Slowblivion Reviews

Alien Uprising (2012)

Not the worst, but not good

[3/10 · 4 January 2014]

I feel like many of the reviews I've seen thus far have been overly harsh but not unfounded in their criticisms.

The general concept of a group of friends trying to survive an alien invasion while also having to deal with the human element was alluring enough for me to give it a shot (and I did watch the whole thing as others seemed to have tapped out after a mere 20-30 minutes) and I'm not totally unhappy that I did. However, make no mistake, this is a very poor movie overall.

It's low budget, which in and of itself is fine, but combined with the big concept, the two don't mesh. Acting is decent for much of the film with the exception Bianca Bree (Jean Claude Van Dam's real life daughter). There wasn't a single line of dialogue she offered that didn't make me cringe. There wasn't a single second of her on screen that didn't make me roll my eyes and simply wonder what the director was telling her to do. Since this review will contain spoilers, I'll say it, she's an alien... AND WHO DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING AFTER 5 MINUTES OF HEARING HER SPEAK!? She's incredibly robotic in her speech and so bafflingly ridged the entire time it's simply uncomfortable to watch her. The Robot in The Day The Earth Stood Still had more human qualities. Really, she was my only real complaint when it comes to acting aside from some silly dialogue and some serious ham from time to time. I doubt there was any scenery left to chew when all said and done.

Visually the movie wasn't terrible although the camera work was really perplexing at times. But if you're looking for some quality alien battles and such, look elsewhere. any significant alien ship battle type scenes are so dark and confusing that you'll be lucky to pick out a ship compared to a piece of lint on your screen. Wait, is that a ship? oh no, just a dead pixel in my TV... moving on.

The music choices in this couldn't have been worse. Truly jaw dropping how they thought the musical accompaniment would do anything but destroy any kind of suspension of disbelief I might have felt. OK, to be fair, they could have been worse, it could have been 1940's big band and it might have been worse. Or perhaps had the movie had a continual loop of Call Me Maybe. Perhaps then it could have been worse.

Story seemed lazy. Editing seemed lazy (or like they didn't know how to put it all together). The ending is just a slap in the face to anyone who sat through the film in it's entirety. Really what it comes down to is that UFO is just an insignificant film. It's not the worst thing out there by any stretch and there are some somewhat interesting moments but really the whole thing was just poor. Not something i'd suggest others to watch for sure.

The East (2013)

Didn't hit the mark for me, but solid film.

[5/10 · 22 April 2013]

First and foremost, this is a nice movie overall. Shot well, acted well, generally pleasing as a story but I really felt the heavy hand of ideology above all else. This was easily the biggest turn off of the film. It's an attack on class, on corporate America, on wealth all kind of rolled into one and while I actually agreed with much of the general idea, being told repeatedly how bad "they" just wore me out. Now, that's not to say the film takes this as it's message. The anarchist collective (The East) carries out it's terror pranks as a way to show those who they feel have done wrong a taste of their own medicine in an eye for an eye style vengeance. Where the message really rests is the contrast between their heavy handed and petty methods of dealing justice which yields almost zero result and only goes to further a growing divide (call it wealth, power, whatever the case) and the protagonists view of showing the world and exposing the injustices, allowing people to make their own decisions, take their own action, and generally play within the system how the system was meant to be. In a sense, allowing society's laws and such to be acted upon instead of vigilante justice. It's the old feeling that the system doesn't work so abandon it vs. the system doesn't work, so fix it. Each has it's merits and will play to a certain person but neither is entirely in the right either.

All this is nice and interesting, however, over the course of the film, it's made abundantly clear that the collective, while well intentioned, is completely hypocritical. We want you to stop hurting people so we're going to hurt you... whoever we deem "you" to be, even if you have nothing to do with the actual act. One could say the pharmaceutical company who hurts hundreds but saves hundreds of thousands is "well intentioned", right? Much like a collective who hurts dozens to help hundreds? Well, as collectives tend to be... self righteousness comes in buckets. Simply put, I was keenly aware of this hypocrisy very quickly and thus, couldn't quite wrap my head around the protagonists shift from undercover agent to sympathetic co conspirator. That single dynamic really caused the film to be a bumpy ride for me. In a sense, why would I ever root or sympathize with the people who are simply looking for petty and empty vengeance to send a message? So, the alternative ends up being a path that nearly everyone takes when faced with an injustice. They show it to the world and the world reacts. For that being the final sentiment, I was left feeling a bit let down.

Another point to make about The East is that the protagonist is generally passive. Things happen surprisingly easily for her. She is almost immediately accepted into this secretive anarchist collective, she is then trusted by those who were only moments before highly suspicious of her to carry out a fairly intricate plot, she (without much effort) is able to fall in love with the leader of the collective. This isn't to say she doesn't progress as a character, she does, but it's at a snails pace for much of the film.

Some other minor things that just bugged me is that supporting characters made very abrupt exits never to be seen or heard from again. I wasn't overly happy with Page's character, Izzy. Not that her performance wasn't very good, it was, simply that her moment in the sun is so unsatisfying. It could have been done purposely but I don't know.

All this negative aside, The East is a decent film and certainly provokes some interesting questions. As I said, the acting is very good in the film and quite enjoyable. The visuals are mostly simplistic but again, tastefully done. In general, the film is pretty solid. Unfortunately, for me, the philosophical and societal questions the film raises were just a bit too easily answered. Yes, big business who manipulates and poisons while operating above the law is wrong. Yes, going after them and trying to give them cancer as retribution is wrong. Yes, instead of essentially becoming the devil you despise, tell the world, expose truth and let society's laws which are there for a reason be the rule.

Carl Panzram: The Spirit of Hatred and Vengeance (2011)

Not very good overall

[3/10 · 21 April 2013]

I've always had an interest in the psyche of mass murderers and career criminals so I jumped when I saw Panzram on this doc. The story of Panzram is quite interesting but this documentary really leaves too much to be desired. My opinions are not of the story of Panzram, but the documentary itself.

I simply don't understand the generally high ratings this doc has gotten. First things first, the dramatic reenactments are almost comedically poor. Not the tone which is trying to be set yet I found myself shaking my head every time the actors took the screen. I found the sound effects used to emphasize aspects of the still pictures were either wrong (in that it seemed like someone had perhaps put the wrong sound in) or grossly misused. ADR was awful.

The biggest problem, however, is the disjointed nature and sporadic flow of the narrative. The story grinds to a halt as the testimonials are constantly brought up to very nearly justify the murders and rapes as being a result of institutionalization in the 20's (despite the OBVIOUS immediate reaction that if this was so wide spread and rampant... why didn't hardly anyone else in those systems react as Panzram did). The story will follow Panzram as a child and how he got in trouble then testimonials would interrupt claiming how he was tortured. Based on the facts presented in the doc, there was little torture of him as a child. In fact, he was mentioned to have been "spanked" as part of a punishment. One testimony simply glossed it over by saying, "we could only imagine what that was like".... well given lack of any other indication one would guess a belt or a paddle much like nearly all disciplining was done back then. Yet, we're made to feel almost sorry for this poor boy. My grandfather didn't murder and rape dozens of people but he got paddled in school just like Panzram.

Really what the doc comes down to isn't Panzram. It falls to Lesser, the guard, being a bit more progressive (completely naive) than the system he works for and the filmmakers views on 20's institutions (as though anyone views them in a real positive light anyway). Which, in my opinion, is a bait and switch. You lure me into a doc about Panzram and I get really basic info without any real insights only to then preach a philosophy on prisons and youth education which as almost entirely already occurred in those systems over nearly the last century that this film is basing events off. But it wasn't because of Panzram. Panzram didn't revolutionize the prison system, he was merely a footnote in its history. Yet, this doc uses him as the poster child as though he single handedly altered perceptions. To most, he will forever be unknown. To those who do know of him, he was a murderer and a rapist.

Really, i'm not trying to be hard on it, but I just don't feel this is a very strong documentary. Let me put it this way... one of the very few commentators is an artist who merely has a fascination with Panzram. And a museum where they have the hood and rope used during his execution spelled his name wrong... Panzran. You'd think a credible museum would want to have the name spelled right on their displays, right? Appears not. They explain why it's spelled that way but it's still incorrect and they know it.

Bottom line, it's not the worst documentary but it fails to deliver on several levels. What's worse, it's preaching as to a moral completely overshadows the prime character's story which the documentary is based on.

3-10

Pleasures of the Damned (2005)

I refuse

[1/10 · 14 November 2011]

This is a joke, this has to be a joke... It's not a movie. It might be a really well disguised sandwich or perhaps some small furry animal that can adapt to it's surroundings but it's NOT A MOVIE.

There's no reason to watch Pleasure of the Damned. No amount of drugs or alcohol or mental incapacity will make you want to watch this. This is little more than a group of people running around in awful costumes dubbing lines in an attempt at humor which is an absolute failure. What the film is about isn't important as you will certainly not care after around 40 seconds.

This makes your neighbors vacation video to Branson Missouri look like A Clockwork Orange.

I cannot stress this enough... DO NOT WATCH THIS GARBAGE. You'll feel more of a reward if you simply put your head on the street and ask friends to run their 4x4's over it.

Interestingly enough it is said here on IMDb that the film was banned for 25 years which is a misprint. It should have said no one has watched it in apparently 6 years and shouldn't for eternity. But of course, mistakes happen.

I give it 1 star for existing... and that it shouldn't.

Zombie Girl: The Movie (2009)

This is filmmaking folks

[7/10 · 13 November 2011]

What strikes me is that despite the age and experience difference, the problems encountered during filmmaking are all the same ones you find on small indie sets on up the line to the big boy pictures. issues with actors schedules, budgets, loosing light, prop mishaps, sound issues, the wear and tear a director, 1st AD, or producer feels etc. Heck, even the relationship between the mother and daughter is like relationships i've been witness to between producers and directors. Despite the love that they have for each other there is of course tension and sometimes that tension comes to a head which is captured in this documentary.

Having help from local film critics and of course Harry Knowles, it's also interesting to see the local community help out and show their support for someone who has no experience but only the want and drive to finish a movie. Many people may not realize or just choose to ignore the fact that making a film (short or feature) is hard work. The amount of planning is staggering sometimes even to seasoned professionals. To see them come and help a 12 year old who simply has a love for the craft is something special.

I'm not going to say this is the most inspirational piece in the world and it's not like the final product was Citizen Kane but this still merits a watch in my book. I can't really put my thumb on who this documentary may appeal to but i'll venture a guess. If you're interested in the film making process (in a general sense) and like a film about passion and conviction then I think this may be something worth watching.

I'm giving this a 7 for showing me that age has no bearing on passion and that doing what you set out to do can be it's own reward.

Zombies Anonymous (2006)

Small problems but otherwise decent!

[6/10 · 13 November 2011]

I'll forego a summary of the plot as it's available on many of the reviews already.

This was actually an alright movie!

The plot is fairly basic as a fanatical zombie group fights a fanatical human group. The trend to have zombies as more than just mindless, thoughtless, and speechless beings is a nice change (although there will always be a part of me who loves the Romero dead) I think what this story lacks however is a clear or at least defined subtext. It's fraught with social commentary, which I enjoy, but I feel like it's a bit all over the map. You can insert almost any "large group oppresses a minority group" commentary and it works. First that comes to mind is racism though. Second comes the idea of religious fundamentalism which is a bit more deep but just as interchangeable.

Acting is actually pretty good. I like that the content is taken seriously by the film makers and I think that comes off well on screen. I think a lot of the actors put a lot into this and while there are times where the acting is a little stale or reactions are sub par, I think in general acting was a positive.

One problem I have is during large portions of the beginning of the film, the soundtrack is far too loud compared to the dialogue and it's distracting. Editing isn't bad in the film but there are some sections where the cuts are off beat and a bit rough.

Another issue I have with this is the amount of girls in underwear or underwear visible from angles which allow for upskirts. It's not like I have some problem with it overall but I do feel like by putting your main character in a skirt the entire movie then positioning the camera just right to catch those upskirts is a bit much. Maybe they were trying to hit more of a young male demographic but I think it's distracting from a decent film.

There seems to be an abandonment halfway through the film of what is "normal" in the world. It's clear there are these 2 extremist groups but there is no sense of what the rest of the world actually feels as zombies are able to hold jobs and mingle at will with humans who tend to have no problem with it. It feels like I'm forced to watch only what these crazies are doing giving me little middle ground and honestly little break between one crazy group and the other.

General camera work and lighting is alright. I think many shots are underexposed and framed poorly while others look great minus the low camera quality.

As this is a zombie movie it's important to mention gore and SFX. If you want gore, well there's plenty of bites, head chopping, bullet wounds etc. I think it looked pretty good and I was impressed. Of course many of the gun shots (and there are a lot) have very low quality muzzle flashes but given the amount of other SFX I think the flashes can be excused.

Overall, i think It's moderately entertaining. It's nothing fantastic but certainly better than much of the drudge that swarms the zombie genre. They took it seriously and so will I. I give it a 6 for accomplishing a decent story, good gore and better than your average zombie movies acting. I take off for the general pacing, an unclear subtext, at times rough camera, editing, and audio work and, the unnecessary use of language and panty shots. (Before you go and say "wow, who made you PC police" I think offensive words can be used if there is a clear meaning and it has some relevance to character or plot such but in this case neither occurred and I just felt it was unnecessary usage)

Die-ner (Get It?) (2009)

Die-ner (Get it?)... Apparently not

[2/10 · 10 November 2011]

Our story starts with Ken sitting casually in a rural diner chatting with his waitress, Rose. This conversation is tongue in cheek and results in the death of both Rose and the only other person in the diner, the cook. Of course, this is because Ken is a serial killer.

While hiding the bodies, Ken is interrupted by Rob and Kathy who bicker about her want for a divorce not moments before entering the diner. Tending to them (with the intent of killing them, Ken is again interrupted by Sheriff Duke who strolls in for a coffee. Mysteriously, the two dead bodies hidden in the freezer reanimate and end up biting Duke in the neck. Rob and Kathy realize Ken is a killer and are essentially held hostage by him as he plays around carelessly for much of the film. Eventually Rob is eaten by a zombie in a truck outside the diner and Kathy is shot by a incompetent deputy sheriff and eaten by zombies. Ken gets his by being eaten by a group of zombies. Oh, and a very important denouement of a zombie getting into a truck.

The plot is disappointing. Too much rides on Ken talking mostly to himself as other characters whine and wince uncomfortably. This of course is probably important as the whole film occurs on happenstance so to fill the void from one event to the next, needless chatter is placed. The story itself is too small for the roughly 80 minute runtime. Characters don't progress in any arch and the end result is everyone dies leaving me as a viewer to wonder...what was the point?

Am I supposed to feel scared? Am I suppose to laugh? is there a subtext which I clearly don't pick up on? Was I supposed to side with Ken and his 2 cent serial killer philosophies which seem regurgitated from many other films or the whiney do nothing couple who have no respect for each other? I simply don't know.

As this is a zombie film, gore has to me mentioned. It's not a lot... In fact, there's really only one decent zombie bite which is pretty tame and standard. Gore is nothing special.

Continuity suffers a bit as boom shadows can be seen several times as well as blinds being open then closed at various times as well as general prop placement. Also story continuity is lacking, They're supposed to be somewhere in rural Idaho where it's "the loneliest place on the loneliest highway" yet at the end there are 20-30 zombies pouring into the diner... why? where'd these people come from?

Acting conveyed little for me as the characters are so unlikeable to begin with it's hard to say that had they been done better the story and film would have been different.

Music is repetitive and generic. Camera work is basically fine minus the fact that in many shots actors are framed awkwardly and focus at times is poor. (I say this is basically fine because you can't pick too much on such things given budget and what the film apparently was)

Overall, just not very good. I give credit to Josh Grote (Ken) who I think did pretty well overall. And yes he does look and at times sound very much like Edward Norton. Honestly, if you take Paul Rudd and Ed Norton you have Josh Grote. I can't recommend this film based on the idea that I truly don't believe it's entertaining. It's not funny, not scary, not mock worthy, not gory, not original, not shot well, not set well, doesn't offer any real message...etc. This film has little going for it other than being produced in 8 days and for $500,000. (that's not impressive but it shows me that things were probably rushed and corners had to be cut) 2 out of 10.

American Zombie (2007)

The potential outweighed the product

[6/10 · 3 November 2011]

I initially was really pleased after watching American Zombie but after thinking on it for a bit... I'm not so sure.

First, what I did like. I thought the acting is really well done in this. Yes it's supposed to be a mockumentary but characters like Jane really stood out. I did feel a tension which kept me interested through out the film. The production value was good, the sound was good, and the visuals were good. (Keep in mind it's a documentary style so there's no super cinematography in this but I was sold on the style)

I really liked the idea of "normal" zombies. I think that's a really interesting concept that plays out very well. I really liked the interaction between (i'm sorry I forget her name, but the really upbeat girl who at the end attacks John) and her "boyfriend". I like the optimism in trying to be something she's not. I like the scrapbooking and how she has no memory before her death so now she tries to keep everything in a memory... I like the depth the characters a lot.

Now, things after reflection...

Too much goes unexplored and left on the table for me to just guess at. The blue vials, what are they? are they some substitution for human flesh? are they drugs? feral zombies, where are they?

This film takes a while before it becomes interesting then that interest is quickly subsided as the pay offs fall flat. Live Dead... I'm thinking some subversive stuff, things the zombies don't want humans to see and it really is just Burning man for about 30 zombies. There just isn't enough tension to keep one engaged. A zombie stumbles next to the film makers tent... they complain about it then, nothing happens from it. They find their camp trashed, but they go to sleep with little worry. They are forced to leave the grounds but are easily able to film from a hill top near by. John drinks a blue vial... but he just feels a little sick then that's it.

I think what this suffers from is telling not showing which I know is hard to say since it's a documentary style but... John says he saw some crazy stuff, but we don't see it. The filmmakers say they see a girl get eaten... but we don't actually see it. They say the girl who is eaten turns into a zombie... but we're told it, not shown it. We hear zombies outside the tent, but we don't see them. It's just hard to really feel the danger when we have to just assume it all.

Another problem is I feel like there's a hugely interesting back story to how the undead came to be and how humans initially reacted to them, but all we get is a historian interview about how zombies happen, then stop for no reason. That's not backstory. That's just saying...look, we don't know, just go with it. This is a problem for me as one can't really understand humans reactions correctly. Zombies have jobs, walk freely, have their own apartments etc... people don't feel fear of them which is confusing as everyone is aware of the Hollywood zombie stereotype. Yet, John, still talks about how he wants to know if they eat flesh and what have you. The clarity of what humans know or believe or fear isn't clear so it makes it hard for a viewer, who naturally puts themselves in those shoes, to understand thus making everything have to be explained, but with so many things unexplained you feel you're not getting enough info to make any real decision. WHEW that's a run on, sorry.

Finally Johns infection. While I like the idea of him turning, I think it's too on the nose. There's a scene where John says all the zombies names have 4 letters, then Grace says, yeah, like John. Well go figure John gets bitten and turns. But...why? Why be bitten? I get the idea others have talked about such as self fulfilling prophecy but I think the bigger picture is his recognition of his bias and facing his fear. He's looking for the dirt on being a zombie... now he knows. But the film paints zombies in so many lights... normal, crazy, deceitful, liars, conniving, plotting... (Yes I get that these are all also human traits). But the tension of the plotting and what have you is lost when Johns bitten. Then it's just spelling it out for you which isn't what a film like this should do. Having him turn from the vial drink would have been far more interesting to then see how he deals with his turning and even an interview with him at the end as a zombie.

Look, this isn't a bad movie. And the fact that i'm focusing almost entirely on the story is important to note. This had many good things going for it. Again, acting, concept, production value, decent camera work etc... The way the story played out just didn't live up to what was a really good idea. I give a lot of credit for trying something new and in the zombie genre, originality is key and often lacking. The end product is a decent movie but I think it will bore gore hounds and general horror fans. I think the only people I could recommend this film to are people like me... those are people who enjoy zombie movies for subtext and meaning, not just for kills and girls in skimpy clothing.

Pontypool (2008)

A throwback to Romero in a different kind of way...

[8/10 · 2 November 2011]

Pontypool has been reviewed enough that I don't feel the need to have to go through the plot in any great depth.

Let me say this though, how refreshing. In a genre crammed so full of schlock and self inflicting jokes it's so nice to see a film take itself seriously when dealing with zombies. Now, I know some people have a problem with the whole "word infection" idea and to a certain extent I can see that. But it's a not so subtle way of saying words are infectious. Their meanings are infectious. Our responses are infectious to others. I get it, I like it. Romero is loved for his satire through zombies, I see this as modern satire on media and speech. It even goes so far as to say English is the infectious language. I see it as a very tongue in cheek jab at American mass media and incendiary speech. Again, I like it. And at the end of it all, what's the end conclusion for the characters? We won't stop talking, we won't be silenced, we won't bow down and obey just because our words aren't what you want to hear. Are you kidding? This is golden. This is what the droves of zombie films have been lacking. A real subtext that makes you think further than ...where's the big zombie kill?... Romero did it with Racism, Consumerism, Elitism etc... I see this in that same vein.

Acting is fantastic in this, McHattie and Houle are excellent as well as Georgina Reilly and Hrant Alianak. Lighting is great. Camera movement is tasteful and engaging. And all while staying basically in only 4 or 5 rooms. That's impressive, kudos art department.

This film isn't a "scary" movie although It did make my skin crawl a bit listening to KEN when he was in the grain silo and in his dart watching the zombies attack the doctors office. It's a very interesting perspective being holed up and only hearing reports which cannot be confirmed or denied. The confusion that sets in. The sudden feeling that it's all in their heads. The want to know more just as the characters do.... this is good film making people. This is what happens when you have a good script, good actors, and directors who know what they want. And guess what? IT WAS CHEAP! How many zombie films have basically equal budget to this and look like junk...sound like junk... are acted poorly... have no shred of plot... have no direction... You have to understand why this is better for all those reasons.

Look, if you want a campy zombie film... this isn't it. If you want huge explosions and dynamic effects...don't watch. But, if you're looking for a film with good production value, with good acting, with good lighting, good sound, good story, an original concept in a genre plagued (pun intended) by monotony then Pontypool is something you should absolutely check out if given the chance.

I give an 8 because I don't give 10's. Something must really be perfect to earn that and it's almost impossible. I would give a 9, however still being a zombie film I would like to have seen a bit more direct conflict with the zombies. Aside from that... Bravo cast and crew... really well done.

III Slices of Life (2010)

Why do I do this to myself?

[2/10 · 2 November 2011]

After watching Slices of Life, SOL, I am reminded of what was once told to me. I know you can, but you shouldn't. In my case it was trying to steal road signs while drunk, in SOLs case, it's being made.

I take offense to the numerous reviews of this film which are clearly friends of people who worked on the film or those workers themselves. Simply put, don't review if you are related to the project, it's tacky and looks desperate.

I feel like direction may have been seriously lacking for the multitude of actors in this film. Not knowing where to look, not knowing what to do with their body, not knowing motivation for emotion or for lines... you name it, they don't have it. Another potential case of a Director/Editor/ADR/writer/Props/Producer/Makeup Artist doing a bit too much of everything else and not enough on any one job to do it well.

This all could also stem from the 4 stories. I'm not going to go into each in depth since each could have a whole review and it would take far too long to write. So as an overall... You can't just say, hey, we've got 3 maybe OK ideas so lets just add a meaningless frame story and make 3 shorts. They don't stand alone and together they look even worse. Work life features meaningless dialogue with characters who have no impact on the story (stretching a thin plot for length). Not caring much about or for the protagonist means the climax (if not the whole story) is meaningless...which a girl who likes a guy who feels lonely being shot in the head is a pretty poor climax regardless. Then the denouement is cheesy and completely ridiculous. Home Life (book 2) starts out promising but quickly falls flat as the set up is trumped by an over eager jump into the horror. Then the "twist" is basically given to you after the husband first walks in the door at the beginning. There is no rising action as things simply just happen. One minute it's a a baby shower, then a demon child. Then a loving talk with a husband, then another haunting. Then supermarket, where visions occur. then home, where more visions and another haunting... No build up makes for scenes feeling lazily put together as well as just a prelude to some gory death. As for book 3, Sex Life... it's better than the rest as a story, but somethings are simply bothersome. The girl being molested by her uncle then getting vengeance with her crotch monster is unnecessary as well as the characters reaction (or non reaction) to her being raped in the first place. Not saying this story is good, merely put together better...as unbelievable as it is. The 4th frame story is just weak and pointless with zero pay off as of course the girl named Mira is in fact Irma...must have taken a page from Troll 2. Also, the fact that she has amnesia seems to be lost as she knows the protocol of the motel at the end while all she did was read her books at the front desk.

I understand there are 3 separate stories wrapped up in the framing 4th story but the visuals within each sequence are confused. constant breaking of 180 line, unmotivated (frankly uninspired) camera movements, poor focus at times, completely unnecessary insert shots, inconsistent coverage, etc. Bottom line, not shot well.

Continuity suffers through this film, as a script supervisor it bothers me to see these things. However I do recognize editing has a big effect on this and given the massive editing problems through this film that may be where the continuity errors stemmed from. Bad cuts, bad ADR, horrible SFX, using every cheap filter and general effect trick FCP or perhaps even Premiere has, I got a headache from the constant flashes, dutch angles, and digital shakes/zooms.

Audio dies in this film. At times it's normal quality, then dips to on camera quality, then disappears, then reappears in ADR version... This isn't surprising as it took 4 years to film this so it's not realistic to believe they kept the same mixers or mics over that time frame.

Look, bottom line is this should have been just the stories as shorts, this way the proper funds and time could be allocated to make the stories more interesting and the final screen product more valuable and entertaining. But as is, it's a cheap attempt at Creepshow or even a slightly more adult version of Are You Afraid of the Dark? My recommendation... avoid if you can. Not even much fun to try to mock as after a while even to riff becomes tedious.

Doghouse (2009)

Better than what others might have you believe

[6/10 · 25 October 2011]

Look, when you're going to watch a zombie movie that's not made by Romero or by someone with a lot of money, it's probably not going to be all that great.

I didn't know what I was getting into when I watched this but I have to say after the shlock that's been put out in the zombie genre it's simply shocking to see people calling this the worst ever. Frankly, this isn't too far off from Shaun of the Dead. The humor isn't quite there but the acting is (which is more than I can say for about 90% of films in this genre). I was happy to see both Lee Ingleby and the great Steven Graham.

Simply put, there's nothing really BAD about this movie. Are the characters reaction to the situation sometimes a bit over the top or even without urgency? sure... but then so was shaun of the dead. There's good camera work and lighting. good acting by those I mentioned as well as several others. The music didn't strike me as wrong in any way. It had a nice pace to it and quite frankly, they put their 4 million dollar budget to good use. Good gore, great location, and good overall production value.

When people complain about zombie films it's always... about the acting, the music, the scenery, the gore, the lack of urgency etc... well Doghouse scores pretty well for me on most of those topics. I had some issues with the amount of characters and yes the general idea was a little hokey but I can forgive that since they put out a film which was entertaining. If you want shlock, this isn't for you. If you want big budget zombiepocalypse films... look elsewhere. If you want a decent small budget zombie flick that's more entertaining than scary...then this is probably a good choice.

I give Doghouse a 6 out of 10 for showing that even small time zombie movies can be done well if people would just put in the effort. Does it have it's flaws? yes, But i'd much rather watch this than many of the seemingly endless amount of garbage they call "zombie movies" today.

Bloodlust Zombies (2011 Video)

If it's a joke, it's lost on me.

[25 October 2011]

Alright before I get into the various things that are wrong in this video... I emphasize video... I think the only thing that was a positive is Lauren Todd. (it wasn't a big positive but for not having any credits to her name, i thought she was kind of funny and do hope to see her in more films) She played the temp in case you don't know the name.

With that said, wow... trash.

It's a cheap movie which is a fact that is abundantly clear given the security control room is clearly also an editing suite. (you can see the multichannel sound board and an AVID keyboard as well as what looks like a waveform or vectorscope... not entirely sure which)

This is supposed to be a high tech/high security facility for a group that develops chemical weapons for the military, so why are all the rooms painted like a fun house? One scene contains a red wall, a blue wall, a yellow wall and a white wall.

The acting is bad but if you look closely, you may understand why they all looked absolutely lost through the whole film. The director, Dan Lantz, was also an actor, also the writer, also the director of photography and producer. It's pretty clear to me that it's hard to give actors the attention needed to get decent performances when you're time is split between 5 different jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other jobs he's not credited for that he was doing. Is that an excuse? no, but it explains a lot.

Large sections of the film is chattering between characters who reveal nothing and progress the story in no way at all. (temp talking to the sex hound guy) (alexis Texas talking to the boss lady)... In fact, no one seems all that worried about the impending death that awaits them so you don't ever feel bad when they die and when they don't, you're upset.

I get that this is supposed to be jokey and fun but the jokes fall to pieces really quick. Lighting is bad, the music is ridiculous, editing is awful. The nudity is tasteless and forced in so much that it makes you wonder why the director/writer/actor/director of photography etc didn't just skip the story and have a 20 minute video of girls running around topless. (I guess one has to justify the nudity with story) The writing is bad enough it seems like it was written as the film was going with only a loose premise holding it all together.

If movies are made with the idea that it will probably be bad one has to beg the question, why are you making it at all? And if you're going to make a "zombie" movie, they have to be zombies, not mutants. So in the credits, don't list the cast as ZOMBIES/MUTANTS....

I give it 2, 1 because it's the lowest I can go, and the second because I think Lauren Todd was alright....

Stuck! (2009)

STUCK! I felt like it.

[1/10 · 22 October 2011]

First off, what time period is this set in? Various things point to the 50's (Daisy's car, the type of prison, the uniforms of inmates and guards and yes, the whole feel of the film) however, when you see modern EXIT signs, a witness who's hair is clearly straight out of '88, televisions with remotes (digital remotes at that) and a black female warden (wouldn't happen in the 50's) you have to question just when this is supposed to take place.

Also, the judge and judgment bother me. 1, The judge says he hasn't seen in all his years (presumably many years since he's old) any crime so heinous. Daisy killed her mother (actually didn't but that doesn't change any outcome) … how is a single murder the most heinous thing he's seen? The other women in her pod have equal if not greater offenses and yet, Daisy, is put forth first to be executed. Also, if this is fairly modern, then the punishment of hanging is pretty far fetched. Given that only New Hampshire and Washington state still allow it, (Washington gives option of lethal injection) the southern accents by all the inmates and guards is highly suspicious.

There are two stories that go one, Daisy and the witness…. The witness is driven mad by her guilt and kills herself as Daisy hangs in prison. Why? Why would someone who thought she saw and was willing to testify in court, under oath, that she did in fact see what she thought she did. Where did this guilt come in? Her story is intercut haphazardly and since the witnesses story doesn't ever follow up on itself it's easy to forget just what she was doing the last time she's on screen. We'll be in the prison for 30 minutes, then jump to her hitting a squirrel while driving…back to prison for 25 minutes, she buys a piece of meat at a market and faints. She goes to a doctor, then a psychiatrist (which we don't see and it would have been a huge help to understand WHY she feels what she's feeling instead of assuming we as the audience understands it and sympathizes, which I don't) .

The character arcs are… odd. Daisy is a mild mannered and soft demeanor kind of girl. After her first attempted hanging she turns into a sassy know it all. This is explained through a conversation with black widow, but then after Daisy stages a small assault on the ONLY PRISON GUARD IN THE BLOCK (this was really distressing) she is sent to solitary. In solitary she reverts back to her soft and confused eyes. No sass, nothing. Then she's raped at the behest of the female guard and the female warden by several men in animal masks… why the females would subject her to that is beyond me. I don't pretend to understand the female psyche but… seems pretty poor. The film didn't gain anything from this rape as later she's just going through the motions as though nothing has happened.

Of course, The prison guard (Amazon) has her own change of heart…sort of. She's abusive, disgusting, and manipulative… then AFTER THE RAPE she's kinder and more understanding. Why, who the hell knows…

Issues such as the witness using the same gun to kill herself as Daisys mother did at the beginning is one of many prop and set issues. The prison is confusing (looks modern, then just old, then to decrepit in the various rooms) The yard is just a wall which actors are lined up too closely with offering no depth in the shots. (looks to have been shot inside a stage, not outside due to odd echoes in the audio)

Overall, I don't know what I was supposed to take away from the film. That good people die? The system doesn't work? That prisoners are nice and friendly? That guards have a change of heart? That witnesses feel irrepressible guilt for telling what they saw? … I don't know. There's no feeling of satisfaction and there's no feeling of a central story. I've heard others call this powerful, gritty, eye opening..etc. How it can be viewed as anything but confusing, inaccurate, unbelievable, misguided, and drawn out is beyond me.

On a positive, the acting wasn't THAT bad and even had a good performance from the woman playing Black Widow (mimi I think) . Cinematography wasn't spectacular but had some good Noir moments sprinkled throughout.

for that and perhaps a concept that failed ambition, I have to say 2 of 10

Days of Darkness (2007)

Zombies!I... I guess

[2/10 · 21 September 2011]

First and foremost I can't give this a 1 star because I do think it's better than that. Secondly, I refuse to give movies like this a 10 for being "so bad it's good". It's a cop out and a cheat to people who actually appreciate good storytelling. Also, this will be a long one simply because there's so much I could talk about.

Anyways... A piece of a comet streaks through earths atmosphere and burns up. It's contents are aliens.... or at least alien single cell bacteria, that when encountered by humans through this dust, turns them into zombies. Now, I don't like to nit pick but as a fan of the genre it's hard not to. How can one be entertained if the premise doesn't make sense, right? Well, my first knee jerk reaction is to go along with this and just see where it takes the story. However later we find out the aliens can't survive in earths atmosphere... So my question is, why didn't the bacteria die out almost immediately? But whatever, sometimes you have to go with it.

So the points I thought were decent or good were lighting and... that might be it. The movie pretty much takes place entirely in 3 or 4 rooms and then outside... This leads to some very boring and repetitive backdrops.

Characters are bland and honestly don't offer much for the actors to go off of. Doesn't appear the director helped with that much. Simply put, the characters are all very cliché and one dimensional. I don't know almost anything about anyone as they have such limited backstories. one was in the military... and done. one came from a line of doctors (isn't one himself)... done One was a porn star...done. one worked in a church...done. one owns a ranch...done. one lives in Florida...done. then there's other people... I guess.

I feel like many of the problems with the acting is not so much with the actors but the script itself. Dialogue is poor as characters will randomly talk about anything else but the situation at hand. Pacing is poor with little dabbles of action seemingly added because the characters had nothing else to do. For example... towards the end our lead male will be worried about his girlfriend being infested... then he will have a nice drink with his buddy trent and laugh and laugh... then he goes back to being worried. things like this draw you out of the story.

What's sad is the one enduring element this film has is the sequence where the main character inexplicably pokes a zombie in the groin with a stick until it's penis falls off... then... pockets it for a little while... then shows it to everyone. Then everyone prods the zombies privates again to discover the beings living inside the zombies. There are so many less intrusive ways this could have been done it's baffling. This of course leads to many other "scary" and "intense" scenes where the woman characters vaginas attack people. Metaphor? Euphemism? Social commentary? .... Who knows... who cares. It's more than likely the easiest way to get a gross factor and a sexual factor all in one. Although I shutter to think who that might appeal to. Once more... why does it take so long for these women who are infected to turn when everyone else turned so quick? oh yeah.. because it's convenient for the story.

Editing in the film is atrocious. Fades splitting scenes randomly and even within the same scene makes even a simple act such as a character walks from one side of the room to another a chore. Or when a character is told to go patrol the compound... instead of assuming the person left, we have to see them walking around picking up sticks.

Music in the film is typical cheep nothing. Except for one aspect which drove me crazy. Randomly through the film this distant digital beeping can be heard. At first I thought i had an alarm on in another room or my cell phone was doing something... only after muting the film could i determine that it's the soundtrack. I don't like having to diagnose sound errors in a film but honestly... you may find yourself doing that if you were as bored as I was.

As for the resolution of the film... everyone dies except for the main characters and the military woman who drives away... never to be seen or heard from again. Why? because a writer didn't know how to bring her back I guess.

Our last looks at these people are them drinking and shooting zombies at the fenceline... oh yeah, that's important to note that the aliens hate liquor and that's why the people were not infected to begin with. And that's where it ends... a drunk couple shooting zombies and having a blast (as everyone they've encountered has died).

Maybe that was the point of the movie after all... to have a few drinks... sit down with the people you like to watch this kind of stuff and just mock it. On that basis, this movie is alright... i'd watch it again if just for riffing fun. As for true entertainment... this is a pretty soft attempt at best.

Super (I) (2010)

When love meets reality, sorta.

[8/10 · 19 August 2011]

When looking at superhero movies it's pretty easy to be turned off quickly. Massive special effects dulled further by stale stories in another installment of "give us your money, please". Today we are also starting to get more of the average man superheroes such as Kick-Ass which, as described by friends who were able to see Super in theaters, is similar. Well, having been able to see it for the first time I have to disagree whole heartedly.

Super is unique. Super is more real while still holding true to some of the ridiculous that makes superhero movies enjoyable. I didn't know what to think of Rainn Wilson as the lead at first. After seeing Super, i'm sold. Ellen Page, well, she was a riot to watch go insane with blood lust.

While the plot is fairly basic, it's interesting to see how attached to characters one can get through proper camera work and good acting. I didn't like the baddie and I rooted for the good guys. Go figure, right? In a strange sense, and this is just something I pulled from the film not saying it's intended or really even shown, I see this film taking another road. Root for the good guys because they're who you want to win. Boo the villains because they are holding the hero back. Well, what's holding the good guy back is the fact that they aren't really all that good to begin with. I'd say bashing a guys face for cutting in line is pretty apparent. But point being is that in all of us is the perspective that we are the good and only through a looking glass self can we understand that, while we may consider ourselves better, we may not be as far off from the villains as we thought.

Boil it down, Super is a good film thats highly entertaining to open minded people. Come in with preconceptions and you may be disappointed. Come in willing to go along for the ride well, i think you'll be very happy to watch Super.