Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ghoul (2012 TV Movie)
1/10
NOT a horror film, but a social commentary on child abuse
15 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Oversimplified, this film is a bad a mash up of the classic abuse of Peter Lorre's classic "M" (1933) and Rob Reiner's "Stand by Me" (featuring Wil Wheaton).

The film focuses on the small town exploration of three young boys who live in a small town where the monsters are real. Here monsters are the socially repugnant adults who use the children and weaker adults for their own devices.

The presentation of the issue of child abuse is heavy handed and obvious from the beginning where we are introduced the characters all of whom fit the obvious of the young hero films.

Unlike the old teenager training films from the 1950s and 1960s which showed the dangers of the alcohol, illegal drugs and dropping out of school that showed the targeted children in a sympathetic light, none of these boys are appreciable in this story.

Nolan Gould plays a foul mouthed egotistical leader of a band of three boys who are all the subject of abuse. He suffers from the abuse of disinterest by his well meaning though emotionally shallow parents. His father is obviously at odds with his own overly kind father. His overweight friend is the abuse of a drunken sexually frustrated mother who uses her underage son as her own personal sex toy. He retreats into overeating as a means of self protection until he finds a friend in Gould's aggressive leadership. The third boy is physically abused by the stereotypical drunk father who at the end event has his right eye bear shut by said drunk father. But he is almost as evil as his father for he almost shoots his father in the back several times with only fear of jail preventing him from pulling the trigger. He continues to allows his father to abuse his mother rather than tell the police as the entire town people knows knows about the drunk gravedigger.

You will not be able to appreciate the police who are incompetent in finding several missing children. Even in this 1980s setting they fail to get the town people to amass searches for these missing children.

I will not spoil the ending about the killer -- the so called "Ghoul" -- and its reason for doing what it does. But I will say this this is NOT a horror film. And if you are expecting a horror film you are going to be HORRIBLY disappointed.

This film is a social commentary and awareness film that presents its message "Protect the children. Do not let the children be abused" in a manner than will make most watchers of this horror film turn the channel and ignore the message for the simple fact this movie does NOT take itself seriously as a social commentary movie. It devolves into tricking the horror and gore consumers into waiting for events that the movie is actively trying to avoid -- namely the murder as in all horror and monster films.

Targeting an audience who are expecting horror/thriller when that is specifically the topic you are trying to deny is unforgivable. At least this film should have presented characters you could identify with for their plight. At most all you will hope for is these children will get adopted by people who are more mentally aware than these idiotic stereotypical adults who are far too obvious and annoying.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Dresden Files: Pilot: Storm Front (2007)
Season 1, Episode 0
7/10
"Storm Front" - original version finally released
8 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Loinsgate and SciFi Channel finally released the full version of the non-aired pilot "Storm Front" as a broadcast television movie. But in order to prevent those who would possibly think that the studio was in negotiations to re-start the series (now that former series star Blackthorne was released from his other series), SciFi aired the series as one of their 3AM movies rather than the Saturday night "most dangerous night of movies" feature.

The film shows a lot of the power and potential that the series had and the solid writing decisions the producers made in the changes to allow the series to stand independent from the book version of the story -- most notably the fact that in this non-aired pilot Bob far closer to the books as a disembodied voice in a skull, than the actual ghost Mann played which played up Mann's visual acting strength and presence in the series.

While fans of the series already know how the movie played out the added 40 minutes of the background are definitely appreciated as a character development for the series. But as these changes definitely showed that the series pilot was still drastically influx from the time of its writing to the time that this film was actually being recorded, this full length pilot is more appreciated as a "work-in-progress" showing the behind the scenes rather than as the official pilot of the series. Overall the pilot is still far too linearly obedient to the books rather than being developed as a series BASED on the books which conflicted with the series and its own reinterpretation of those books.

But as is, this version of "Storm Front" will be released as part of a series DVD reissue (this version is NOT included in the DVD release), or maybe it will cause the fans to amass around for a series restart.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Show Me Yours (2004–2005)
"Show Me Yours" Analysis, not mere fulfillment
24 April 2005
I read the previous analysis posted and thought it was obviously one sided from the point of immediate gratification and linear plot-play which this show is NOT about.

Unlike the straight forward and unimaginative shows from Helpless-wood where the plots are so obviously linear and uninspired, the show tries to ask a deep question that has NO obvious answer -- what IS sexually inspiring and provocative? And what makes it strong enough to act on? If you are not involved by sensual TEASING and UNfulfilled sexual angst plays, then this series is NOT going to fulfill your desires. This series is meant to explore the contrasts between the desire of what you KNOW is good for you and what you secretly CRAVE, whether it would be good for you in the long run or merely fulfilling that immediate hunger you have in the pit of your stomach for immediate satisfaction -- like a one in the morning chocolate attack. Do you go with the flow or are you a person who can exert control each and every time? And more importantly, are you really HAPPY doing so? The idea of the show explores the sensual desires and impulses rather well under the premise of doing sexual research for a book publication.

The two primary researchers Dr. Kate Langford (played by Rachael Crawford) and Dr. Benjamin Chase (played by Adam Harrington) are dedicated to creating a serious sexual investigation of the matter for the book's publication. When their publisher (Alberta Watson) decides to rush up the date of publication demanding immediate results of the research's usable progression, the tensions between the two characters begins to show up in their analysis and their work and of course some of their tensions are sexual, although there are a LOT of other questions posed as well such as respect, dedication, honesty, commitment, open mindedness and self-fulfillment. And with Kate's boyfriend only occasionally available and OBVIOUSLY territorial, the question of personal fulfillment and loyalty are also thrown into the sexual question between Kate and Benjamin.

The question is front and center from the very beginning but NEVER given a straightforward answer, as in real life. And it is that constant shifting that makes the question so interesting. Do you do what is socially acceptable or what you REALLY want, even if that desire is ONLY real for that moment? As done in the first episode where Kate and her boyfriend David almost give into their passions and begin having sex on the office couch -- only to be reminded that they are in a public area when Dr. Benjamin Chase and Stella are looking in on them through an OPEN display window! Of course being the socially responsible individual, Kate immediately threw herself onto the floor pulling down her skirt. Was she embarrassed because she was shown giving into her desires? Or was she merely reacting to her social conditioning that sex is a private thing? You decide.

The primary angst is to show the contrast between the impulses of sexual desire and the REALITY of acceptable social order. Is sexual desire REALLY fulfilled by safe conditions that are socially instilled? Or are TRUE sexual relationships based on emotional desire fulfillment -- even if those things are taboo personally and socially? If so, is that enough to inspire a lasting relationship and would it be strong enough to last against social orders? Or are relationships based on emotional gratification and the continual fulfillment of those impulses? The answer is as varied and open as the people interviewed in the segments. And as far as the main characters getting together sexually -- does that REALLY matter? Should they or shouldn't they? Is there REALLY deep seated longing? Or is it only an immediate impulse? And should that impulse be acted on? That IS the question! And I think it is a pretty GOOD question to be asked. And this show asks that question in a FAIRLY good way without giving a quick pat response as THE answer.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed