Marter's Reviews

Page 22 of 25 Previous  1 ... 12 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:39 pm

Oh yeah, you totally have. Oops!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might as well sit back 'cause I ain't tryin' to show maturity.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by MilkyFresh on Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:47 pm

Miracle is Confused

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHY MONKEY, WHY?
No one loves a prick,
No one loves a coffee sniffing motherfucker.
avatar
MilkyFresh
Wizard of Piss

Posts : 9787
Leprechaun Gold : 38651
Pineapple Power : 22738
Join date : 2010-10-26
Age : 23
Alignment : Arseheart
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:50 pm

Dawn of the Dead
I'm unsure if Dawn of the Dead needed a remake. If it did, then I'm at least glad that the resulting film wasn't terrible. The main problems that it has is the overabundance of characters and the fact that there is a severe lack of plot. But you'll get a lot of gore and some decent scares, leading to what will probably be an enjoyable time while watching it.

We begin by watching a nurse named Ana (Sarah Polley) go about her daily nurse business. Working an hour past when she was set to go home, she ends up leaving after a mysterious patient disappearance -- a man who was bitten in the head. She heads home to her husband, and after spending some time together, things begin getting strange. A little girl comes into their room, bites the husband in the neck, and then he begins trying to bite Ana. She escapes the house and begins to drive away.

Chaos is surrounding her as she drives. People are running around everywhere, explosions are going off in the background, and nobody knows what's going on. Audiences do, though, as we've been exposed to a great deal of zombie films over the years. Zombies may have been fairly new to audiences when the original Dawn of the Dead came out, but nowadays, they're standard enough fair. We know they're something to be avoided, meaning all that's left to be decided is what rules apply to the zombies in this universe.

From what I gathered, here are director Zack Snyder's rules: You get bitten, you become a zombie; the larger the bite, the faster you turn; zombies can run, and will do so until they catch you; their attention will turn from you to another living human if the other person is closer to the zombie than you are; shooting the zombies in the head will kill them, but you should burn them anyway, apparently; and they don't eat animals, for whatever reason.

So there you go. You have the rules. Now you just need a scenario. A mall is a good place, right? It worked in the original Dawn of the Dead, so using it again can work here. Ana finds a cop named Kenneth (Ving Rhames), an everyman named Michael (Jake Weber), and a man (Mekhi Phifer) who cares about his expectant wife (Inna Korobkina). They head to the local mall, where even more characters are met. The mall is mostly empty, although a few zombies are on the main floor, and some security guards, led by C.J. (Michael Kelly), are on the top floor.

Eventually, more characters show up. The two that stand out are the sarcastic man (Ty Burrell) and the animal lover, Nicole (Lindy Booth). There are at least 6 more, but listing them would be tiresome, and when you watch the film, you're not going to care anyway. There are simply too many characters to be able to care about them all. Besides, you've seen zombie films before, so you know that most of the characters are there to eventually be chow for the creatures we all love to hate.

Motivation is simple: Survive. We go back and forth between zombie and human scenes, which actually works quite well. Holding up in a mall ends up being quite the boring experience, the characters learn, so they have to do things that make their lives more thrilling. You know, things like heading into the parking lot, allowing a zombie to survive because you don't want to kill that person, or attempting to escape. Silly things that give us action scenes because otherwise all we'd have are characters sitting around, sharing depressing stories, while zombies just stand around outside doing nothing in particular.

Granted, quite a few subplots are given to us that work fairly well. It's because of the downtime from the zombie attacks that we begin to care about some of the characters and a few of the things that they have to deal with. Ana just had her husband killed, Kenneth's brother is in a location he can't get to, the whole wife/husband storyline is touching and disturbing, while there's also a man trapped on another roof who talks with the main group via whiteboards. There are superfluous characters who add nothing to the story, which is too bad, but you wouldn't want a film like this going on for 3 or more hours.

For the most part, I was excited while watching Dawn of the Dead. Having zombies potentially waiting around every corner means that there is always something to fear, and once the zombies reveal themselves, they're quite frightening. The makeup is solid, although we rarely get a chance to see the zombie faces up close. But giving them the ability to run instead of simply lumbering around means that they're much more of a threat, and I liked that. They still come in groups, but they're fast and you can't just run away from them. this keeps things tense. Characters also argue and a couple of them seem shady, which also helps with enthralling the audience in the story.

Dawn of the Dead is a solid zombie film. It's certainly different from Romero's interpretation, and it mostly just uses the concept to craft its own idea. That works well enough, even if it means it lacks depth. It has too many characters as well, but there are enough that we're forced to care about. The action and horror are both done well, and I was engaged for most of the time it was playing. Oh, and watch through the credits, as this film does its credits sequence very well.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might as well sit back 'cause I ain't tryin' to show maturity.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:09 pm

Repo! The Genetic Opera
Repo! The Genetic Opera has "cult classic" written all over it. It's the type of film that won't be liked or appreciated by the mainstream, but will find its audience and be absolutely adored by those that seek it out. It's a musical, like its title indicates, although it's also a very bloody film. It mixes the musical and the horror genre, effectively, I think, and becomes a unique experience that needs to be seen to be believed.

The most imaginative part of Repo! is the future dystopia that it imagines. In it, an outbreak of organ failures happened which killed millions of people. A company called GeneCo sprouted up from the ground, and provided people with fake organs in order to cheat death. However, their deal was this: If you don't follow through on their payment plan, they will send a "Repo Man" after you who will knock you out and cut out the company's property. Sometimes they won't even knock you out. Basically, you will die and the company won't have taken a loss, as they can easily re-sell the organ they just repossessed.

The plot gives us an ensemble cast, all of whom get some big musical scenes. The lead, if you can call her that considering she also disappears for fairly long stretches and does little more than follow other people, is 17-year-old Shilo (Alexa Vega). She was born with a blood condition, and needs medicine from her father, Nathan (Anthony Head), in order to stay well. He keeps her locked in her room for safety purposes, and leads a double life as one of those hated Repo Men.

Meanwhile, the boss of GeneCo, Rotti (Paul Sorvino), has just learned that he's terminally ill. He spends most of the time trying to decide which of his three children deserves to be left the company. Each one of them has a problem, and basically doesn't deserve the company. Oh, and there's a woman named "Blind Mag" (Sarah Brightman) who previously worked for the company but is now leaving -- and they want the eyes they lent her back. All of this ends up coming to a head at an operatic event, the titular "Genetic Opera."

We learn about the back stories for some of these characters via a comic book which also acts as a transitional device for scenes that might have cost too much to actually film. A good portion of the movie is told this way, actually, which does make it feel somewhat unique. Repo! certainly has its own style that carries over from the comic book scenes, too, shining through even in the live action parts. You can tell it's a low budget project and this visual style is used to try to hide this, but it makes the film look unique and it always has something interesting to look at.

Repo! isn't the type of horror film that tries to scare you. It might try to gross you out with its copious amount of blood and some disgusting moments involving surgery gone wrong, but despite its somewhat Gothic aesthetic and dark setting, it's not scary. It doesn't want to be, either, especially considering the vast majority of the film has its lines delivered in song, not in speech.

I liked the songs. I don't consider myself a fan of musicals, only seeking out the different or really good ones, but I enjoyed listening to the ones presented here. They delivered all of the necessary information, they were quite catchy, and I could feel myself getting into a few of the more memorable ones. Keep in mind that you're going to be hearing almost exclusively musical numbers while the film plays, as there are only a handful of lines delivered in non-musical format, so if you get a couple of songs in and you're not enjoying it, it's not going to get much better.

This isn't a film for the squeamish, or for those looking for a generic, conventional approach to filmmaking. This is one of those weird movies that seems to get weirder as it goes on -- simply for the sake of being different. It works, and I'm always appreciative of a filmmaker trying something different, so for me, this is the type of movie I cherish. I mean, how many movies cast Paris Hilton in a semi-serious role? This and The House of Wax, that's what. And only the former is any good.

Semi-serious might be a bit of an understatement, as the theatrical nature of the film makes it feel far more campy than it probably should be. But that just adds to the bizarreness of the production, and works in its favor. It misses the opportunity to really criticize society like it probably could have -- the whole repossession concept leaves open the possibility for social commentary -- but I found that to be okay. Focusing more on the characters and the music was where the film wanted to lie, and it worked well here.

Repo! The Genetic Opera is a fascinating little film, one that is not for the faint of heart or those who want an easy watch. It's a musical-horror mash up, and it's absolutely worth seeing just to see how it all plays out. I liked the music, I liked the campy nature, and I enjoyed the majority of the time it played. It missed a chance to be something more, something deeper, but I can't fault the film for having a narrower scope. It will be a cult classic in the near future, if it isn't already, and I'm throwing my support behind it. Check it out.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:40 pm

Gothika
Gothika is a silly, silly movie that wants us to take it as seriously as a movie can be taken. It involves a woman, psychiatrist Miranda Grey (Halle Berry), winding up inside the mental hospital that she once presided over. She headed home one night, crashed her car because a woman was standing in the middle of the road, tried to help the woman, saw that she was in flames, blacked out, and awakened three days later as an inmate, not as a doctor.

It's explained to her by her former colleague and friend, Pete (Robert Downey, Jr.), that her husband and boss, Doug (Charles S. Dutton), was murdered, and she is the prime suspect. She remembers none of this, pleads innocence, and does pretty much everything else that ensure that the rest of the characters believe that she should stay in the ward. Gothika now turns into a women's prison movie, with random ghostly apparitions appearing throughout in order to continue to remind us that the film is supposed to be a thriller. And it's poorly lit because that's what good atmosphere is nowadays, I guess.

The only other inmate that we meet is one of Miranda's former patients, Chloe (Penélope Cruz), who has dreams -- delusions, perhaps -- of being raped by Satan. There could be an interesting dynamic at play here, especially considering the balance in power that has recently shifted, and it does look like the film's going down that route for a while -- but no, Chloe only has three or four scenes once Miranda is admitted to the hospital.

Ghosts appear, possessions might be happening, and the film concludes making me question just exactly what the point of it all was. I found the ending unsatisfactory, in large part because of the message that it sends. It explains to us that as long as someone's doing something bad, it's fine to take things into your own hands and deal with them via murder. And the law won't do anything about it. And you can blame it all on ghosts. And despite acting crazy for the last few days, you can totally get off scot-free. And suffer no consequences. And get someone else released from a mental hospital as well for absolutely no reason.

Yeah, I just spoiled the ending to Gothika for you. I left out one "twist," which was included only for the very slight chance that a sequel will someday come along, but I may have just ruined the film for you. But I don't care, and neither should you. The ending isn't why you watch a film like this. You're here for the journey, for the random jump scenes, for the ghosts popping up whenever they choose, and to see people act crazy. And to find out exactly what happened in that house and the events leading up to it. I didn't spoil that, now did I?

Gothkia appears to be pieced together with a couple of different films, both vying for attention. Unfortunately, when we begin a different element, the other one completely disappears and gets forgotten for a certain period of time. There's no real transition from the psychological/supernatural thriller to the detective movie, and you'll notice the jump from one to the other each time it occurs. Throw in a women's prison movie, and you can kind of understand what Gothika tried to be. It just didn't work.

Oh, and just wait until you find out exactly what was going on prior to the killing of Miranda's husband. Your socks will be blown off. Granted, it will probably because you're about to go to bed after watching a mundane thriller, and "blown" is in reality you just taking them off, but still. It's just so silly, yet the movie takes everything that is captured with such sincerity and seriousness that it's laughable.

Gothika is a thriller without purpose, point or redemption. It wanted to be taken seriously, and it's really hard to stop yourself from laughing at it throughout its running time. I couldn't hold back the laughs. It wasn't scary, thrilling or suspenseful, and you'll be well advised to stay away from it. It's such a drab and boring film that it's not even worth talking about for any longer. So, yeah, just don't watch it, and you'll be happier for it. Probably.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:40 pm

The Hitcher
Explain to me if this sounds like a horror film to you. During a chase scene, a lone car driven by a mad man decides that he's going to get involved. He shoots the previous cars, making them flip and explode, while also shooting the helicopter that was involved, making it crash. Explosions are everywhere. More cars flip. And now it's a one-on-one chase scene. If this is what qualifies as "horror" nowadays, I'd rather stay away from the genre.

Of course, the real reason that this type of scene is included and executed in this manner is because the studio behind the remake of The Hitcher is Platinum Dunes, which is headed by Michael Bay. Bay loves his flips and explosions (you only have to look at his action films to see that), and it seems like he was a more hands-on producer than one might expect. However, this is completely wrong for this type of film, which requires suspense and genuine fear, not action scenes.

The plot begins as you'd expect: With two people driving down a road with a destination in mind that they'll never get to. They begin in one state, but cross into New Mexico, which this film wants me to believe is filled with dark clouds and a ton of rain -- but only when it's convenient. After turning away for a second to face his girlfriend, Grace (Sophia Bush), Jim (Zachary Knighton) almost hits a man who was conveniently standing in the middle of the road. Instead of apologizing or offering to help the man with his car trouble, the couple speed off. It's only later that they'll meet the man for good, as he manages to find a ride and catch up with them at the next gas station.

After some small talk, the man -- whom we come to know as John Ryder although we only really care about him because he's played by Sean Bean -- asks for a lift to the nearest hotel. Despite Grace's warning, Jim says "sure" and soon enough, we're driving through more rain and uncomfortable dialogue. John pulls a knife, tells them that he's only doing it because he wants them to stop him, and is eventually thrown from the vehicle.

The next morning, the skies have cleared and we spend the rest of the film in daylight, which isn't exactly prime horror material. John manages to catch up with the pair, and we spend the rest of the film hiding or running from the crazy man with a knife. Meanwhile, the useless police officers are blaming Grace and Jim for the random murders along the way, because they totally look capable of dispensing with bodies as frequently as the corpses turn up in this film. It's no wonder that (movie) cops get a bad reputation.

Instead of giving us a horror movie, The Hitcher gives us one overlong chase sequence that doesn't understand how tension is created or how an audience might possibly terrified. It takes skill to create an effective horror film that is set primarily in daylight. It also takes skill to make a movie like this one fun. The Hitcher isn't fun in any way, even if it isn't a complete failure. While I wasn't enjoying myself for a single moment of this film, there were some aspects to appreciate.

For instance, the acting isn't all around terrible. While that's more of a bonus than an expected feature for a horror flick, I actually came to like the lead performances. I couldn't believe in Sean Bean as the villain, though, as he wasn't menacing enough, nor did he have the right type of screen presence to make me fear him. Also, his American accent isn't any good. Normally, that's not too much of a problem, but I think allowing him to use his natural accent might have actually helped his character.

I also enjoyed how the two lead characters felt about one another. There's not superfluous relationship drama between them, which I consider a bonus. If a killer is coming after you, I don't think you would be bothering fighting about who did what 2 years ago. These people do truly care about each other, and there's one scene in particular that was quite touching. There were also a couple of Hitchcock references thrown in here and there, although they're present just so fans can point them out and receive a congratulatory pat on the back.

It's the writing that kills this film. Not just the dialogue, but the way many scenes are scripted, and how they play out. Characters act unnaturally -- there's at least one moment where one of the characters has a perfect opportunity to end Jack's life but decides not to -- and there's enough stupidity in everyone's actions to make you question just why these people have managed to survive this long without a serial killer after them. Implausibility also factors in, the direction is sloppy at best, and the film simply isn't scary. It wants to mix both horror and action, but fails at doing either well.

The Hitcher isn't any fun, even if some of the lesser elements end up working fairly well. I liked the characters and I thought their relationship was quite sweet. Despite this, action is substituted for horror, good writing for cliches and stupidity, and fun for tedium. This isn't a scary film, nor is it an enjoyable one. It's not a complete waste, although Sean Bean failed to make an interesting or scary enough villain to carry the film, even if he seemed to try his best. The Hitcher is a poor attempt at cashing in on the name of the 1986 cult classic, and is another unnecessary horror remake.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Night of the Lepus
I think rabbits are some of the cutest creatures on this planet. They're so cute, in fact, that I would hazard a guess that you could have a film where the only thing shown is a rabbit sitting there, eating hay, and I'd still enjoy it. Night of the Lepus features a lot of rabbits, and as a result, one might think that it would be worth watching just because the little creatures that are featured. One would be wrong.

The film opens with a fake news report about rabbits. I was already having fun. But, the news report tells us that there are too many rabbits, and that they threaten to destroy crops, or something like that. My interest was focused on the cute, little bunny rabbits, so I was having a difficult time listening to the stuffy news reporter. We then cut to a man named Cole (Rory Calhoun), who falls off his horse because, you guessed it, rabbits are there. I'm not sure whether the horse was tripped by the little critters, or if it was just too busy staring at them like I was, but it falls and ends up being put down.

So, apparently the rabbits are a problem. Cole's a farmer, and if they eat all of his crops, he'll go out of business, end up losing his farm, die of hunger, and probably have his grave trampled on by these furry varmints. He heads to some scientists, Roy (Stuart Whitman) and Gerry (Janet Leigh), who are trying to figure out how to get rid of creatures without the use of poison. They have a daughter, Amanda (Melanie Fullerton), who is probably one of the most annoying child characters I can remember in films.

Tests are performed on the rabbits in hope that the scientists will be able to interrupt their breeding cycles, eventually causing them to die off. After some failures, they decide to use a serum that was sent to their office just that morning. They don't even know what it does, but decide to inject it anyway, considering they don't think that the rabbit will ever get away. Amanda, deciding that this infected rabbit is one she wants, switches it with a controlled one while her parents aren't looking, before being allowed to take home a "controlled" rabbit, which, if you weren't paying close attention, is actually the one injected with this untested serum.

The rabbit escapes in the next scene, although Amanda doesn't seem to care very much. I suppose that elaborate escape method that she used to get this specific bunny was done just because she thinks messing up scientific experiments is enjoyable. Anyway, it turns out that the untested serum makes giant rabbits, and since it can be spread easily, this means that soon enough, there are giant rabbits everywhere. Can you get cuter?

It turns out, giant rabbits are killing machines. The injection didn't just give them a size increase; it also gave them a taste for blood and destruction. For most of the film, we get humans fighting against the rabbits, with the latter party generally winning out, thanks to the fact that they're giant rabbits. Who would expect rabbits to be giant, and more importantly, who thinks that rabbits will want to kill humans?

When Night of the Lepus works, it's because it focuses solely on bunny rabbits doing something cute, like running around the countryside, nesting in a doll house, or eating a human. Yes, all three of those things are cute, at least, they are as they're portrayed here. Even when a rabbit is "eating" someone, all we really see are a bunch of close ups on the its face, with a bunch of ketchup smeared on it. We see the rabbit lick the ketchup off, or even appear to smile. These moments are so cute and I just wanted to hug the bunnies whenever they were "eating" a person.

To make the rabbits large -- well, I'm not actually sure what was done, but it's kind of funny. I know at times they used miniature sets, while in other moments, they use a suit that doesn't at all look like a giant rabbit. When the giants are running around, everything is slowed down because -- I'm not sure why, either. Do things look less menacing in slow motion? I know that it means we get to see the rabbits for longer, and they're just so adorable that I can't complain about that, but if the filmmakers were trying to scare us, they failed.

However, the film isn't all just giant bunny rabbits running around doing things. We also get human characters who frequently turn up and do nothing of importance. They want to stop the rabbits, I suppose because they want to live or something silly like that, but none of them have any real character and I didn't care if any of them would live. That's especially true of the daughter, Amanda, who I swear did things just to annoy me whenever possible, despite never being punished for her terrible behavior. I definitely wanted to see her get mauled by a rabbit, or a person in a rabbit costume, although she lives for way too long of the film.

Night of the Lepus has to be seen to be believed, but don't take that as a recommendation. The humans are shown far too frequently to make this film worthwhile, and all of the characters made the film too cumbersome to be worthwhile. The bunnies were cute, though, and seeing them roam around miniature sets and lick ketchup from their face is cute and made me laugh quite often, but these scenes are not worth sitting through watching all of these annoying people do nothing of importance.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:50 pm

Primeval
I know that the advertisements don't want to tell you, but Primeval is a monster movie with a giant crocodile playing the role of the creature. It's named Gustave. Those of you who care about giant crocodiles will note that "Gustave" is also the name of a giant croc in real life. Yes, Primeval claims that it's based on real events, although the only thing that remains consistent is the crocodile existing and the fact that civil war went on in the country of Burundi.

That is the country where Primeval is set in, and the film makes certain that you know you're in Africa, but the specific country doesn't particularly matter. That's part of the point. See, interlaced in between the different monster moments is an attempt at making a political point about how the Western world doesn't care about anything that happens in Africa. It does this by having the bad guys (a tribe of Africans) try to kill our crew of news reporters because the reporters filmed them doing bad things like killing other people. Yeah. That's a great way to make your point, film.

Our first scene shows a white news reporter doing a story about something that I can't even remember. It doesn't matter. She gets eaten by Gustave. That is what brings the world's attention to it. Apparently, it had already killed hundreds of people beforehand, but it took the death of this one news reporter for anyone to care. I suppose that's another way that the film tries to get its message across, but it doesn't linger at that point at all. Instead, we cut to the news reporters that we'll follow for the next 90 minutes. They want to capture the giant croc because they think it'll be fun or something.

None of these characters resonated. In fact, I can't even remember any of their names or if they had real motivations for coming or even distinct personalities. The leader is Dominic Purcell, and his cameraman is Orlando Jones. There's a woman (Brooke Langton) as well. Oh, and there was a dog who sits on a raft for most of the time, which I figured would be a good way to lure a crocodile near the encampment, but the locals think that's a good way to keep it away.

I'll leave you here except to give you a description of the crocodile, Gustave. It actually looks pretty good whenever we get to see it, although that's very infrequent and that's probably for the best. After all, if we saw it more, it might become even less frightening. When it appeared, I sighed, because I just didn't care whatsoever whether or not it won. In some cases, I hoped it would eat everyone just so that the movie would end.

One thing that is kind of nice about Primeval is that its killer is nondiscriminatory. Good guys (the reporters), bad guys (the natives) -- it didn't matter when it came to this croc. There's a point in the film where Gustave actually saves a woman from being raped. Actually, if they'd just stay away from the water (although we later find out that Gustave is quite agile on land), the biggest threat of the film would be the natives and their guns.

For most of the film, we go from boring scene to another boring scene. I had to think back and remember an action/horror film where I was so bored. There is nothing in this film that excited me in the least. To call myself uninterested would be understating things to a large extent. I could have fallen asleep during Primeval and probably have taken the same amount from it. Oh, but I would have missed a couple of people being eaten by a giant crocodile. Well, that would have been just terrible, wouldn't it?

I can't even get excited about getting to tell you how much I disliked Primeval in this review. It filled me with complete apathy, and I feel as if the only worse thing you could do would be to watch it in slow motion. This would be worse for a couple of reasons. First, it would mean that you'd have to endure this absolutely terrible film for more of your life. Second, you'd see more of the crocodile, which would probably look even worse the longer you see it. Finally, you'd probably fall asleep, which, if it isn't that time of the day for you, would probably not be terribly productive.

The only other thing I should mention is that the final two title cards of the film are correct. Gustave still exists and still roams around some rivers. Second, the civil war in Burundi eventually ended. I suppose I should give credit where credit is due: These two things are fact, and aren't made up just to create a film. Granted, the civil war fact card doesn't have much impact in regards to the film, making it superfluous information, but, hey, credit for trying, right? Oh, and the crocodile isn't even the main villain in a film about a giant crocodile. So the other fact is less related than it should be as well. What a missed opportunity this film was.

Primeval is a travesty. It is a waste of time, a waste of film, and a waste of money. It tries to bring us a social commentary, but it fails at doing that because of how terribly executed everything in the film was. I had difficulty remembering a film that bored me as much as this one did. It's one noteworthy feature is that its killer will kill everyone, not just the good guys. But one promising idea in a slew of bad ones does not make a watchable film. This isn't even a film that's bad enough to laugh at.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:38 pm

The Grudge
When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born.

The curse gathers in that place of death.

Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury.


Those three lines are what we first see when The Grudge begins. They tell you almost everything there is to know about this film, or at least, its premise. Why there aren't thousands of these curses all around the world is beyond me. Maybe there are, and we just don't get to see them. The Grudge details one of these curses, told in non-linear fashion, just in case the basic premise isn't enough to hold your attention -- or confuse you.

The opening live-action scene involves Bill Pullman jumping from the balcony of his apartment suite. Why? It doesn't really matter. This is a horror movie that tries to scare you. The motivation for something like this is inconsequential, although we certainly get enough reasons behind them. It's explained later in the film, through mostly flashbacks and research done by our main character, but, like I said, it doesn't really matter.

Our lead is Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar), an exchange student currently in Japan with her boyfriend, Doug (Jason Behr). She also works as a care worker in order to earn some credits for her school. After Yoko (Yoko Maki) doesn't show up to work one day, she is told to go care for a woman named Emma Williams (Grace Zabriskie). Everyone seems to know that something could pop-up behind them at any moment, because they're constantly looking around and seeming scared.

She visits this house, and discovers a boy named Tashio in a closet. And then some weird things happen involving a lot of hair, Emma dies, and she wakes up in hospital. Weird, eh? We also get glimpses of Emma's family, who are supposed to be living with her, as well as what happened in regards to Bill Puillman's character. Things that should be considered flashbacks aren't shown as such, so you need to pay attention to find out that they took place in the past. If you fall asleep, you might end up missing something important, or getting lost in the time changes.

That's always a possibility, because The Grudge isn't actually that scary. You very well could be at risk of falling asleep, which is a shame, because this is a film that had a lot of promise. Maybe Ju-on: The Grudge, the Japanese horror film that was remade for American audiences as this one is scarier, but since the director of both films was the same, I'm unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt.

The main problem comes from how often we see the person that ends up stalking and attempting to kill all of the characters. We later learn that her name is Kayako, and she pops up exactly when you'd expect. That's the gimmick, anyway, and it wears thin by the end. Everyone you expect to see killed likely will be, and yes, you'll be seeing Kayako far more often than you'd like. This is like a slasher film, but in order to become a target, all you need to do is avoid entering this one house.

And if most of the characters actually respected the privacy of other people, they'd be fine. If nothing else, this is a cautionary tale about not entering into houses you're not invited into. Karen enters without permission, and we later find out that this is the case with Bill Pullman too. Same with Yoko. Even Karen's boyfriend, at one point, enters without anyone asking him to come in. the only completely "innocent" people here are the ones who buy the house, and the police officers, of which only some of them get targeted.

Which leads me to wonder what happened to the police officers we don't see die. From what I can remember, only one of them, the lead Detective named Nakagawa (Ryo Ishibashi), is targeted. The rest get away scot-free. And what about the realtor who sells the home? Or the people who also entered it when it was an Open House? I'm left wondering what happened to these people, because my attention wasn't held by anything on-screen.

At one point in The Grudge, Nakagawa tells Karen that there's a saying in Japan that says that if someone dies while angry, their property becomes cursed. We already knew that from the opening title screen, but I guess a reminder isn't all that bad. So why, if that's the case, did it only happen to this specific house. And why only in Japan? How come nobody else knows that this is happening? It's all just so puzzling to me.

I could forgive all of this if I was entertained or frightened. I put off watching The Grudge for a long time because, I'll be honest here, the trailer frightened me. I figured this would be one of those films you can't get out of your head and it'll keep you up at night. But it's actually just kind of boring and instantly forgettable. There are a couple of jump scenes that got me, but Kayako popping up wherever she wanted got old after a while, and I didn't find myself even getting startled anymore.

The Grudge failed because it wasn't all that scary. Horror movies often don't make much sense, but if they frighten you, you don't question them in the moment. My mind wandered while I was watching this one -- to the point where all I could think about was how much fun I could have doing something else. The non-linear storytelling doesn't help much, the characters are largely all idiots, and, like I said, I wasn't scared. As a result, I didn't have much fun.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:37 pm

The Grudge 2
We begin The Grudge 2 exactly the same way that we began its predecessor. We get the same opening text that tells us about the curse that can occur if someone dies while in rage. Why do we need this again? I think I know why: The Grudge was forgettable and since number 2 has come out two years later, nobody would remember the original one, or how that house became cursed in the first place. Or maybe, like me, nobody cared to begin with.

After that redundancy, we meet three schoolgirls, who go to an English-speaking school in Japan. They've decided to go visit the haunted house from the first film, because, well, it'll be fun, I guess. Surprise, surprise, they get cursed. That's one storyline. The second, which I think is supposed to be the main one, involves Audrey (Amber Tamblyn) coming to Japan to visit her hospitalized sister, Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar). Karen was our lead in the last film, and, if you remember, ends up being engulfed in flames, but survives and ends up in hospital.

Surprisingly, Gellar gets less than 10 minutes on-screen this time, as she's killed early on. So we follow Audrey and a journalist named Eason (Edison Chen), who both end up entering the house and becoming cursed. Sucks to be them, although it's not really Aubrey's fault, as Kayako (Takako Fuji), the villain of the series, pulls her in. Unlike the first film, where you could make a case for it being a cautionary tale, this one just wants to have a bunch of people being haunted by a ghost/demon/woman/thing.

There's a third story as well, which takes place in Chicago. There's a family of three living in an apartment, and the father, Bill (Christopher Cousins) is allowing his girlfriend, Trish (Jennifer Beals) to move in. The daughter, Lacey (Sarah Roemer) is fine with this, but the youngest, the son named Jake (Matthew Knight) isn't. They don't get along all that well, and -- wait a second! Isn't this supposed to be about a curse, or something? Yeah, that doesn't really happen in this story until about the final quarter of the runtime, and serves as the low point of this film.

What we end up getting from the main story is the reason that Kayako has decided to go around killing people. Again, I need to question whether or not the reasoning matters. I know that I didn't care about possible abuse that occurred when she was a child, or anything behind the motivation. There's supposed to be a curse on the house because someone was killed in a fit of rage. Isn't that enough? Apparently not, but I wish it had been.

The multiple plots, all taking place at different times, end up not being all that confusing, but the way that the curse works is. I'm less sure now about how it works than I was after the first Grudge, and that's after being given an explanation. This is just something that doesn't need a reason. I want to watch Kayako going around, haunting characters that I'll grow to like. What I got was a bunch of underdeveloped characters, very few scares, and a bunch of exposition that was completely unnecessary. Not the makings of a good film.

Just like with The Grudge, I wouldn't care about all this if it was a scary movie. That's why people generally go to horror movies -- they want to be scared. The Grudge 2 just doesn't deliver in this regard. There are a couple of creepy scenes, particularly one where Kayako manages to implant her face on a bunch of pictures, but there just isn't enough there to sustain the 90+ minutes that it take to get us to the end.

The question I'm left with after it ended was why Sarah Michelle Gellar was killed off early on in favor of her sister, a character that was never before mentioned. Since we're going to have a complete lack of depth in terms of the characters, we had might as well keep the one familiar one so that the audience has someone to latch onto. But no, that doesn't happen, and we end up seeing her smashed face on the pavement before too long.

There's a great deal of mother-daughter relationship struggles that take place in The Grudge 2, although they seem forced in. Audrey and her ailing mother don't start off on good terms, nor do they end well. And then there's the relationship of Kayako and her mother, which comes out of nowhere when we're being told what happened in the two characters' past. You'd think that something would actually come of these two connections, but that's not the case. Instead, they're mentioned in order for us to get a little bit of understanding toward the characters, but in the end, nothing comes of the mention, nor does it alter how the characters act. And neither relationship gets "fixed" either; they end up just like they were at the beginning.

I'm still curious about what happens to other characters who go in the house, but we don't get to see. After the fire was started in the previous film, we learn that Eason was the one to pull Karen out, saving her from death. But what about the firemen? And the investigators afterward? What happened to them? Have there been other children who have decided ot explore the "haunted house"? It's mentioned that some other policemen went missing, but to me, this seems like it would be a small portion of the people who would be curious about such a house. There could likely be hundreds of stories told about people going inside, but I'm willing to bet they all go the same way: (1) Person goes inside. (2) Person is haunted. (3) Person dies. Just like these two movies, it's predictable.

The Grudge 2 follows up The Grudge by being pretty much the same in both its problems and its plot, except it contains even more exposition that we don't care about or need. It's still not a scary movie, the characters are still not deep or interesting, and I just got tired of the same formula of Kayako haunting and then killing random people. I got worn down by this movie, and in the end, I wished I had never watched it.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:31 pm

The Grudge 3
There are two things that connect The Grudge 3 to previous installments in the series. The first is the character of Jake (Matthew Knight), who ends up dead after the film's opening scene. He was the only one to make it out of the second film alive, and the evil spirit the kills everyone in this series decided that, after three years and putting Jake in a mental asylum, it's time finish the job. Jake is dead, although nobody but us is exactly sure why, and it's time to go through another Grudge movie. Oh, boy!

The second tie, in case you are already asleep, is the evil spirit, Kayako (portrayed this time by Aiko Horiuchi). There's a reason for her existence, summed up in the same quote that opens each one of these flicks, but the basic idea is that she's a ghost on a mission to make everyone else miserable and eventually dead, simply because that's what horror movie ghosts need to do. She has only a tangential connection to almost every character in this movie, but is going to go after them regardless of motive. It's a horror flick; these things don't have to make sense.

So, we get a bunch of characters gathered together in an apartment building, and they're going to be haunted and possibly killed. There's also one, Naoko (Emi Ikehata), who travels from Tokyo to Chicago in hopes of ending the curse, because she's the spirit's younger sister, I guess. She's not the lead, though, as it's not that type of movie. Instead, we have Lisa (Johanna Braddy), someone who wants to move out of the apartment, but is going to stay once the creepiness starts.

She has a brother, Max (Gil McKinney), who manages the building, and a sister, Rose (Jadie Hobson), who suffers from asthma attacks. So, these people, who knew Jake and are therefore loose ends (I'm assuming), are the new targets, and we go through the same type of storyline as before, with absolutely nothing fresh, nothing scary, and nothing worthy of the 90 minutes that The Grudge 3 takes to get through its meandering and terribly uninteresting story.

To be fair, I was so far removed from the mythos and the entire idea that the previous films had tried to establish that it would have taken a great piece of cinema to bring me back. I had judged The Grudge 3 prior to seeing it, as it had nothing working in its favor. The third installment of a terrible franchise, a direct-to-video horror movie, a cast of unrecognizable names, and a director with one previous feature under his belt -- that, at least, was moderately well received. It's a film that has nothing positive going for it, and thanks to the tedium that preceded it, there was pretty much no way for it to impress me.

Perhaps it's that confirmation bias that made me really detest The Grudge 3, but stepping back from that I still can't even see why people would like it, or the series as a whole. The first one, perhaps, as it at least had a moderately interesting idea. But after that, we've followed the same formula for two movies, never once learning anything of importance -- despite the films' attempts -- and it's all been so boring and not scary.

There's not even a whole lot that happens for the first half of the film. We set-up a lot of things, sure, but since it's a horror movie, it's failing if it doesn't even try to scare us. It doesn't. The opening kill is seen on a security camera, making it lose all of its potential impact, and then there's nothing until at earlier the halfway marker. There aren't even any fake scares, or potential buildup, or anything -- it plays out like a terrible, terrible melodrama that happens to take place in the presence of some ghosts.

The only people who should see The Grudge 3 are those who have already bought into what the franchise has been selling, and simply want a new-ish story that explains a little bit more of the ghosts and all that good stuff that seemed to matter two movies ago. If you're still on the fence, this one won't convince you to buy in; and if you're completely over it, like I was after the (American) series starter, you'll roll your eyes and go to sleep while it plays.

I think the only good part of this movie was the cast, which, considering the lack of recognizable names, was quite surprising. In the lead role, Braddy had a certain charm, more in personality than anything else. She delivers most lines not like she's in a horror movie by added additional tension to them, but in a very naturalistic way. If her career hadn't already taken her to direct-to-video horror, she might have a chance. Also appearing is Shawnee Smith of the Saw franchise, so if you're a fan of her work ... she's here, I guess.

Look, I was not the right person to have to sit through a third Grudge movie, having not enjoyed either of the first two. This one is no better -- not a lot worse, either, which at least makes the series consistent -- and if you're not sold on the series by this point, it's not going to help improve that mindset. It has a decent cast, but absolutely no scares or anything that's worth spending your time on. It's a failure in almost all respects and only hardcore fans of the franchise should give it a look.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:30 pm

Event Horizon
According to Event Horizon, we will have colonies on the Moon by 2015. About 15 years later, we'll have started doing things on Mars as well. And by 2040, we'll have a spaceship that can create black holes with which we can teleport instantly to anywhere we want, apparently including but not limited to Hell. Aren't humans amazing? We can do so, so much if we put our minds to it. Unfortunately, based solely on this film, we can't make an involving horror movie set in space involving a killer spaceship.

The year is now 2047, precisely seven years after that black hole creating ship did that and then disappeared. For whatever reason, it has now reappeared and it's now time for a rescue crew to attempt to find the crew (assuming any members are still alive) and salvage what they can from the ship. The captain of this crew is named Miller (Laurence Fishbourne), and accompanying him is one of the designers of the once-missing spaceship, Dr. Weir (Sam Neill). There are other members as well, although they're so unmemorable and similar to one another that it's not worth mentioning them.

Before even arriving at this ship, there is a lot of turbulence. Clouds surround the Event Horizon (yes, the title of the film is the same as the ship that they're about to spend a while on), and open up within 500 meters before arrival. These clouds are never seen again, which speaks to me as lazy filmmaking, but they serve a purpose here in giving us a very nice first shot of this ship. It doesn't really matter anyway, as we're going to be spending most of the time in dark, claustrophobic interior shots. They require less special effects.

Once aboard the ship, several things begin happening, although the reason they occur isn't explained until much later on. Mostly, the various crew members begin having hallucinations -- at least, we're told they're hallucinations even after deaths begin to occur because of them. A couple of people are even set on fire (I think it was more than one, anyway), and chalking that up to "hallucination" seems silly to me. There is a naked girl whom one character thinks about, though. There definitely wasn't a naked girl on the ship.

For the most part, hallucinations are just a convenient way for the film to say "boo!" whenever it seems like the best way to make the audience jump. That's not scary, and when you lack the atmosphere and tone to make your jump scares even startle -- I suppose I should mention at this point that Event Horizon doesn't set a very good tone or atmosphere -- then your "boo!" scenes won't work at all. I can't remember a single time that made me jump or wasn't entirely predictable.

You know how I just kind of introduced something new in the middle of an idea in that last paragraph? How, while talking about jump scares I made mention about how the film doesn't have a scary enough atmosphere to make them work? You know how I could have easily gone back to an earlier paragraph and inserted it earlier to make it less jarring and seem like I'm better at this writing thing? That's like what watching Event Horizon is like. Elements are introduced out of nowhere well after they should have been. The pacing is off, and so is the supposed mystery of the ship.

See, we're made to understand, at some point, that the ship is casing the hallucinations. How does the film tell us this? By having one of the background characters come up from nowhere and telling us that, well before we should. And it's not even like it's the guy who built the ship who tells us this, but some random person who decides that the ship is working like an immune system, attempting to clean itself of the humans. Oh, but the doctor knows more than he's letting on just so he can surprise us later on -- without having any reason to.

I wouldn't care about this if the film was scary. A horror film needs to get one thing right, and that one thing only. The rest is all bonus and extra, but if the main element -- being scary -- doesn't work, then we look to other parts to pass the time. I cared about how silly the story was, how it brought in random elements only to forget about them later on, and how the characters didn't matter or make much sense.

That final point might just be because of how underdeveloped all of the characters are. Even the two leads don't really have much of a character at all. I've read that the original cut of Event Horizon ran 130 minutes, and if most of that was character development, that earlier cut might have been better. It might have explained why some of these situations occurred, how to differentiate between these different people, and why they act the way they do. But the film still probably wouldn't have been scary, so it still would have been a failure on the whole.

Event Horizon is ultimately a boring horror flick that is neither scary, startling or interesting. There's nothing to see, nothing to take from it, and nothing that makes it worth watching. It doesn't have solid characters, a unique plot, or scares. It has jump scares, and it has a reason for those jump scares to be there, but without the audience already being on their toes, these scenes fail. This is a silly film that I can't recommend, as it's just too boring to be worth your time.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:15 pm

Shark Night 3D
No. Don't seek out this movie. Don't think about this movie any longer. It's not worth it. It's awful, stupid, and not worth any amount of thought that you can put into it. The sad part is that its director is a talented person, making the incredibly enjoyable Cellular and the pretty fun Snakes on a Plane. I mean, he also made the two lesser Final Destination flicks, but considering how much I loved Cellular, I was willing to forgive at least one of those. Not Shark Night 3D, though. I'm not forgiving this one.

The plot involves a group of college kids going up to the cabin on the lake and eventually getting eaten one by one by a group of sharks which are there for the sole purpose of eating college kids going up to the cabin on the lake. Okay, so there's an actual reason that will be revealed a lot later into the film than matters, but suffice to say that there are sharks and the college kids get eaten a bunch. There are no real characters so I'm not even going to start listing their names. There are three males and three females. That's enough information.

There are villains that are not the sharks, and they put the sharks there. If you get surprised by who is behind it all, shame on you. There's nothing original about this flick, and it's so similar to other horror movies that if you are fooled, you need to watch better ones. If you are surprised by a single thing in this film -- except, perhaps, that the black guy doesn't die first -- then you pick bad movies for your introduction to the genre. And that's what this would have to be, because seeing more than one or two other horror films would cue you in on just what this one features.

Here's a better movie than this with the same basic premise, without the ridiculous final act "twist": Piranha 3D. In that one, it's the same thing except a herd of piranha have decided to unleash havoc on a (larger) group of college kids on spring vacation. That one wasn't rated PG-13, meaning that the deaths didn't all just involve people being pulled under the water and having red food coloring appear right afterward, like what happens here.

Oh, and they could also do pretty much whatever they wanted in Piranha, meaning that creativity was actually applauded instead of condemned. Because of the higher rating, it could get away with tons of scenes that wouldn't fly in a movie like Shark Night, meaning that the audience could actually, you know, have fun. When your premise is one like this, that is the only thing that matters. Suffice to say I didn't have fun with this film.

You know how you don't see the shark until fairly late into Jaws? Remember how that helped build tension? And remember how real that shark felt when you did see it? Like it was really there? Apparently the filmmakers of Shark Night never saw Jaws, as they do the opposite for all of this. We see the sharks fairly early on, and they all look terrible right off the bat. Many of them are clearly all CGI, while the few that are slightly convincing still aren't quite real enough. It's hard to be frightened when the special effects are this bad.

Not that you would be anyway, but at least the effort could have been there. You're not going to be scared or care about the fates of any of these people, as they're all unlikable. This isn't anything new in horror films, but within the first few minutes I was hoping that all but one of these people would die. The only one I liked was Malik (Sinqua Walls), as he at least appeared to have ambitions -- he was going to propose to his long-time girlfriend during this trip. I decided he could live, but nobody else.

Malik's actor was also probably the best of the bunch, even though Walls currently doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Someone should change that. The rest of the cast is lackluster, although Chris Carmack and Joshua Leonard make suitable hillbilly archetypes. Does anyone else find it odd that Sara Paxton has kind of become the go-to girl for horror films as of late? She just never seemed like the type, but then she keeps turning up in them. Maybe she's just really trying to get people to forget about Darcy's Wild Life.

I wasn't even sure what Shark Night wanted to do. It's not campy enough to be fun, nor does it ever reach the so-bad-it's-good territory. It just kind of exists, swimming in a pool of its own blood, waiting for someone to finish it off. Perhaps a shark could do that. It sits uncomfortably in the space where movies go when they're so bad, they're just bad. There is nothing to take from this film, and just thinking about it is likely killing brain cells.

Shark Night 3D is awful, and if you even consider watching it, make sure you're either in a properly altered state of mind, or with friends with whom you enjoy laughing at bad movies. Because if neither of those happen, you're going to have an awful time. It's a stupid, absurd, lazy attempt at making a PG-13 horror movie, and it makes me sad that a director who has made good films in the past has stooped this low. I mean, The Final Destination was bad, but this is worse.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:47 pm

The Raping
The Reaping is the type of film that makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Had I have done that before watching this film, I would have only had to listen to this film instead of watching it, which might have been more enjoyable. Given the overall quality of the writing, maybe not. It still wouldn't make any sense, and I might have missed out on one kind of enjoyable scene, so I take back the gouging of my eyes part. I only wish I could take back watching this movie.

Our plot focuses on a woman named Katherine (Hilary Swank), and her assistant, Ben (Idris Elba). We open with her disproving a "miracle." People are sick, and they think it's God's doing. She finds hazardous waste buried by some company, and she decides that the waste was making the people sick. There's a slick transition to her explaining this to a classroom full of students. It turns out, Mrs. Skeptic is a college professor. She has left the church, and has debunked over 40 miracles in the last five years. Ben is still a churchgoing man, which would make his chosen profession seem odd.

That's actually brought up at one point. Ben is asked something to the extent of "Why do you try to disprove 'miracles' if you believe in God?" This moral dilemma might be interesting, but apart from that one time, it's not touched on again. The plot continues when a man named Doug (David Morrissey) comes to the college and asks for Katherine and Ben's help. He lives in a town called Haven, and just a few days ago, the town's river has turned completely red. Sounds like a mystery! So, the two miracle-busters head to Haven to figure out just what's wrong with the river.

Before you know it, the plagues in Exodus -- most of them, anyway -- have started to come true (mostly) in the order that they're presented in the Holy Book. Frogs rain down from the sky, children get lice, the cows act weird, and so on. The locals believe that a twelve-year-old girl named Loren (AnnaSophia Robb) is to blame, as she found her dead brother at the river and was also present as it turned red. She lives in the wild, presumably because her mother doesn't care what happens to her. She also acts kind of creepy.

Oh, right, Stephen Rae is also involved, although he never comes into direct contact with any of our main characters. He gets the first scene in the movie, in which he sees pictures burned for seemingly no reason, and the marks that the fire leaves end up being some sort of emblem. Of course, that'll matter more later. He basically exists to tell Katherine that she should be careful -- a warning that she neglects.

The Reaping puts us through several twists as it progresses. That is, assuming you don't see them all coming as none of them are surprising in the least (and after they occur, the film has to flashback to show us why they happened -- as if we don't already know). It wants us to think it's more clever than it actually is. "Everything that happened earlier matters," it wants to say, but in reality, not much does and only key sequences (which you'll have no problem remembering) do.

In fact, when you look at The Reaping from afar, you become embarrassed for it. It thinks it's just so surprising and clever, but in reality, it's neither. It's just a mundane horror with no real scares, no atmosphere, and no mystery. It's odd that the film would be released with such an ego, especially considering that it sat on the shelves for quite a while after it was completed. Why it ended up being released in April and not October or January, I'm not quite sure.

I mentioned in the opening paragraph that there was one kind of cool scene. That comes from the locust plague, although even it is too long and ultimately loses purpose. It's not scary, but it is fun to see nameless people being swarmed by CGI locusts, especially when some of them look so terrible that the film become laughable. There's another awful special effects sequence involving blood. You'll know it when you see it -- that is, if you ever see it. I recommend not doing that.

It's surprising that a talented cast would both be involved in this production and phone-in their performances. It's like watching a high school play performed by nihilists. You wouldn't know that Swank has two Oscars by watching this movie. You would be confused as to how she (and the rest of the cast members) even get jobs. It's bad all around. Even if they would have attempted camp, The Reaping might have been saved. But they're all so glum and lifeless, as if they're all zombies or something. This kind of (not really) gets explained away with the supporting cast, but it doesn't help the main guys, nor does it make for an enjoyable watch.

The Reaping is not enjoyable, except for the scenes where it's either too trashy or terrible to take seriously. It has bland performances, poor special effects (especially for its $40 million budget), a lack of scares or jolts, and a nonsensical plot. This isn't a good film any way you slice it. There isn't a reason I can think of to watch The Reaping. If you can come up with one, you very well might spawn Satan yourself, trying to convert people into a cult dedicated to watching this movie. But probably not. This is a terrible film with no reason to be seen.


Last edited by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:34 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Mr. Wiggles on Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:40 am

Is that title a spelling error or another word filter?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You can buy a dream or two to last you all the years, and the only price you'll pay is a heart full of tears.
avatar
Mr. Wiggles
Professional Green Tea Enthusiast. It cures Space Aids dontcha know?

Posts : 5741
Leprechaun Gold : 26630
Pineapple Power : 15453
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 22
Alignment : Semi-sadistic Tea-drinking Schizophrenic
Location : Location LOCATION! (That was funnier in my mind)

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by ggggggggggg on Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:56 am

reaping

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


ggggggggggg
Kay-Ron, Destroyer of Worlds

Posts : 3006
Leprechaun Gold : 29188
Pineapple Power : 21476
Join date : 2010-10-09
Age : 24
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by ggggggggggg on Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:57 am

spellin error

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


ggggggggggg
Kay-Ron, Destroyer of Worlds

Posts : 3006
Leprechaun Gold : 29188
Pineapple Power : 21476
Join date : 2010-10-09
Age : 24
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Mr. Wiggles on Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:01 am

HAVE YOU BEEN FUCKING DRINKING AGAIN!?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You can buy a dream or two to last you all the years, and the only price you'll pay is a heart full of tears.
avatar
Mr. Wiggles
Professional Green Tea Enthusiast. It cures Space Aids dontcha know?

Posts : 5741
Leprechaun Gold : 26630
Pineapple Power : 15453
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 22
Alignment : Semi-sadistic Tea-drinking Schizophrenic
Location : Location LOCATION! (That was funnier in my mind)

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:34 am

Mr. Wiggles wrote:Is that title a spelling error or another word filter?
Possibly someone coming in and messing with it.

Or I just miss-typed.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might as well sit back 'cause I ain't tryin' to show maturity.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by PayJ on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:34 am

Mr. Wiggles wrote:HAVE YOU BEEN FUCKING DRINKING AGAIN!?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Fix me a hot dog with jelly on
I've had cravings since withdrawing from
Low grade acid and cocaine bumps
I can't sleep at night or hold a decent job."
-Matt Berry
avatar
PayJ
And I'll Do Fitness

Posts : 13111
Leprechaun Gold : 47293
Pineapple Power : 22778
Join date : 2010-10-08
Age : 23
Alignment : Right or Left
Location : South East of England

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by ggggggggggg on Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:02 am

Nah I was just too tired to bother typing correctly.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


ggggggggggg
Kay-Ron, Destroyer of Worlds

Posts : 3006
Leprechaun Gold : 29188
Pineapple Power : 21476
Join date : 2010-10-09
Age : 24
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by PayJ on Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:24 am

I was asking Martyr. That filthy drunk.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Fix me a hot dog with jelly on
I've had cravings since withdrawing from
Low grade acid and cocaine bumps
I can't sleep at night or hold a decent job."
-Matt Berry
avatar
PayJ
And I'll Do Fitness

Posts : 13111
Leprechaun Gold : 47293
Pineapple Power : 22778
Join date : 2010-10-08
Age : 23
Alignment : Right or Left
Location : South East of England

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Mr. Wiggles on Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:04 am

VezaRez wrote:Nah I was just too tired to bother typing correctly.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOUR PLAYING AT?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You can buy a dream or two to last you all the years, and the only price you'll pay is a heart full of tears.
avatar
Mr. Wiggles
Professional Green Tea Enthusiast. It cures Space Aids dontcha know?

Posts : 5741
Leprechaun Gold : 26630
Pineapple Power : 15453
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 22
Alignment : Semi-sadistic Tea-drinking Schizophrenic
Location : Location LOCATION! (That was funnier in my mind)

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Xandy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:46 pm

Review Seven Psychopaths.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wu-Tang is for the children!
avatar
Xandy
Halfblood Prince of Persia

Posts : 5571
Leprechaun Gold : 24605
Pineapple Power : 1164
Join date : 2010-10-09
Age : 23
Alignment : Chaotic Faggy
Location : North North America

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Terria on Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:56 pm

http://www.mellowleprechauns.com/t1335p800-marter-s-reviews#121236

Learn to look, pisspipe.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'll hit you so fucking hard your children be born with dits! Your grandchildren will be born with dits!
avatar
Terria
Michele Bachmann

Posts : 2365
Leprechaun Gold : 21966
Pineapple Power : 17072
Join date : 2010-10-09
Age : 21
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by PayJ on Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:18 pm

Terria wrote:http://www.mellowleprechauns.com/t1335p800-marter-s-reviews#121236

Learn to look, Fuckwhipe.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Fix me a hot dog with jelly on
I've had cravings since withdrawing from
Low grade acid and cocaine bumps
I can't sleep at night or hold a decent job."
-Matt Berry
avatar
PayJ
And I'll Do Fitness

Posts : 13111
Leprechaun Gold : 47293
Pineapple Power : 22778
Join date : 2010-10-08
Age : 23
Alignment : Right or Left
Location : South East of England

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:50 pm

PayJ wrote:I was asking Martyr. That filthy drunk.
That I am.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might as well sit back 'cause I ain't tryin' to show maturity.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by PayJ on Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:52 pm

No... Martyr put that bottle down... Spare the ki...

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Fix me a hot dog with jelly on
I've had cravings since withdrawing from
Low grade acid and cocaine bumps
I can't sleep at night or hold a decent job."
-Matt Berry
avatar
PayJ
And I'll Do Fitness

Posts : 13111
Leprechaun Gold : 47293
Pineapple Power : 22778
Join date : 2010-10-08
Age : 23
Alignment : Right or Left
Location : South East of England

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Xandy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:56 pm

Review it twice.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wu-Tang is for the children!
avatar
Xandy
Halfblood Prince of Persia

Posts : 5571
Leprechaun Gold : 24605
Pineapple Power : 1164
Join date : 2010-10-09
Age : 23
Alignment : Chaotic Faggy
Location : North North America

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Xandy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:03 pm

Also review the Toxic Avenger already.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wu-Tang is for the children!
avatar
Xandy
Halfblood Prince of Persia

Posts : 5571
Leprechaun Gold : 24605
Pineapple Power : 1164
Join date : 2010-10-09
Age : 23
Alignment : Chaotic Faggy
Location : North North America

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by PayJ on Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:08 pm

Xandy wrote:Also review the Toxic Avenger already.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Fix me a hot dog with jelly on
I've had cravings since withdrawing from
Low grade acid and cocaine bumps
I can't sleep at night or hold a decent job."
-Matt Berry
avatar
PayJ
And I'll Do Fitness

Posts : 13111
Leprechaun Gold : 47293
Pineapple Power : 22778
Join date : 2010-10-08
Age : 23
Alignment : Right or Left
Location : South East of England

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:13 pm

I have to find The Toxic Avenger before I can review it. Gimme a break here!

It's expensive and stuff.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might as well sit back 'cause I ain't tryin' to show maturity.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by owyn_merrilin on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Expensive? Sir, this is the internet!
avatar
owyn_merrilin
Sexy Murder Victim

Posts : 1269
Leprechaun Gold : 6951
Pineapple Power : 907
Join date : 2012-01-06
Alignment : Chaotic Good

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by owyn_merrilin on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:13 pm

Not that I don't prefer a DVD when I can afford it.
avatar
owyn_merrilin
Sexy Murder Victim

Posts : 1269
Leprechaun Gold : 6951
Pineapple Power : 907
Join date : 2012-01-06
Alignment : Chaotic Good

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:17 pm

The Uninvited
For the longest time, I thought that The Uninvited was going to be a straightforward film. Up until a certain point, it didn't have any real twists, only reveals, and I thought that was refreshing. Then the ending came, we had one twist, and I was disappointed. It's truth that this doesn't ruin the entire film, and I still had a fun time overall, but I was hoping that there wasn't going to be a twist at all.

We begin in a mental hospital, as many psychological thrillers do. Anna (Emily Browning) has spent the last ten months there after her mother died in a fire and she tried to kill herself. She has no memory of what happened the night that the fire started, although she has dreams about it. She's released the day we begin watching, presumably because staying in a psych ward isn't particularly enjoyable if Jack Nicholson isn't roaming around it. She is picked up by her novelist father (David Strathairn), a man who brings her cookies and tells her that he has a new significant other in his life. What a father!

At home, it's time ro get acquainted or reacquainted with the people who are going to be spending some time with her over the course of the film. First is her sister, Alex (Arielle Kebbel), who meets with Anna on the docks. The family lives on their own little island reminiscent of the house in The Birds. They have groceries delivered to them by boat by Anna's friend, Matt (Jesse Moss). He tells Anna that he saw what really happened the night of the fire, but he's interrupted by that "significant other" that I mentioned earlier, a woman named Rachel (Elizabeth Banks).

As it turns out, Rachel was actually the sisters' nurse while her mother was still alive. She was a sick woman, having to live in the cabin by the lake and have a bell on her wrist if she needed anything. After her death, we're to assume that Rachel decided to make a play at the widower. It worked, and now the pair are romantically engaged. "Three times a night," claims Alex. Too much information, if you ask me, but at least the sisters are open enough to talk about those kinds of things with one another.

They don't like this Rachel person. You're not supposed to like daddy's new girlfriend, Rachel tells the duo, but she wants things to be different between herself and the sisters. They decide that she's obviously evil, and choose to find out just how so. Why do they think she's going to ruin their lives? Well, Anna, fresh out of the mental ward, is having visions of dead people who are telling her so. Even her mother appears and points the finger at Rachel. That seems to be reason enough.

The Uninvited does atmosphere well. Maybe it does try a little too hard -- ominous music plays when there is absolutely no reason for it to, for example -- but it's effective nonetheless. You're kept off-balance for a lot of the film because the film wants you to be, and because many of the individual elements actually work. The cinematography brings you back to other horror films, but it also helps to set the mood. And, of course, the creepy ghost-things that can appear from anywhere at any time make you wonder what's going to pop-out next.

That's not to say that there are a lot of jump scenes. Thankfully, there aren't. When they are present, I found them to work more often than not. But not including a ton of them is something that is consistent with a lot of the film. It doesn't want to give you, the audience, the satisfaction of knowing what it's going to attempt next. It tries to avoid many of the tropes of horror films -- and remakes of Asian horror films in particular -- and keep things fresh. For the most part, it succeeds, even if it did include that twist at the end that I wasn't a fan of.

With that said, the twist does make you reevaluate large portions of the film. "Does the film cheat?" will be one of the questions you'll ask yourself. I'm not sure if it did or not. But if I rewatch it, which I very well intend to at some point, I'll have to keep a closer eye out for clues regarding this revelation. My perspective will be different on a second viewing, and that's always a bonus for a film like this one, even if I think telling the teenage-filled angst-ridden story about two sisters wanting to discover the true identity of a woman they don't like might have been a breath of fresh air.

A surprise in the film is that the acting is actually quite strong. Emily Browning and Arielle Kebbel make believable sisters, with Browning doing most of the heavy work in the film. Elizabeth Banks is less endearing than in many of her previous performances, playing the character that can always appear at the least opportune times, but you're unsure whether or not she heard what you're plotting. And David Strathairn is relegated to a background role, which is too bad. I would have liked to see more from him.

The Uninvited is a psychological thriller film that's actually somewhat scary and always entertaining. On the first viewing, its final (and really, only) twist was disappointing, but upon a second viewing, I could see how this actually improves the film as a whole. This is a film that does atmosphere well, and with the help of some strong performances and a desire to fake-out the audience at every turn, makes for an enjoyable watch. It's not perfect, but compared to other Asian horror remakes, it's quite good.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might as well sit back 'cause I ain't tryin' to show maturity.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:17 pm

Loud Fatlas
Cloud Atlas is based on the award-winning novel by David Mitchell. Telling six distinct narratives that eventually interweave, it's an absolutely gorgeous film that does the rare thing of justifying its lengthy running time. Not a single scene could be cut with us getting the same effect. At the end of the day, it will be one of the few movies that is worth talking about at year's end, although the reason it'll be worth mentioning will be up to the individual and what you're personally looking for.

This is a film so rich in every filmic quality that no matter what you're hoping to find, you're going to see it done at its very best. A fantastic score, gorgeous visuals, superb acting, effective editing, tight pacing, emotional highs and lows, and one of the most engrossing and meaty narratives in recent memory -- it's all there for you to suck up. What the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer have done here is create a cinematic masterpiece. It is, thus far, the best theatrical release of the year, and I'll be surprised if it's overthrown by anything coming out later on. It transcends.

I won't try to describe the multiple storylines going on here. Just know that the principal cast members -- Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Susan Sarandon, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Hugh Dancy Doona Bae -- appear in each one of them, sometimes playing multiple characters. Sometimes they're so well-hidden under makeup and prosthetics that you won't even notice them. When each actor is listed in the credits, a quick shot of each of their characters is shown, and you'll be certain to have missed about half of their appearances.

In fact, part of the surprise of a movie like Cloud Atlas is seeing where each actor turns up. Sometimes, it's done to great hilarity, like when Hanks appears as a profane British man who has just written a book that's not selling. Or to see Hugo Weaving don a dress and a high pitched voice to see him -- no, that would be telling. Just know that this is where much of the film's levity occurs. Well, that, and one of the storylines involving an old-person prison break and bar fight. But I'll leave you to discover the hilarity that ensues from that.

But then, playing off the humor are some very dark scenes. This is a film that doesn't pull any punches, or cut away from any of its content. You will see murder, bloodshed, and other nastiness that you wouldn't initially think you'd see in something that, at times, appears to be so jovial. Cloud Atlas reaches so high and so low just moments apart, and does both in such an effortless manner.

It all goes in proving the film's message that we're all connected. Actions you do now have an effect on everyone around you, and everyone in the future, no matter how small they are. "Everything you do is a small drop in a limitless ocean. Yet what is any ocean but a multitude of drops?" This message is repeated throughout the film, and is honestly pretty hard to miss, even if the narrative structure can be, at times, confusing. Simplifying Cloud Atlas down to this message isn't fair, as it's so much more than that, but at least it doesn't find itself becoming pretentious, or something that only select people will "get."

We progress through the film, seamlessly transitioning between each story whenever the film chooses to do so, Usually, we'll leave one story on a cliffhanger -- progressed just enough to grab our attention before moving along to the next -- making us have to wait, have to beg, for the next chance to see it. And it does this with six different stories, all from different periods in time. This shouldn't work, especially given how difficult it is to give each thread enough time, but each one is pulled off brilliantly here. And when they start intertwining, and you see how one affects the other, it's a sight to behold.

By keeping each story intruding and engrossing, Cloud Atlas does something few movies passing the two-hour mark can do: justify the running time. It is worth the near three hours that it takes to play and there isn't a single scene that should have been trimmed or cut completely. Everything goes toward telling a compelling narrative or further justifying its message.

It does this while mixing genres and styles, as well as having three directors at the helm. The Wachowskis, best known for their Matrix saga were behind three of the stories, while Run Lola Run director Tom Tykwer did the other three. The two styles mash well together, and if you didn't know it beforehand, you wouldn't know that two teams worked on it. There are different styles, sure, but that conforms to the genre and gives each story a unique look. It's not just that three stories feel different from the other three; each one is wholly unique, working in combination with the others to form something truly special.

This is also a film that might just rejuvenate the careers of some of its stars, a couple of whom appeared to be on their way out of the spotlight and into obscurity. Halle Berry has done nothing of importance for almost a decade, Hugh Grant hasn't been relevant for that period of time, too. Tom Hanks is still involving, but he's not the draw that he once was. The rest are all character actors. But Cloud Atlas gives them each a long time on-screen, and reminds us of the talent that each one possesses.

Cloud Atlas is a wonderful film that is easily worth the almost three hours that you need to invest in it. It tells six interesting stories that, in their own right, would be worth watching. Together, they create something magical, and the way they unfold is one of many reasons that this is, so far, the best theatrical release of the year. Adding in the gorgeous aesthetics, tight pacing, emotional peaks and valleys, strong acting and a wonderful score, and you have a film of a quality rarely seen coming from anyone or anywhere.


Last edited by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:35 pm; edited 2 times in total

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might as well sit back 'cause I ain't tryin' to show maturity.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:17 pm

owyn_merrilin wrote:Not that I don't prefer a DVD when I can afford it.
I vastly prefer DVDs and I don't actually pirate movies.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might as well sit back 'cause I ain't tryin' to show maturity.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by owyn_merrilin on Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:45 pm

I vastly prefer DVDs as well, if nothing else then for the fact that they tend to have discrete soundtracks, while the pirated stuff I'm set up to play is limited to matrixed sound tracks. But I'm not above piracy on movies I don't intend to watch frequently or can't easily get ahold of.

I don't generally pirate games because Steam (and other DD platform) sales have made it so cheap and easy for me to buy pretty much any game I've ever wanted that it's just not worth bothering. I'm living proof that convenience and a fair price prevent piracy.
avatar
owyn_merrilin
Sexy Murder Victim

Posts : 1269
Leprechaun Gold : 6951
Pineapple Power : 907
Join date : 2012-01-06
Alignment : Chaotic Good

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:36 pm

My Soul to Take
My Soul to Take is a teen slasher given to us by director Wes Craven who, prior to filming this, had taken a lengthy break from making films. It comes to us to remind us that maybe Craven shouldn't have come back so soon (if you can call five years "soon"), as it's not good -- not good at all. It's as generic as you come, which is funny when you remember that this is the man who brought us the Scream films, which were designed to make fun of this kind of film.

The basic conceit this time around is that there's a schizophrenic man named Abel (Raúl Esparza), who kills his wife, is shot by a police officer, and while being transported to the hospital, escapes from the ambulance he was held in. Yes, he was tied down, but he broke out regardless, because medical personnel apparently aren't terrible good at restraining a serial killer. Anyway, after his escape, it's assumed that he died as his wounds were too deep to realistically live through without sufficient treatment.

We then fast-forward 16 years to the exact date when Abel allegedly died. It's explained to us that there are seven teenagers in this town who all share a birthday with the schizophrenic's death, and because it's really fun to mock a dead serial killer, they've dubbed him "The Ripper" and beat on a puppet every year at midnight. Essentially, they're asking for trouble. There are seven of them because the film would get boring if The Ripper just had to chase one or two of them for its duration.

Anyway, you'll be unsurprised to find out that the Ripper still exists, and after the first death, we're just waiting for all of the teens to meet their end. The serial killer's weapon of choice is a knife with the word "vengeance" written on it, not that this actually has an impact on anything we see. Our lead is an awkward kid nicknamed Bug (Max Thieriot), but don't worry, as I'm not going to go through all of the teens. Most of them die really early on anyway, and are included solely so that they can be killed.

There are two other characters that bear mentioning, however. The first is Bug's best friend, Alex (John Magaro), as the pair sticks together through thick and thin. The next is a girl named Fang (Emily Meade), who essentially runs the high school, or something like that. She isn't one of the seven chosen ones, though. She does have more purpose than to run the cliques at the school, but I won't reveal that right now, as it's not particularly important.

I will wonder if the film was trying to hide her true identity from us, or if it was just not mentioned beforehand. See, when we find out her true purpose, we're surprised, but it's not like it's a big twist or anything; it just sort of happens, and we acknowledge it, but it doesn't alter our viewpoint on anything we've previously seen. I'm unsure of how to view this. On one hand, it's kind of a neat addition even if it doesn't matter much, but on the other, it's kind of lazy filmmaking that it's initially omitted and then sprung upon us without making that impact that's needed for a true twist.

Regardless, basically what you have with My Soul to Take is a teen slasher flick without a hint of originality in its veins. What can save these types of films? Creative kills is pretty much all that we want to see, and if this film had them, I might be more forgiving. Unfortunately, the killer was given a signature weapon, and not an interesting one at that. It's a knife, plain and simple, and almost all of the deaths in this film are via the knife. It gets boring to watch all of these people die.

There's one thing that My Soul to Take actually does well, and it's make sure that the characters are all easy to tell apart. While they're all archetypes that you'll instantly recognize, the casting made sure that no two look alike, and those that do are given vastly different personality types. When someone died, I always knew who the deceased was, which is something that gets overlooked far too often in slasher films. This is more of a thumbs up to the casting department than anyone actively working during filming, but it's the best praise I can give this film.

The actors aren't terrible, and the characters aren't so poorly written that I want to see them die, which is always a plus. However, when you go into a film like this, there's a silent agreement made with the film. It will either scare you or give you some enjoyable kills. When it fails at both, you can't call it a success. That's what happens here. It's competent in the areas it doesn't need to be, and absolutely falls apart when looked at as a slasher film.

My Soul to Take isn't a good horror film, nor is it an enjoyable slasher. It has an uninteresting villain, a plot that we've seen dozens of times before, archetypal characters, no scares and absolutely nothing fun. It also has a solid cast and I didn't hate many of the characters -- I actually hoped for some of them to make it to the end of this movie. It's not at all worth the two hours that it takes to tell its story (seriously, it deserved not a minute longer than 90 minutes), but it's not a complete bust either. It just isn't a good horror film, and definitely not a return to form for Wes Craven. This is the film he loved to poke fun at years earlier.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Movie Martyr on Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:27 pm

Final Destination
Final Destination manages to make the mundane enthralling. That speaks to the quality of thriller that it is, doesn't it? To say that it manages to make someone lighting a candle must-see material tells you just how captivated I was. Sure, a lot of the film features a bunch of red herrings, but when you're having this much fun watching and waiting for people to die, being tricked from time to time isn't a negative.

The hook: A class trip to Paris is planned. On the trip, one character sees the plane explode, and thinks he's a goner. But he wakes up, unaware that he had just fallen asleep while waiting for takeoff. He causes a stir, gets a few people kicked off the plane with him, and low and behold, he was right: The plan explodes shortly after getting off the ground. The characters still at the airport should be ecstatic: They just cheated Death! They're alive, and it's all thanks to this premonition. Instead, they're saddened because their friends and classmates just died. Way to keep a somber tone, Final Destination.

Anyway, the main character, Alex (Devon Sawa) soon becomes the prime suspect of the FBI. Why? Well, since he had this vision of the future, and managed to get off the plane, they think that he managed to blow it up. They become even more suspicious when his friend, Tod (Chad Donella) commits suicide via hanging himself in the bathroom. Or, at least, that's what the FBI thinks. We saw the truth: A leaky toilet caused water to get on the floor, which in turn lead to Tod slipping, falling toward the bathtub, and getting a wire wrapped around his neck. He struggled but was unable to get free. The water later retreated. We know it wasn't suicide, and we know Alex wasn't involved, but nobody else does.

Soon enough, another one of the survivors is killed, once again in an "accident" that Alex can be linked to. The FBI are now thinking he very well could be a serial killer. Meanwhile, the one person who believes him, a woman named Clear (Ali Larter), is trying to help Alex make sense of all of the events that are going on. Essentially, they determine that Death is angry that he didn't take all of the people he planned to, and is now going to get even by killing them later on.

So, yes, this elaborate set-up was a way to give director James Wong and writers Glen Morgan and Jeffery Reddick a reason to kill a bunch of teenagers without creating a serial killer to do it. Well, Death can be called a serial killer, I suppose, given the fact that he kind of kills everyone ever alive, but he isn't your traditional knife-to-the-chest killer. Instead, can strike at any time, in any place, using anything. He's possibly the worst entity to make angry.

Because of the "any place, any time, anything" problem, absolutely anything the characters do could kill them -- usually in the most complex and Rube Goldberg-esque way possible. For instance, lighting a candle could somehow make fishing hook become stuck in your mouth, pulling you onto an electrocution trap set because your faucet was leaking and you never noticed it. That doesn't actually happen in the film, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. The logic doesn't always make sense, but the thrill of the kill is never not enjoyable.

Since any action taken could trigger an overly complex death sequence, the entire film is intense. For some reason, there isn't any difference between the before-explosion and after-explosion scenes in terms of style. Before the vision is even had, and before we (presumably) know that this is a horror film, mundane actions are still made to seem scary. This doesn't work at the start, and it would have been nice to see a style shift in the before and after shots in order to fully capture just how tense life would be with Death awaiting your every move.

I'm not sure if one is supposed to enjoy a film like Final Destination. I wondered throughout if I was supposed to like seeing teenagers getting killed in ways that I can't even describe. Surely this isn't supposed to be fun. But it is. I'm not sure why, but it just is. I wasn't ever scared, but I was engaged. I laughed at some of the kills, as the special effects left a lot to be desired, but because Death could appear at any time to end one of their lives, I had a good time. Maybe that speaks to the viewer's nature -- if you like this kind of film you're a bad person or something -- but I can't deny that the creative kills were fun to watch.

This is a film that does get very silly at times, especially later on when the characters think they figure out a way to cheat Death for good. The eventual explanation comes across as both pointless and stupid, even if it does give the characters something to do. It didn't seem necessary, though, as the plot is basically just an excuse to massacre teenagers. If you're enjoying the earlier part of the film, you're not going to want to see these kids live anyway. If you're not, then a "we might be able to avoid Death by doing X" won't save this movie for you.

Final Destination is ultimately a very enjoyable film -- if you enjoy watching teenagers die in random, complex and fascinating ways. If you have, I don't know, a shred of empathy for human beings, this might not be for you. But I had a really fun time with it and would recommend it for fans of the teen slasher genre. Death makes a pretty good murderer, when you think about it.
avatar
Movie Martyr
Words Go Here

Posts : 4458
Leprechaun Gold : 20995
Pineapple Power : 10317
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 23
Alignment : Lawful Good
Location : Calgary, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Marter's Reviews

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 22 of 25 Previous  1 ... 12 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum