Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Cut (I) (2010)
3/10
Interesting concept with bad post production and many clichés...
13 March 2010
The title of the movie is 'Cut', leading viewers to believe that the film is a conventional horror flick, and that the killers and bad guys like to cut their victims. Similar to how the first SAW film involved someone using a saw to literally saw his own leg off. However with 'Cut' the title of the film has a closer relationship with the way that the movie is filmed, in that it is done in one seamless single take, there are no cuts or edits. At least with the visual portion of the film there aren't. According to the IMDb trivia section for the film it took 36 attempts before a final cut was satisfactorily completed.

An interesting concept, to cut a horror film in a single take, but it's nothing revolutionary (plays have been recorded in one take and put to film for decades for example). The execution for the acting, directing, cinematography is actually alright for a movie done without a break from start to finish. The actors get their lines across convincingly, the special effects are well masked, the camera follows the action quite well. But things are never as good as they could be for a few reasons, some ridiculously bad decisions are made by the protagonists (a tired cliché for the horror genre), and the music is entirely distracting and almost comical.

The basic premise of the film is that a group of friends take a vacation in a remote cabin or home and some psychopaths terrorize them. It's been done too many times before, the 2009 remake of Friday the 13th, The Strangers, the recent remake of Last House on the Left, and U.S. version of Funny Games, are four recent examples where a group of people, or a family, is terrorized by a few deranged individuals. Even the pizza delivery aspect of this film was just done in 'The House of the Devil' which came out only a few months ago. The only thing new about this film is the single take aspect. Every aspect of the plot is directly borrowed from some other film and it seems like the writers didn't even care.

But the worst part of this film is without question the audio post production, specifically the music. I don't understand the idea of filming a movie in one take only to sabotage the entire affair by drowning out the dialog with blaring music and adding in loud orchestral stabs and hits to try to scare the audience. Early in the film a character turns out the lights to scare his friends, the flick of the light switch coincides with the loudest blast of trumpets and drums in the film, deliberately put there to scare the audience. I swear it sounded like a howitzer cannon was being fired next to my ear. Relying on such a lame tactic to scare the viewing audience was met with laughter from myself and all of my friends. And that cliché and obnoxious horror orchestral score that constantly leads the audience into when they should be scared or nervous is entirely distracting and comical in this film.

Characters in this film cannot turn a door knob, open the curtains, or brush their teeth without a thunderous trumpet or drum hit absolutely erupting from the speakers. At one point a character approaches a curtain to open it, and it sounds as if the entire country of China is playing the violin. I guess the intent was to scare the viewing audience but everyone around me, and myself, mostly ended up laughing. I doubt eliciting laughter was the intention of the film's creators.

And yes, like most modern horror movies, the characters are insanely stupid. Always splitting up into groups, failing to lock doors and windows, failing to secure themselves. And in general putting themselves in harm's way more often than not. The excuse that the film's writers will give is that the protagonists have been drinking all night and that's why they are acting dumb. They are drunk. But the actors are clearly sober in the film and not once do they slur any of their words and they seem to have complete control over their motor functions.

If you are into film production or writing, or are a big horror fan, then you should probably give this film a go. But if you're a casual movie person looking for a film to watch with friends then I can't recommend this really. A decent effort, maybe it will lead to better ideas, but nothing spectacular. 3/10
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
An amazingly powerful, exciting and emotional piece of art
3 October 2008
Having been recommended this book by friend I did the usual and tracked down the movie version. Good move on my part, and thanks to my friend.

'Dangerous Parking' tells the story of a man named, Noah Arkwright, a (fictitious) successful independent film director, who after a long drug fueled orgy of a life, decides to trade it all in for rehab, sobriety, and the stability of a nuclear family. Yet his struggles to maintain his power over addiction become only secondary to a much more grave struggle, an illness that his addictions to drugs and alcohol have already put on him before he could sober up.

The entire film is narrated by Arkwright, sometimes in the first person, yet in many scenes he narrates as if he's an outsider watching himself act out a scene in a movie. The moments where he separates his narrative voice from his character in the film are positively brilliant and usually serve to bring humor to the situation quite effectively.

While the movie is mostly light on drama and heavy on comedy for the first three-quarters of the film, the last quarter of the film takes a decidedly darker tone, a tone which I didn't anticipate considering the majority of the film before that point had been comedic and humorous. This movie is both comedy and drama, emphasis on comedy (specifically dark comedy and British humor), with a dramatic conclusion to top everything all off.

The story structure is chronologically broken, consisting of several out of sequence scenes, often intertwined with flashbacks of Arkwright's life. It's quite simple and easy to follow the plot because Arkwright's narration sets up each scene rather well for the viewer but his narrations don't reveal everything leaving some rather fantastic surprises for the viewer to discover on his or her own.

