Change Your Image
doctorarzt
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Knock Knock (2015)
Knock Knock Proves Eli Roth Should Give it Up
I have not seen the 'original' film Knock Knock is a remake of, 'Death Game', so I can't do a 1:1 comparison but after Eli Roth's film I'm not even sure I want to give it a look for fear that it is as dreadfully and mindbogglingly bad.
Knock Knock is the story of family man Evan, played with typical woodenness by Keanu Reeves, who invites a duo of rain soaked hotties into his home to wait for a cab and winds up having sex with them and ultimately becoming their prisoner.
Once the setup has been established, we endear a procession of obnoxious behavior from his captors and some seriously milquetoast psychological and physical torture. While Roth enjoys a somewhat misplaced reputation as a goremeister, Knock Knock's assault on Reeve's 'victim' probably wouldn't even stir the squeamish.
Probably the most effective portions of the film come in the first act, and there it is the 'uncomfortable' social awkwardness of Reeves as his interaction with the girls becomes progressively more sexual that registers the loudest. Not exactly the stuff of horror.
The 'plot', if you want to call it that, has pretty much already been blown here with the two breaks already described. There is an ending, of course, and it could have been more effective had Roth succeeded in producing some actual suspense, but as it stands it delivers as just as much of a ripoff as the rest of the film.
Knock Knock is firmly situated in the 'Home Invasion' sub-genre of horror and honestly it's a lot more embarrassing of movie when held in the same company as Ils, The Strangers, or You're Next to name a few.
Remember when Eli Roth was the savior of horror? Those days are long gone now. With Knock Knock and his other recent release Green Inferno Roth has shown that he can't produce scares, he can't produce atmosphere, can't produce suspense, and can't produce story. Even though his earlier films succeeded in some of these columns, that success was not sufficient to elevate him from being a 'promising' talent; Knock Knock proves that this evaluation seriously overestimated Roth's potential.
Area 51 (2015)
We've Got to Get Out of Here
After a mysterious encounter at a party, Reed becomes obsessed with breaking into Area 51. Unfortunately, we're just not as interested as he is.
Area 51 scores a zero on character development, deciding on character templates that are so familiar to schlocky found footage films that they instantly feel overdone. Along with his two friends and the daughter of an Area 51 tell all book, Reed is suspiciously erudite when it comes to the craft of breaking into top secret government installations. Out of the box he knows how to get past the high tech detection grid, and even has a map of the prized underground S-4 base.
There is little suspense and most of the more 'tense' moments are too predictable to raise any anxiety.
As for the discoveries themselves, most are torn out of the most boring chapters of UFO Folklore. Spoiler Alert: there are aliens at Area 51. We never get to see them.
The ending is a contrived bit of Alien Abduction straight out of every Alien Abduction film you've ever seen; just nowhere near as good.
An Embarrassing moment for Oren Peli.
After (2012)
Uncompelling Characters, Horribly Written Romance, and Trite Tropes
Where to begin? The plot is completely overdone and makes no real attempts to transcend its familiars. It's the mentally challenged little brother to LOST and all other "are they dead?" cliché's. In order to stand out it would need great characters and a story; instead 'After' continuously dredges the bottom of superior stories that use this trope such as "the mysterious character connection," without bothering to make the audience actually hope for any connection between the two to begin with.
You could lay out the plot points and see the potential, I won't spoil them for you, but it is a lack of execution and an absence of basic story-craft that kills "After" in the end.
7E (2013)
They Made it up as They Went Along ... Poorly
I'm really a bit perplexed by this ... uh ... film? In many regards it is entirely formless. There is an attempt at narrative, but by the end of the film the correlations between the characters make no sense, there is no apparent metaphor, and the character journeys are devoid of any conclusions.
Rereading my thoughts here I understand where someone who enjoys 'challenging' films might think I'm some Vanilla sipping dweeb who "just doesn't get it," trust me I'm a Lynch, Haneke, Greenaway, and so on, devotee, this flick is not hard to read for the sake of its art — it just lacks the minimum interpersonal dynamics and causality to be considered a story of any form. Warhol's "Sleep" has more going for it in this department.
The one high point: John Savage has one bitching mane of healthy looking hair.
Evil Dead (2013)
We're Gonna Get You ... NOT!
I'm a huge fan of the original, but not so much of this remake. I'll disqualify myself as a zealot immediately by saying the original "Evil Dead" was far from perfect and the inexperience of the filmmakers—at that time—becomes more and more apparent as the film ages. But "The" Evil Dead didn't achieve cult status by being a great technical film. Raimi and companies weird adaptation of the narrative style of The Three Stooges turned evil, an assault of bloody and disgusting gags, is what made the film so great. It's not a terrific story. It doesn't feature terrific acting. And the makeup is pretty awful, really. And I love it. I love it for the relentless gag after gag after gag style, and the moments of photography that portent the genius to come in Sam Raimi.
What I had hoped from the remake was for a new film-maker to seize that raw assault on the senses aspect of Evil Dead and to turn it on a new generation. A generation that has gotten used to the camera cutting away before the really awful thing happens.
"Evil Dead" suffers from a front loading of rationality that really kills the atmosphere. One of the best examples I can think of is the sense of isolation that permeates the first film after they discover the bridge has been destroyed in some obviously supernatural act. Also, later, one of the Cabin's captive attempts to escape through the woods only to return mortally wounded to warn of the terrors that await in the forest.
In "Evil Dead" 2013, they are trapped at the cabin by a road being washed out by a flood. Other hard edges of the supernatural are ironed out with rationality as well, most notably when Mia, the first to be possessed, is cast as a recovering heroin addict going cold turkey.
The rationality is certainly disarming if you are a character in the film, as a member of the audience though it comes off as a bizarre attempt to temporarily 'elevate' the narrative.
Even though the rationality eventually dissolves, it's too late. "Evil Dead" lacks the sense of supernatural captivity that the original, with all of its faults, managed to establish with simple and effective plot devices.
Evil Dead '13 DOES manage to establish some graphic images that will most definitely stick in the mind, so I expect it will have a lasting impact on younger audiences; but die-hard horror buffs hoping this film would help the genre get out of the wussy all-talk and no-balls trend it has been stuck in for so long might be a little disappointed.