Change Your Image
Vaduen
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Devil's Pond (2003)
A Somewhat Shining Jewel in a Sea of Mediocrity
It seems that most of the time, you drown in a sea of films that leave you feeling like you got ripped off. Either the plot is so thin you can see through the holes, or the acting is so badly done that you lose all interest in what you are watching. Not so with this suspense thriller from Joel Viertel. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, wanting to know what's coming up around the corner.
This is a direct to video release, and I'll admit, I took this film home thinking "It's probably just another low budget film that's going to make me scream in agony while I watch it." This however, doesn't happen with Devil's Pond. While the film starts a bit slow, it's necessary for what is yet to come. What seems to begin as a happy couple getting married and off on their honeymoon, will soon change into a dark nightmare.
I wasn't really sure what to expect from this film from the title. I thought perhaps it was just another horror flick with some nasty monster cruising at the bottom of a lake or pond. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We begin the film as we watch our young couple getting married. Mitch (Kip Pardue) and Julianne (Tara Reid) are exchanging vows. All is perfect, a beautiful wedding, a loving couple, what more could one ask in a relationship. Mitch and Julianne will take their honeymoon in a cabin in the deepest recesses of the woods. Julianne is somewhat of a spoiled little rich girl, while Mitch is the down to earth, average type of guy. Taking their honeymoon in the woods will help Julianne get to know her husband better as the person he is.
Upon arriving at the cabin, Julianne is a bit surprised to find that it is located in the middle of a rather large pond. Water completely surrounds the cabin. Julianne is a bit upset at this, as she doesn't know how to swim, and Mitch didn't tell her that they would have to take a boat to their island paradise. Assuring her that all is and will be well, Mitch gets Julianne to the cabin via a small boat.
Being the little gal from the better side of the tracks, Julianne decides she needs to call her mother Kate (Meredith Baxter). Her cell phone, however, just won't function, no signal at all. Somewhat aggravated at this since Mitch has told her the cell phone would work (this will be important later in the film). She lets it go, forgives Mitch, and settles in for the honeymoon of her dreams.
Things are absolutely fantastic for a few days. Two people in love, enjoying all that each other can give. Then things start to deteriorate. Something is going wrong and Julianne isn't quite sure what to make of the events as they are now unfolding.
That's all I'm going to divulge about this film. It's well done, and director Joel Viertel has a work that he can be proud of. This film had a budget of of just under 3 million dollars, with about 1.2 million going to below-the-line production (Mr. Viertel confirmed this himself). While that may sound like a fortune to you or I, it's a very small budget when working on a production. The thing that I enjoyed about this film is that the camera work didn't make it feel like they were working on a small budget. This film had the feeling of a much bigger production.
Tara Reid and Kip Pardue both turn in very solid performances. Their performances make you believe what's taking place during the film. Pardue is particularly good at going from the loving person to the paranoid schizophrenic. While there are a couple of minor inconsistencies in this film, I think they can be easily overlooked due to the performances, direction and budget of this film.
I found Devil's Pond to be an enjoyable experience. The film will keep you wrapped up in the story and by the time it's over, it won't feel that you've set through 90 minutes.
This is a direct to video release from 2003, and at the time of this review, it is not available on any of the video streaming services, yet you may be able to purchase it at your local discount store, perhaps even in the bargain bin area due to the age of the film. In rare instances, copies have even been spotted in some local libraries for checkout.
Bram Stoker's Van Helsing (2021)
Don't go into this film thinking it will be similar to Bram Stoker's Dracula
I went into this film with high hopes. With a name like Bram Stoker's Van Helsing this film had some pretty big shoes to fill. It didn't take 15 minutes into the film to realize that it wasn't going to be as good as some of those bad "B" films of the 1960s, this film is worse.
There had to be little to no budget for this film as there were only three characters that I could see, not counting the dead maid in a later scene. The only major effect in the film during the first hour was when Dracula was implied to have entered Lucy's room. There is some swirling mist, and a figure in a trench coat, or it could have been a cape, I couldn't tell. There apparently wasn't enough budget for the film to pay someone to play Dracula, as the figure seen in the room full of mist is only shown from the shoulders down, and in silouhette.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love independent and lower budget films. There are good directors out there who can be creative, and come up with ways to get their point across, but do it in such a way that doesn't look silly or make the actors on the screen look silly. This film is not one of those.
Later in the film, as we saw in Bram Stokers Dracula, Lucy dies. UNLIKE Bram Stoker's Dracula, our good Doctor Van Helsing immediately starts CPR in order to revive Lucy. He is using a modern technique that wasn't implemented until 1950. On top of that, he isn't administering compressions to her heart, he is administering compressions to her stomach.
I am quite surprised that the actress, Charlie Bond, didn't actually throw up during the scene as the good Dr. Van Helsing was being quite aggressive with those compressions to her stomach. Doc needs a refresher course, as most of us know, compressions are administered to the heart (chest) during CPR.
I could proceed no further with this film. It really is that badly done. I rarely am this harsh with a review, but, unfortunately, it's all I could handle of this film.
The acting is very subpar. I would have to attribute this in part to the film's write/director, Steve Lawson. Mr. Lawson only has 15 films under his belt, and those are very low budget "B" class films. Even so, we should have seen much improvement in Mr. Lawsons technique by the time this film was made. A good director can bring out the best in his cast, a great director, with very low budgets, can make a low budget film appear to be a big budget production and the Director knows how to bring out the absolute best in his cast.
Perhaps with more time, we shall see Mr. Lawson improve his technique, we can only hope. One in his situation has to continue to think out of the box and come up with tricks to fool the camera and audience into thinking a film is more than it is.
Remember, Peter Jackson, one of the best directors in film making started with a film called Bad Taste in 1987. He made the film with friends playing the leads, filming on weekends. It can be done, and has been done. If you know how to make a film, you can do so with literally nothing.
I was generous in giving this film a rating of 2. Go watch something good, and don't waste your time on this film.
Kesari (2019)
An Excellent Film: Don't let subtitles stop you from watching
I often like foreign films and Kesari was in no way a disappointment.
The acting was top notch as was the storyline. The film does not glorify war, but seeks to honor those who fought at the Battle of Saragarhi.
Akshay Kumar does a fantastic job of playing the part of Havildar Ishar Singh as does the rest of the supporting cast. Kumar and the cast truly bring the film to life, you believe what you are seeing on the screen.
To someone in the U. S. watching, the film perhaps might be a bit confusing, so please, give the film at least half an hour to really let the story develop. There are times when the film may seem somewhat corny, but, I assure you it is not. It only seems this way if you are not familiar with the customs and the country.
Something I really appreciated was the large subtitles. This may be a small thing, but, many foreign films have very small subtitles and one ends up missing a portion of the film due to having to concentrate on the subtitles. These subtitles are twice as large as the default subtitles, which are greatly appreciated as I didn't have to fiddle with the subtitle options on Amazon Prime.
Robin Hood (2018)
Made in the image of A Knight's Tale but unable to succeed
I knew in the first ten minutes of the film during a scene in the Crusades that it wasn't going to live up to its predecessors when Robin and his cohorts came under attack by a "machine gun" type crossbow that was cocked by a single hand and fired at least fifty arrows a minute.
The next scene that caught my attention was the ride into Nottingham that appeared to be drawn out of the world Mad Max with its chimneys belching smoke and fire.
The entire film was such as this and in no regard did it much follow the storyline of previous books or films. Once into Nottingham, the film quickly reminds you of a Knight's Tale with Heath Ledger. All of the nobility wore clothing that reminded me of modern day, yet was somewhat the scene of a Renaissance Festival. A party at the palace saw women in modern-day gowns and high heels, men that wore somewhat modern day garb mixed in with festival goers in period costume.
There was no band of Merry Men, just Robin (Taron Edgerton) and Little John (Jamie Fox) both of whom tried to give director Otto Bathurst what he wanted. There was of course Maid Marion, who never acted like a maid, and in no way pulled off the part of Marion. I think this is somewhat at the heart of the film's failure. Otto Bathurst has never directed a film of this magnitude. Most of his work has been in television and the two are hugely different in format and scope.
Jamie Dornan plays the part of Will and in general, was treated like a second hand character that was no part related to the film other than, well, I really don't know what part he played, other than maybe 3 to 5 minutes that were important and that's all I will say so as not to ruin the film for those who do sit through it.
Tim Minchin plays the part of Friar Tuck and loves to wear those modern glasses. I realize I'm harping on costuming quite a bit, but, that is an all important aspect of a film of this nature. Minchin reminded me of someone from a 1960s Hippie Commune in this film, as well as in his acting and his presentation of the character. I'm not blaming Minchin, I'm blaming Bathwurst and his lack of skill in filmmaking. If you are going to put someone like Minchin in a film, who quite honestly has only about 10-years of acting and has no major titles under his belt other than the TV series Peaky Blinders, they need direction from an experienced director.
There was plenty of action in this film, which honestly, is the only reason I did not walk out. There were some creative ideas as to how some situations were handled which actually carried the actors.
This film was fragmented and felt like it had no clue what it wanted to be. The only positive thing I can say about it is that Bathwurst attempted to make it in the image of A Knight's Tale, which is a high aspiration, although he failed miserably.
I really wanted to like this film, its a genre that I truly enjoy and one of my favorite stories, but I just couldn't. I do not recommend that you buy this film on DVD, or stream it, as the cost would be higher than renting it at a Redbox.
Seventh Son (2014)
For Fantasy Fans Who Enjoy The Genre, It's An OK Watch.
I can see why critics and people in general are dissing the film. I think the problem with the film, is that it's director, Sergey Bodrov has never done a film of this scope. At least, never a film with a budget of 95 million dollars.
The film is 102 minutes long. Had it been longer, I think many more "things" could have been better explained. It just seemed some of the scenes were out of sequence, or, didn't have enough detail. Had this film had Peter Jackson, or Guillermo del Toro at the helm, it would have been an entirely different film. Considering the LOTR series each had about the same budget, this film could have been so much more.
The film seemed fragmented. It reminded me of the failed film Eragon, where you suddenly go from farm boy, to instantly learning Elvish, knowing how to fight, and just "knowing" everything. We need to see the characters develop.
Now, I'm a hard core fan of this genre. I'll be the first to admit, that pairing Jeff Bridges with Julianne Moore was a great idea. While we get more background on Bridge's character than we do with other characters in the film, their performances, while quite acceptable could have been much better. Personally, I thought Bridges portrayal of Master Gregory was well executed. Again, I think the director was perhaps the main problem, reigning in their performances.
I keep seeing articles and reviews from people who've read the book, then bash the film because the film itself is so far separated from the text. I don't like to compare books to film, simply because you can go into so much more detail in a book.
I have to say it. I still enjoyed the film even though it left a lot of unanswered questions for me. If you like the fantasy series, as I do, then go into the film without preconceptions, and, enjoy it for what it is, entertainment. While it's not the best film to ever hit the big screen, it's still fun.
Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)
What Could Have Been An Awesome Film, Is Simply Mediocre
Now I'm not a religious person at all, so this will be strictly from an objective point of view. We are told not to compare this movie to the original Ten Commandments from 1956. But, trust me, if you've seen the original film, that's all you are going to be doing during the movie.
I enjoyed aspects of this movie, but, not all of it.
The cinematography was awesome, the CGI graphics were absolutely great however, for a 2-1/2 hour film, they left just about everything that was important in the story completely out. It felt as if the film was jumping here and there in the storyline.
The actors in the film didn't seem to be engrossed in their characters, just going through the motions. I found the most believable character to be John Turturro as Seti.
This film didn't leave me pulling at emotions as it should have. At one point, I even asked myself "When is this going to be over?" Unlike the 1956 version of The Ten Commandments, which made me run the full range of emotions as I watched the film. That film flowed into a coherent storyline. Exodus: Gods and Kings did not.
You don't see how Moses got into the palace as a family member, you just generally have to assume you already know. You really don't have any background on Moses. You don't see Moses repeatedly asking Pharaoh to let the "people" go, the plagues generally just show up. There is nothing biblical to me as to HOW the plagues of Egypt began.
God is played as a small boy, about 10, and appears to Moses throughout the film, while those watching Moses talk to God, must surely think Moses is crazy, just standing there talking to himself since the others can't see God.
Once Pharaoh frees the people, it's the usual trek out of Egypt, parting of the Red sea, well, it doesn't part, and, you have no idea why, nor is it even mentioned that the "people" had to wander in the desert for years to cleanse that generation which had sinned in the eyes of God.
I suppose the biggest disappointment for me, is that you don't know, at least in the film, that Moses spent 40 days and nights on Mount Sinai. This was completely left out. Also, Moses is carving the Ten Commandments of God on stone tablets. This I feel will come as a slap in the face to most Christians.
I suppose a generation that's never seen the Cecil B DeMille film from 1956 will probably like this film, but, they have taken way too many liberties with the actual text from the Bible. This is another film that yet doesn't follow scripture at all, being that Moses is a general in the film, instead of using the power of God to release the people, they go to war.
Save your money, if you have to see it, wait for the DVD. This movie, it's gonna bomb at the box office after the opening weekend.