. The "Tuesdays with Morrie" feel that I think Hancock was trying to express...it didn't take. There were a lot of scenes that seemed out of place or put in at the last minute to cover up some plot holes, stuff like that. It seemed to be a character study but the study was nothing more than a rather disorganized mish mash of scenes that were ungracefully stitched together. Thank goodness for Donald Sutherland. He played his part masterfully (although...when doesn't he?). Nevertheless, I enjoyed the film and the intended message. It is a story that belongs in the signature lore collection of Stephen King. Now if only people gave the story a little bit of consideration before giving it a thumbs down.

Confessions of a Time Traveler - The Man from 3036 (2020)

Terrible film but a great point of discussion.

[4/10 · 7 February 2024]

What is bad about this film?

The editing. Each sentence that rolled out of the man's mouth was strung together from different shots.

The cinematography. We really didn't need to see the man repeatedly worshiping the sun. What was the point of seeing the narrator go thru his bathroom drawers?

The script. Oh wow. The story given is completely off the wall ridiculous and litters so many inconsistencies and holes that it's very hard to even consider respecting the idea. Between the time the film was released and the time the man claims he's from is 1016 years. The man's language, words, and prosody are those of an overly cynical and defeatist person that exists in the present. The ideas he presents play out like they might have been in development for tops 200-300 years. I was expecting the man to go into details about the extensive time period that separated 3036 and the present...but nothing. I figured maybe some sort of dark ages fell over the earth. All we were left with at the end was a really vague disclaimer. And what happened to the man at the end? It's hilariously absurd.

The intent. Clearly this film was produced as a byproduct of the conspiracy theories that were brimming at the time the film was made...and seem to have been pervasive since, sadly.

What is good about this film?

The general subject. I'm always looking for works that point out that in the present, humans are in a persistent state of conflict between exuberant hubris and caution motivated by a sense of responsibility. Carl Sagan labeled the time period we live in as a time of "technological adolescence", where we are at risk of destroying ourselves if our wisdom does not evolve enough to keep us from falling victim to our weaknesses as a species. We're in delicate form and have a difficulty seeing/feeling/interpreting history in anything more than small time batches. So, some of what the man said about the near future isn't impossible to imagine, at least, for me. The reviews I've read of this film are excellent exhibits of humans behaving just as I described.

The references to history that may intrigue people to learn. The Montauk Project, the Philadelphia Experiment, fun conspiracy theories that have a lot of pull on today's attitudes. The Annunaki references, which were a set of gods worshiped by ancient civilizations. Their stories were some of the first accounts of humans exercising spirituality...and inadvertently researching astronomy. The tongue in cheek reference to the Rothschilds. It's eye rolling, but if the viewer feels so compelled, they can look at history to see the source of the joke.

The scenery. Gotta agree with the man, it's not so bad.

I don't want the 37 minutes back. I'd probably just use it to scroll thru my phone reading useless crap anyway.

Christmas with a Capital C (2011)

A brave Christmas subject that is handled with some grace

[3/10 · 29 November 2023]

First of all: I'm not a person of faith or belief. That means I pretty much abstain from organized religion and spiritualism in general. Having said that, the impact faith has had on human society has always polarized people (excuse the pun). That's undeniable.

I approached watching this film with the "aw, what the heck, I'm bored, let's see if this film adds any substance to the argument of how to greet people at the end of the year". Surprisingly, it did.

Despite the fact that Brad Stine's character was so annoying that - after awhile - I muted him anytime he came on screen (subtitles are the way to go), the acting was pretty typical for your low budget 90 minute Christmas flick. That is, with my apologies to Ted McGinley. I can't get him out of his "Married...with Children" role in my head. Truthfully, I don't think I want to. Overall the acting left much to be desired. The argument about public funds paying for a decoration that would have spiritual meaning to fewer people than the population represents is a tired one.

Nevertheless, there were a few refreshing things in this movie. 1) The pastor wasn't a pulpit-based "fire and brimstone" motivated individual with tunnel vision. He spoke with fairness and respect. 2) The scenery. Oh, man, the scenery. I have to hand it to the cinematographers for allowing the absolute freezing beauty of Alaska be a main character. If only I liked the cold more. 3) There's probably a reason why we see Danny Baldwin in this flick instead of Stephen Baldwin: it's not a film that has a 'born-again or irredeemable' feel to it. 4) If I were to read a biography of the individual that inspired New Testament Christianity instead of The Bible, Jesus would be described as a man who loved and was in service to his people without ceasing. Period. That's a big part of the sentiment the film is trying to portray. I'm good with that. Many Christians are Christians who aim to be inspired by this behavior. Note I said many, not all.

I gave it a 3 because the old argument we've heard too much about already is rehashed, the acting was forced, the plot was predictable, and I fell asleep halfway thru it and had to watch it later. The script was very disengaging. But the refreshing parts made up for a good portion of that.

Howard's Mill (2021)

People seriously thought it was a documentary?!?

[9/10 · 29 October 2023]

I didn't see that label when watching the trailer, which clearly gave off "mocumentary" vibes. Maybe that word should start being used as an actual film category. I thought it was good fun! There were a few plot holes and the end left me wanting, but the mystery factor was pretty darn cool. There was maybe a single jump scare scene that was weak. I would say it's more of a paranormal mystery than a horror film.

I also thought the mystery was littered with a bit too many characters and plot points and very little cinematography to create a visually oriented build up of suspense. To give it some credit, though, it kinda felt like one of those "48 hours" shows.

Godless: The Eastfield Exorcism (2023)

It's horror, it's thriller, it's scary. Just...from a different viewpoint.

[9/10 · 8 September 2023]

I started this film with popcorn, waiting for the bibles and crosses to come out. I watched a plot that was all too familiar, a young woman exhibiting extremely odd and inconsistent behavior. I watched her loved ones - deeply Christian, but not Catholic - question the medical professionals that the woman was using for treatment. I watched her get steered into an exorcism. I watched the oddly confident exorcist come and prep for removing her demons. And then...

I got suspicious. And then peeved. And then frustrated.

I knew this story was based on something that had happened once in real life, so I paused the film and read the story. The further I got into the story, the more my frustration turned into fury.

As the movie rolled on, the anger turned into wide gaping mouth open shock and then to deep, deep despair. I couldn't stop the tears. They kept falling until the end of the film.

I feel raw as I write this. The film doesn't really suggest anything to the viewer that's fundamentally different from what the real life events did. It's really not much more than an account of a terrible, horrific event that spreads the word to the world about what can happen if... An advertisement. For what? Well, watch the film.

This one is going to stay with me for quite awhile.

Final Prayer (2013)

I think the one word to describe this film is..."NOPE"!

[10/10 · 24 August 2023]

This film came out far, far before "Nope" did, but it very well could have been called the same thing had the word been used as it is ten years later. I gotta hand it to Jordan Peele for the name of the movie he directed because...I don't think there could be a better title. In this case..."The Borderlands"? "Final Prayer"? Yeah...not good names. Yet the similarities to "Nope" are both large in number and difficult to pick up on unless you're looking for them.

I will say this: I love exorcism films. I...ahem...almost feed on them. I was all parked in for the evening to enjoy some rosary swinging, some requests for a name, you know, stuff like that. I figured the further the team explored the church the further they would come to the source of the miracle(?) that has happened. Well, they do. And they bring in a pretty decent people to find the cause and get to the bottom of the mystery.

It was slow to start, and the found footage was a stretch, but in last 3rd of the film things speed up. Fast. And then...

...the ending totally flipped my expectations upside down.

My mouth gaped open for a good thirty seconds. When it closed I realized that an exorcist movie went full cosmic horror in just a few moments. I have to say that the ending killed it. I'll be watching it again.

A Cure for Wellness (2016)

Every horror fan has that ONE horror film which is too disturbing to rewatch...

[5/10 · 22 August 2023]

...this film is mine. I admit that it was hard to watch because I have a reoccurring nightmare that I had for years before I watched this film and the experiments done closely resemble that nightmare.

I won't spoil things here. What I will say is that the victimization of the so-called patients is exploited. The overall plot reveal about what's really going on there violently played whack-a-mole with my greatest fears and levels of disgust. The purpose of the experiments and the way they were shown as a build-up to THAT scene was incredibly twisted and unsettling.

It gave me the feeling that I'd get if I decided to ocean swimming with no light to see what was around me. That terrifies me.

So anyway, enjoy the movie. Here's to hoping it doesn't cause you nightmares.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016)

Mysterious, creepy, Brian Cox, but ending...meh.

[8/10 · 15 August 2023]

For the longest time I thought I had already seen this film. Ninety minute horrors are often what I use to unwind at the end of the day. Well, I was wrong. When I saw Austin and Tommy (Brian Cox), I realized I would have remembered it. Brian Cox didn't come to my attention until he played Samara's adoptive father in "The Ring". His role - though only on screen for a short time - was one of the most impactful roles of the film. It took me a few minutes but the connection was made. I really have to see more of his stuff.

In any case, the tropes are in full force but it was still a nice somewhat original plot. Slow build...to a rather unfulfilling ending. I kind of want there to to be another installment by the original director that really focuses on the center of the overall mystery and how it was that the body...ended up the way it was. The history of the incident that is central to the plot is one that just about everyone is at least somewhat familiar with, yet I cannot recall a film or television show that used the spectral evidence to introduce the idea that what happened back then was, in fact, paranormal. Maybe one attempt to get the Warrens involved in the whole thing, but that was unsatisfying too. All other film references were rather vague or hokey. This film could be a wonderful jumping off point.

It's still entertaining!

Last Radio Call (2022)

Broken record. Your typical 90 minute FF horror...but...

[7/10 · 24 July 2023]

...the execution was lacking. It was 75 minutes. The extra 15 minutes - if used wisely - could have made this film better. It's a reader's digest sort of film. The camera man is always there, but we know nothing about him. His interpretations of what goes on and the missing parts are described in small black screens with more info. The acting of the protagonist and the other characters that are filmed...well, they weren't given a lot to work with, but I gotta say they acted as if they were fresh out of drama school doing summer stock. Typical horror tropes infested the film. But yet..

I liked it.

Alcoholism, self-loathing, and delusions are front and center in this film. It's definitely a film you should watch without any lights on to get the full effects. But the torture that the protagonist seemed to be dealing with was poorly expressed. The constant wandering of the halls of the hospital may have taken up about 20% or more of the time in the film...it got really, really, tedious. Again, time that could have been better allotted. Plot holes and vague references were all over the place. I will watch a film despite all that, so long as it keeps me engaged. "What's gonna happen next?" That's what kept my eyes on the screen.

Great idea, but poorly executed. At least it's only 75 minutes long.

Evidence (III) (2012)

Mediocre found footage banking on a giant plot twist

[3/10 · 26 February 2023]

I can often get behind found footage films. The ones I like the most provide some fictional critique of events. Loved "Hell House LLC", "Europa Report" was AMAZING, "Paranormal Activity" is pretty neat.

When I saw the trailer of this film, I immediately thought "I've seen this one already, haven't I?" I hadn't, but the trope of the camping trip going wrong isn't unusual.

Well,I decided to give it a try after I saw it got some good reviews. I sat through the three acts. Around 2/3 thru the film, the screaming gets heavy and we see the twist. I gotta say the twist was a bit refreshing. However, the remainder of the film was - for all intents and purposes - a found footage film that masqueraded as a shoot 'em up video game. I really did wonder what age Ryan McCoy was when he first conjured up the film's premise, because it's fundamentally an 18 year old male horror film lover's wet dream. I don't identify as being in that category of viewers. I wasn't scared, I was bored, kept yelling at the film to get to the point...until it was all over - credits and everything - and I realized there was no point, and I wanted my time back.

I can see why the film is divisive. If there's a sequel/prequel to this coming out, I'm hoping it's a bit more sophisticated.