The acting is fantastic, really, really amazing. Peter Howitt, who assumes the role of the protagonist (in addition to writing and directing the film) is stunningly powerful in this role. This performance is truly an achievement in acting, and if Howitt won awards for his work in this film I would be very deserved. Howitt's performance can only be so well appreciated due to him being surrounded by a great cast with equally well done performances. Saffron Burrows and Sean Pertwee put in top performances as well which only strengthen the absolutely flawless acting accomplished by Howitt.

If you are in the mood for a drama but don't want a heavy or overly serious drama there is no better film than 'Dangerous Parking' to watch. If you are in the mood purely for laughs I would recommend on holding off on watching this film as there are many moments where laughing is anything but appropriate. This is one of the best combination of comedy in drama in a film I have experienced in quite some time, truly refreshing, and any avid film viewing individual should not pass this movie up.

10/10. Will be recommending, the movie version, to all of my friends.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Game (1997)
5/10
Original design yet marred by cavernous sized plot-holes
23 August 2008
The basic premise of this movie is that the character played by Michael Douglas, an extremely wealthy, snobby, aristocratic, Los Angeles business man, has everything in the world he could ever desire. So it's his birthday, and his brother proposes, "What do you get your brother for his birthday when he already has everything he could possibly have in the entire world?" Well, it turns out, you buy him a real life action sequence set up as a game, that the receiver of the gift, played by Douglas, will never know when his game starts, and won't know when it will end until that exact moment.

For the next hour after the game begins we, as the viewers, are taken on a long journey filled with on-foot and car chases, shootouts, kidnapping, explosions, and other cliché and typical action sequences.

Unfortunately, the action is so ridiculously over the top, that it can only be seen as a plot hole, bad writing even. Because the organizers of the game destroy cars, structures, entire houses, create explosions, fire assault automatic rifles off in the middle of downtown L.A. with no police repercussions for any of this. Suspending disbelief is just too impossible for this level of activity being unnoticed by local authorities. Not to mention many of the actors in the game impersonate federal, state and local law enforcement, and EMTs, all felonious acts.

Not to pigeonhole the movie into the 'all action no substance' genre that Hollywood is often accused of, the movie creates some horribly written dialog that is melodramatic, philosophical, and preachy. Not qualities that are fitting for an action-thriller movie, and serve to mostly get in the way of the explosions.

The cinematography, audio post production, and especially the acting, are all brilliant. The plot, and writing, and editing however are amateur at best and take away from the positives significantly.

Though the idea of this film is extremely original, the premise takes much creative license with reality and runs wild with an absurdly furious and unrealistic pace that would never go unnoticed by proper authorities. Everything that happens in the movie is part of 'the game' that the main character is experiencing. Factor in a $50 million budget then, and you have to wonder how his drug addicted, jobless, impecunious, and unkempt brother could have possibly afforded to pay for this birthday present. Throw in the fact that the company that runs that game would have to insure every aspect of the game that brings the total of the cost of one play-through of the game into the $100 million range. I just can't suspend disbelief that much for a movie that ignored its plot-holes to get straight to the explosions.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Event Horizon (1997)
8/10
Violence and gore are not substitutes for quality writing...
10 August 2008
Event Horizon, the title of the movie, and the title of the fictitious spaceship in the movie that is capable of bending both space and time. And a crew of military spaceship operators are hired to track down the ship after it mysteriously resurfaces in deep space after being lost for the last seven years. Where has this time bending ship been the last seven years? Such a promising and intriguing premise is brutally ruined with over the top gore and violence. What could have been a thinking person's science-fiction mystery or even 'space detective' style movie is quickly reduced do a brain dead slasher gore fest complete with enough blood and mayhem to nearly erase the solid 45 minutes of brilliant writing, directing, and acting that preceded it.

Eventually it is revealed that the ship most likely jumped forward in time seven years, instantly appearing at the current time of the movie. If the writers had simply left the movie at that I would have rated this a 10. But instead the ship is somehow magically transported to hell and back...and thus begins the gratuitous and ridiculous levels of violence.

Sadly the intent of the movie producers and directors was to not only have the level of gore in the released version of the movie, but an even higher level of gore that had to be toned down to achieve an R rating.

This is sad, because violence and gore, while sometimes are great in films, are not worthy substitutes for quality writing and storytelling. Violence with very little plot attached can basically summarize the last 45 minutes of an otherwise perfect film. A 'less is more' approach would have better sufficed, not the full-on head-first blood orgy that happens instead.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Felon (2008)
1/10
Toy Story is more believable than this movie...
8 August 2008
The writing in this movie is atrocious.

Whoever did the research for legal precedents for defense in home invasions obviously didn't do their jobs properly or the movie decided to take a wild creative license with U.S. criminal law.

If someone broke into your house and attacked you and you chased them out onto your property and you killed them you would be found innocent by a judge and jury 100% of the time according the legal precedent in the U.S.

On November 14th, 2007, a Texas man named Joe Horn shot two robbers to death on his neighbor's property after the men had robbed the adjacent house of $2000 cash and other valuables. The jury found him innocent of murder and other charges and declared he had a right to defend himself.

Amadou Diallo, on February 4th, 1999, was shot down and killed by NYPD officers who thought he was reaching into his pocket for a gun, when instead he was reaching for his wallet. All of the officers were acquitted of all charges and found innocent of all wrong doing. Officers in other districts have been found innocent of this same scenario when the item mistaken for a weapon was a cellphone, candy bar, pen, and car keys for some examples.

Guns deaths in this country in self defense situations, civilians in the U.S. kill more criminals than police, at nearly double the rate.

Regardless of whether or not you agree that police or civilians in self defense have a right to kill another person, it doesn't matter because the plot of this movie completely disregards U.S. laws and just runs with a false premise.

No one would be convicted of murder to quickly if they had accidentally killed someone that was robbing their home clearly. At worst they would get accidental manslaughter charges which that individual would be acquitted of by a jury.

Also the movie portrays public defenders as being inadequate yet there is no basis in reality for this assumption as well.

Overall the researchers and writers for this movie clearly did not do their jobs. This movie is closer to science-fiction and fantasy than drama.
29 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Objective (2008)
9/10
Event Horizon meets Afghanistan
7 August 2008
This movie is an amazing blend of science fiction, horror, and thrills.

A CIA agent recruits a couple grunt soldiers to track down a religious leader in Afghanistan to interview him.

But the soldiers soon find out that this is just a deception to lure them deep into a remote region of Afghanistan. What follows is a thrilling, scary, and exciting film that almost never lets up until the ending.

The writing is great, there are no over the top lines and long philosophical battles between characters, this is a movie about soldiers and they speak and act accordingly. The acting is fantastic, characters seems genuinely scared and nervous whenever appropriate. And the plot is a fantastic twist on the usual 'small company' war story movie as it adds elements of supernatural horror and psychological terror as the main antagonists instead of rival soldiers.

The cons are the slightly low budget special effects at some points, instead of showing poorly done CGI, I would have opted for the 'less is more' approach and focused on characters reactions to the supernatural phenomenon instead. The ending was a bit disappointing as well as there is very little concrete resolution but with some creative assuming and inference it is relatively obvious as to what happens to each individual character.

If you like horror or thriller movies or just want to see a fresh idea then absolutely give this movie a chance. It's a bit nerve wracking if you're watching it in the dark and definitely not for children. Adults however, especially those into film, this deserves at least rental.
82 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Happening (2008)
1/10
With such hype I expected disappointment, but not this much...
16 June 2008
Considering M Night's initial track record of favorable critical reception and consumer interest, expectations were considerably high for this film. His first two films, Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, were refreshingly unique and were considered the start of a promising, and long, career in film creation, with some critics and industry notables dubbing him the next Hitchcock and even Spielberg. But now we can see with his diminishing box office success, and really rapidly declining favor with critics, beginning with Signs and gradually plummeting with The Village, Lady In The Water, and now this atrocity, that his comparison to those directors couldn't have been more far off.

The Happening is basically The Emperor's New Clothes of films. I honestly don't understand how anyone could have approved this script for a production when it is so poorly written. The critics who have come down on this movie have come down on it extremely harshly and deservedly as well.

This movie has so many shortcomings it's almost tough to list all of them: bad acting, plot-holes, defies laws of nature and physics, poor direction, anticlimactic, extremely preachy and obnoxiously politically loud, ultra-boring subplots, ridiculously cliché and contrived characters, awful attempts at humor at several points, etc.

The only thing that was 'Happening' during the movie was many loud laughs and boos. During many of the scenes due to ridiculously poorly written dialog, people in the audience burst into laughter. I found it hard to laugh considering I was physically sick with disappointment. At the end of the film the entire theater erupted into boos sadly, and three people in front of me walked out about sixty-minutes into the film. The only reason I didn't walk out was because I was in a group of several people.

M Night has lost it clearly, and he shown no signs of getting it back either. Sixth Sense, I always thought it was a ripoff of the book 'A Stir Of Echoes' (written in 1958, later made into a movie Stir of Echoes starring Kevin Bacon) by Richard Matheson (legendary writer responsible for I Am Legend novel amongst others). M Night was accused of plagiarizing elements of 'Lost Boys' by Orson Scott Card as well for parts of Sixth Sense. With yet another movie under his belt that has tanked enormously and been slagged by critics, a movie that is seemingly all his own production, writing, and directing, I unfortunately have to come to the conclusion that unless he's heavily plagiarizing superior writing, he's up the creek without a paddle as far as making a decent film goes.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed