Kenneth Branagh uses his prodigious filmmaking powers to craft a beautifully and deftly acted piece of nostalgia. A great film that leaves you wanting more details of these people's lives yet you feel as if you got the impostant message delivered with little to no "fat". I would recommend this for many ages. Superb performances from a grear cast with Branagh (a great actor himself) really knowing how to achieve an emotional impact by getting the most oit of his players. The black and white cinematography is brilliant and the soundtrack must have been written with the songs in place a la "American Graffiti"
Reviews
109 Reviews
The Living Daylights
(1987)
Worst Bond in a bad Bond movie
13 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Barely watchable. This installment of James Bond agent 007 disappoints on every level. Dalton is simply tragic He is a good actor but he was never meant for the role. All his predecessors were better (even Lazenby!) the dated styles and goofy set-pieces don't hold up nearly as well as the earlier films (outside of a neat opening parachute scene)
The Social Network
(2010)
Clever but not as intelligent as it wants to be.
26 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This film is well crafted, well written and better than most movies you will see this year. That being said, it relies on speed of delivery rather than content to dazzle. Facebook, Myspace, Google, Microsoft, Apple, social networking, and the internet in general are all phenomenon that we are currently experiencing. We don't yet know the results or effects. This movie is ambitious in that it is trying to comment "on the fly" as it were. While it's attempt to be topical is admirable, a movie is still a movie. It needs a protagonist and we are certainly not sympathetic to Eisenberg's Zuckerberg. Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield) is truly the one character the audience can relate to and sympathize with. The real chronicle of the times is that social networking (facebook, myspace) tried to replace the social strata that exists in reality, but simply ended up imitating it.
Avatar
(2009)
Absolutely horrible film
10 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As usual, James Cameron delivers a visual and technological tour de force while simultaneously proving that he has zero narrative originality and horribly clichéd story-telling concepts. In a different era, a writer director that put out this leftist propaganda would have been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail or perhaps even hung for treason. In our era of hypocrisy, no one even chuckles that a megalomaniac tycoon produces, writes or directs a multi-million dollar movie critical of the very economic conditions which ALLOWED IT TO BE MADE. Lame quasi-native American themes of "Dances with Wolves" and "A Man Called Horse" are clumsily interspersed with naive callow condemnation of corporate greed and the war on terror. A general nature worship pantheism pervades the shallow and ignorant philosophy shoved down the viewers throats. The bio-luminescent plant life is vaguely reminiscent of "Lothlorien" in Lord of the Rings and is very beautiful until you realize that from a biological standpoint it serves no purpose and thus wouldn't exist. Alan Dean Foster's "Midworld" is not the least of sci-fi authors who deserve credit or at least mention by Cameron for his "Pandora". The portrayal of the military in this film is insulting, naive and maybe treasonable.
The International
(I) (2009)
Excellent tight thriller with no fat
19 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
All I can say is, this movie contains no clichés. It is reminiscent of "The French Connection" or the good hard-boiled cop dramas of the 1970's. It is a movie that has no "fat". I appreciate the fact that they didn't dumb this movie down or add idiotic slow motion shots of actors shooting two automatic weapons while sliding or doing flips in the air. I appreciate the serious and consistent tone of the picture. Good performances from the cast especially the nefarious German bankers and good pacing by Twyker make for an enjoyable film. The Guggenheim finale set-piece is a classic. Owen's one-note performance is perfect for his role as an obsessed interpol agent.
Halloween
(2007)
The scariest a William Shatner mask has looked since...
2 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
...the last Priceline commercial.
First of all, here is a suggestion for writers, producers and directors out there: Don't remake a perfect film. If you want to be successful with a remake, take a great concept and make a slightly different movie. For example: Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress" -> George Lucas' "Star Wars", Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" -> "The Magnificent Seven" Halloween was the original slasher film. It's not supposed to be realistic or have a back story or explain anything. That's why it's scary. It's a monster movie set outside the Gothic confines of a monster movie. John Carpenter used every iota of creative cinematic energy to extract a perfect atmospheric low-budget film out of what could have been a laughable b-movie. Still to this day it is one of the few films to make a bright day-lit suburban street uber-eerie.
Leave it alone. The reason sequels are made and re-makes are attempted is because the original had IMPACT. It is not necessary to try and simply increase the level of violence, gore etc. You aren't achieving anything. You're just trying to create an endurance test for the audience. It becomes a game of one-upsmanship.
Mr, Zombie, if your ideas are good enough, then make an entirely new feature...the great thing about film is that you can even pay homage to your inspiration without trying to stand on the shoulders of genius and ride the coat tails of a financially viable name.
First of all, here is a suggestion for writers, producers and directors out there: Don't remake a perfect film. If you want to be successful with a remake, take a great concept and make a slightly different movie. For example: Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress" -> George Lucas' "Star Wars", Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" -> "The Magnificent Seven" Halloween was the original slasher film. It's not supposed to be realistic or have a back story or explain anything. That's why it's scary. It's a monster movie set outside the Gothic confines of a monster movie. John Carpenter used every iota of creative cinematic energy to extract a perfect atmospheric low-budget film out of what could have been a laughable b-movie. Still to this day it is one of the few films to make a bright day-lit suburban street uber-eerie.
Leave it alone. The reason sequels are made and re-makes are attempted is because the original had IMPACT. It is not necessary to try and simply increase the level of violence, gore etc. You aren't achieving anything. You're just trying to create an endurance test for the audience. It becomes a game of one-upsmanship.
Mr, Zombie, if your ideas are good enough, then make an entirely new feature...the great thing about film is that you can even pay homage to your inspiration without trying to stand on the shoulders of genius and ride the coat tails of a financially viable name.
The Bourne Ultimatum
(2007)
Gritty, dynamic and engrossing
9 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The "Jason Bourne" series of spy movies has been a great showpiece for Matt Damon who coolly cruises through these films like a Tiger Shark waiting for his next victim. He is seemingly always one step ahead of the espionage bureaucrats who seek him and one move faster than the latest "asset" assigned to neutralize him.
It is sickening, but not surprising that federal government employees would devote the taxpayer time, effort and dollars to covering their behinds, but as an employee of the federal government I can assure the viewer that it is not that far off base.
While I doubt a rogue agent would alarm them much, I do know that media exposure of their training and methods would draw much ire from the public and heat from their superiors.
Damon was made for the role because he oozes confidence and competence and brings a graveness to his mission as Jason Bourne.
Perhaps a bit too much hand-held made some of the action scenes a tad bit more confusing for the viewer. This, while trying to heighten realism, actually prevents the viewer from suspending his or her disbelief which is a prerequisite for a movie with a super-spy in it.
In other words, if we, the audience, with the "third person omniscient" viewpoint can barely follow the action, it becomes unbelievable that Bourne, even with his super spy skills and instincts, could possibly predict the actions of his friends and enemies. The crowed train station scene recalled the brilliant mall set-piece in "Minority Report" with Damon in the role of the "pre-cog" who could see the future or at least accurately predict the next move of his nemesis. I thought, "Man, if one of those doors were locked, this scene and this movie would be over by now."
It is sickening, but not surprising that federal government employees would devote the taxpayer time, effort and dollars to covering their behinds, but as an employee of the federal government I can assure the viewer that it is not that far off base.
While I doubt a rogue agent would alarm them much, I do know that media exposure of their training and methods would draw much ire from the public and heat from their superiors.
Damon was made for the role because he oozes confidence and competence and brings a graveness to his mission as Jason Bourne.
Perhaps a bit too much hand-held made some of the action scenes a tad bit more confusing for the viewer. This, while trying to heighten realism, actually prevents the viewer from suspending his or her disbelief which is a prerequisite for a movie with a super-spy in it.
In other words, if we, the audience, with the "third person omniscient" viewpoint can barely follow the action, it becomes unbelievable that Bourne, even with his super spy skills and instincts, could possibly predict the actions of his friends and enemies. The crowed train station scene recalled the brilliant mall set-piece in "Minority Report" with Damon in the role of the "pre-cog" who could see the future or at least accurately predict the next move of his nemesis. I thought, "Man, if one of those doors were locked, this scene and this movie would be over by now."
Hot Rod
(2007)
Funny in the way that your friend is funny...
9 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
...And you aren't sure if everyone else "gets it".
This movie likes to party. "Hot Rod" has a real silly sense of humor and eschews most artificial plot advancers that weigh down other SNL-based film comedies.
Much of the humor was juvenile and stupid, but a good portion of that was funny enough to keep me in the seat.
I predict that either you will like "Hot Rod" or you'll hate it. I don't think it will have a "Napolean Dynamite" type following although you get the sense that that was the intent.
Lots of 80's in-jokes and spoofs that will be lost on much of today's youth who were weaned on Jack-Ass, Jim Carrey, Captain Planet and cell-phones.
This movie likes to party. "Hot Rod" has a real silly sense of humor and eschews most artificial plot advancers that weigh down other SNL-based film comedies.
Much of the humor was juvenile and stupid, but a good portion of that was funny enough to keep me in the seat.
I predict that either you will like "Hot Rod" or you'll hate it. I don't think it will have a "Napolean Dynamite" type following although you get the sense that that was the intent.
Lots of 80's in-jokes and spoofs that will be lost on much of today's youth who were weaned on Jack-Ass, Jim Carrey, Captain Planet and cell-phones.
Transformers
(2007)
a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury....signifying nothing
27 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The immortal words of Shakespeare came to mind as I watched Michael Bay's latest abomination of cinema. Why Shakespeare? Because he was a man who with little more than a stage and a few actors and some creativity he entranced hundreds, then thousands, now millions with stories with humor and heart. Basic human dramas rich with timeless themes.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Michael Bay, a T.V. commercial and music video director with about as much soul as a cappuccino machine. He has a budget of $100 million and the best special effects that money can buy and all he can come up with is this.
This travesty. This is two-hour slickly produced, focus group honed Chevy commercial with some comic relief and some nostalgic Saturday morning cartoon robots thrown in for good measure. Is the new Camaro hot? Duh, that's like asking is Megan Fox is, well, a fox... Sure the vehicles look great and the effects were well done, but the film like it's vacuous director lacked a soul.
People will say, "But...it's a just a popcorn summer movie!" or "It's the "Transformers" what do you expect?" Well, I expect more than what I received for the ticket price.
I expect some attempt at an interesting plot. Come on! Herbert Hoover hid it in the dam? Please. World class beauty falls for the insecure nerdy kid? Whatever. Optimus Prime wants to sacrifice himself to save the world? Nonsense.
The film lacked scope. It lacked any sense of dramatic tension. It lacked suspense. The cartoonish over-the-top performances of Turturro and Voight were B-movie grade schlock.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Michael Bay, a T.V. commercial and music video director with about as much soul as a cappuccino machine. He has a budget of $100 million and the best special effects that money can buy and all he can come up with is this.
This travesty. This is two-hour slickly produced, focus group honed Chevy commercial with some comic relief and some nostalgic Saturday morning cartoon robots thrown in for good measure. Is the new Camaro hot? Duh, that's like asking is Megan Fox is, well, a fox... Sure the vehicles look great and the effects were well done, but the film like it's vacuous director lacked a soul.
People will say, "But...it's a just a popcorn summer movie!" or "It's the "Transformers" what do you expect?" Well, I expect more than what I received for the ticket price.
I expect some attempt at an interesting plot. Come on! Herbert Hoover hid it in the dam? Please. World class beauty falls for the insecure nerdy kid? Whatever. Optimus Prime wants to sacrifice himself to save the world? Nonsense.
The film lacked scope. It lacked any sense of dramatic tension. It lacked suspense. The cartoonish over-the-top performances of Turturro and Voight were B-movie grade schlock.
Ocean's Thirteen
(2007)
Nice to see some class and style in Hollywood
10 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
After seemingly endless movies about torture and depravity, it's nice to see some class and style re-injected into the Hollywood film. "Ocean's 13" recaptures the style and charisma in the first film and maybe even brings a bit of the style of the Rat Pack back into the picture.
O.K., so it's vacuous, materialistic and lacks substance...we know that going in, so it's simply a measure of style, sophistication and humor. This movie has all that, in spades (it had to be said.) The latest installment of "Oceans" is witty and charming and even self-referential without having to try and overtly re-create successful scenes from the previous films.
Pacino makes a much better heavy than Andy Garcia, who reprises his role as the nemesis/wanna-be member of Ocean's gang.
O.K., so it's vacuous, materialistic and lacks substance...we know that going in, so it's simply a measure of style, sophistication and humor. This movie has all that, in spades (it had to be said.) The latest installment of "Oceans" is witty and charming and even self-referential without having to try and overtly re-create successful scenes from the previous films.
Pacino makes a much better heavy than Andy Garcia, who reprises his role as the nemesis/wanna-be member of Ocean's gang.
28 Weeks Later
(2007)
Brutal, exhausting, brilliant and powerful
1 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Few movies can approach the level of brutality, suspense, horror or intensity of "28 Weeks Later". A follow-up to the brilliant, eerie, low budget "28 Days Later", the sequel takes us to dark places only hinted at in the first film. I must warn you this film is unsparingly violent and mercilessly horrific, with scenes of family members killing each other.
The film contains a scene that is truly heart-rending as a man's cowardice overpowers his love for his wife as we (and she) watch in disgust as he decides to bail out in the face of an insurmountable challenge. Later, this same man comes face to face with the wife he abandoned, now a carrier of the disease, not truly "infected". She transfers the virus to him in a kiss and she helplessly watches as rage consumes him and turns him into an infected. Strapped to a table, she is subjected to his fatal attack as he kills her for the second time.
Like I said, brutal, repulsive and extremely dark stuff.
Innocent people are senselessly slaughtered by the infected in a scene that almost re-creates the story told by the character "Mark" from the first film. In that film, he describes being in a mob as the rage virus spreads and panic is transformed into bloody mayhem.
Innocent people are also slaughtered as a military force comes to terms with the concept of collateral damage. To keep the virus from spreading they target those who have not yet been infected. The abhorrent idea becomes more of a pragmatic survival strategy rather than an difficult ethical question as the disease spreads.
The only criticism I have (and what keeps me from rating the film higher)is that too many coincidences happen throughout the film which bring cast members together and into "yet another" dangerous frightening circumstance. It makes for a scary and jolting film certainly but it stretches the audience capacity for suspending their disbelief. After all, you can scarcely believe people would continue to go into dark underground confined areas knowing that survival was unlikely.
The solution to this horrible infection is clearly smaller controllable populations that can be isolated. Imagine multiple, secure self-contained areas of one hundred people or less. If any sign of infection happens it's far easier to simply segregate a small section of the population and let the disease flare up and burn itself out in 28 days. Also, to easily identify infected from non-infected in a crowd situation a simple announcement over a P.A. with instruction would be required. Tell all non-infected to run with their hands over their heads (or some similar instruction that infected would not understand) and it would be relatively simple to pick off the infected while avoiding innocent casualties.
The film contains a scene that is truly heart-rending as a man's cowardice overpowers his love for his wife as we (and she) watch in disgust as he decides to bail out in the face of an insurmountable challenge. Later, this same man comes face to face with the wife he abandoned, now a carrier of the disease, not truly "infected". She transfers the virus to him in a kiss and she helplessly watches as rage consumes him and turns him into an infected. Strapped to a table, she is subjected to his fatal attack as he kills her for the second time.
Like I said, brutal, repulsive and extremely dark stuff.
Innocent people are senselessly slaughtered by the infected in a scene that almost re-creates the story told by the character "Mark" from the first film. In that film, he describes being in a mob as the rage virus spreads and panic is transformed into bloody mayhem.
Innocent people are also slaughtered as a military force comes to terms with the concept of collateral damage. To keep the virus from spreading they target those who have not yet been infected. The abhorrent idea becomes more of a pragmatic survival strategy rather than an difficult ethical question as the disease spreads.
The only criticism I have (and what keeps me from rating the film higher)is that too many coincidences happen throughout the film which bring cast members together and into "yet another" dangerous frightening circumstance. It makes for a scary and jolting film certainly but it stretches the audience capacity for suspending their disbelief. After all, you can scarcely believe people would continue to go into dark underground confined areas knowing that survival was unlikely.
The solution to this horrible infection is clearly smaller controllable populations that can be isolated. Imagine multiple, secure self-contained areas of one hundred people or less. If any sign of infection happens it's far easier to simply segregate a small section of the population and let the disease flare up and burn itself out in 28 days. Also, to easily identify infected from non-infected in a crowd situation a simple announcement over a P.A. with instruction would be required. Tell all non-infected to run with their hands over their heads (or some similar instruction that infected would not understand) and it would be relatively simple to pick off the infected while avoiding innocent casualties.
Grindhouse
(2007)
Puerile
19 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The first half of "Grindhouse" is an over-the-top, senselessly violent and gore-filled cliché of a zombie movie. Rose McGowan isn't "all-that" and the only reason any of the acting can be applauded is because the actors manage to keep straight faces while spewing some of the all-time stupidest dialog ever written. I love George Romero. I love zombie movies. You, Mr. Tarantino and Mr. Rodriguez are certainly NOT George Romero.
The second half of "Grindhouse" is a suspenseful chase thriller with an excellent performance by Kurt Russell who is deliciously menacing in his role as a psychopath. The car scenes are excellent, although "Bullitt", "The French Connection", and "Ronin" still have the best car chases. The problem with the second film is the same as the first: Tarantino (and perhaps Rodriguez) are grown men with the mentality of 14 year old boys. Their fascination with (and knowledge of) sex and violence is that of someone who has experienced neither. It's like listening to a couple of virgins brag about sex or a couple of boys who have never fought talk about fighting.
Tarantino's idea of feminism is to make his female heroins as inane, obnoxious, reprehensible and vulgar as their male counterparts. Some equality...
Cleverness is not intelligence. Kitsch is not art. Moxie is not courage. Damning them with faint praise, I can say that these films are, without a doubt, clever, kitschy, and produced, written and directed with a lot of moxie. Tarantino has an ear for dialog (even if he overindulges himself in this respect) and a thorough knowledge of pop culture and film history. I can admire his homage to films of the past, but wish he would find his own, worthy, voice as he did in "Pulp Fiction".
With his performances in these films, I think we can all agree that regardless of his directorial gifts and writing talents, Tarantino must never, repeat, NEVER be allowed to act again. His appearance on screen is distracting and nearly stops each movie in it's tracks.
Even with all this, the funky, 70's style drive-in intros and trailers are a hoot. The trailer for the slasher-horror movie "Thanksgiving" is worth the price of admission.
The second half of "Grindhouse" is a suspenseful chase thriller with an excellent performance by Kurt Russell who is deliciously menacing in his role as a psychopath. The car scenes are excellent, although "Bullitt", "The French Connection", and "Ronin" still have the best car chases. The problem with the second film is the same as the first: Tarantino (and perhaps Rodriguez) are grown men with the mentality of 14 year old boys. Their fascination with (and knowledge of) sex and violence is that of someone who has experienced neither. It's like listening to a couple of virgins brag about sex or a couple of boys who have never fought talk about fighting.
Tarantino's idea of feminism is to make his female heroins as inane, obnoxious, reprehensible and vulgar as their male counterparts. Some equality...
Cleverness is not intelligence. Kitsch is not art. Moxie is not courage. Damning them with faint praise, I can say that these films are, without a doubt, clever, kitschy, and produced, written and directed with a lot of moxie. Tarantino has an ear for dialog (even if he overindulges himself in this respect) and a thorough knowledge of pop culture and film history. I can admire his homage to films of the past, but wish he would find his own, worthy, voice as he did in "Pulp Fiction".
With his performances in these films, I think we can all agree that regardless of his directorial gifts and writing talents, Tarantino must never, repeat, NEVER be allowed to act again. His appearance on screen is distracting and nearly stops each movie in it's tracks.
Even with all this, the funky, 70's style drive-in intros and trailers are a hoot. The trailer for the slasher-horror movie "Thanksgiving" is worth the price of admission.
Shooter
(I) (2007)
terrible terrible ideas makes terrible terrible movies
31 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I like Mark Wahlberg. He is the only reason I saw this film and I was rooting for him because he seems like a good guy and I think he can act. With that out of the way, I feel free that the reader will have no misconceptions that I am trying to slam Mark Wahlberg with my review. The movie, on the other hand, is another story. This is simply awful and derivative film-making. Plagiarism is punishable in school by expulsion. This movie copied so many others it's hard to know where it became original. I will list the movie and the way in which this film copied it: "The Bourne Identity" (highly trained agent uses his know-how to stick it to the man), "Sniper" (obvious reasons) "Arlington Road" (expert turns fall-guy), "In the Line of Fire", (Washington intrigue and assassination plot) "The Manchurian Candidate" (American hero turned brainwashed trained assassin) This film was reasonably paced and had some decent action scenes. The problem was that the people Wahlberg was killing weren't adequately identified. In much of the film, Wahlberg almost appeared to be a mindless "Jason/Micheal Meyers" type character only he used a gun instead of a machete. Gratuitous violence with no cinematic message is poor film-making.
Tip for the director, if you are going to try and make a "realistic, gritty" film keep the tone consistent throughout. You can't turn your character into a bullet-proof superman. There was never any peril for the clichéd "female interest" and the clichéd "sidekick" was lame.
Tip # 2 for the writer and director, if you are going to try and actually make sweeping geo-political statements don't load your movie up with every implausible conspiracy theory because by bundling sound and unsound ideas together you end up letting the rotten apple spoil the rest. Example: If I use the dialog of a character to impress upon the audience my belief that the Democrats and Republicans are just rich, evil, versions of the same thing, don't have the same character talk about fantastic plots to kill Kennedy or faked Moon Landing hoaxes. It just makes you look stupid.
Isn't the movie going audience in America sick of the "African tragedy device" as a plot gimmick? Anytime a screenwriter needs to portray a government official as evil, he slaughters an African village. I think more African villages have been slaughtered in bad screenplays more times that there ARE actual African villages.
Africa is screwed up enough without having to have some corrupt western political wheel screwing things up worse. Besides the "corrupt western political wheel" is the most overused cliché in these films and is the 2000's version of the black-hat wearing mustache-twisting movie villain in early silent films.
Tip for the director, if you are going to try and make a "realistic, gritty" film keep the tone consistent throughout. You can't turn your character into a bullet-proof superman. There was never any peril for the clichéd "female interest" and the clichéd "sidekick" was lame.
Tip # 2 for the writer and director, if you are going to try and actually make sweeping geo-political statements don't load your movie up with every implausible conspiracy theory because by bundling sound and unsound ideas together you end up letting the rotten apple spoil the rest. Example: If I use the dialog of a character to impress upon the audience my belief that the Democrats and Republicans are just rich, evil, versions of the same thing, don't have the same character talk about fantastic plots to kill Kennedy or faked Moon Landing hoaxes. It just makes you look stupid.
Isn't the movie going audience in America sick of the "African tragedy device" as a plot gimmick? Anytime a screenwriter needs to portray a government official as evil, he slaughters an African village. I think more African villages have been slaughtered in bad screenplays more times that there ARE actual African villages.
Africa is screwed up enough without having to have some corrupt western political wheel screwing things up worse. Besides the "corrupt western political wheel" is the most overused cliché in these films and is the 2000's version of the black-hat wearing mustache-twisting movie villain in early silent films.
300
(2006)
Visually stunning: guts and glory equal guts and gory
19 March 2007
This film was based on the Frank Miller graphic novel of the same name and visually it lived up to the hype. Exceptional cinematography and a strong performance by Gerard Butler make this an almost amazing film. Unfortunately, weak side stories and little character development hamper any true involvement by the audience.
This is not to say that it's not entertaining. The classic idea of a small force of free men defeating an enormous overwhelming opponent is stirring and inspiring especially because it is based on true events.
The over-the-top nature of the graphic novel comes through in a clear fashion with big screen visuals and 5.1 audio that lives up to the source material.
Thermopylae was one of the first examples of independent city-states banding together to face a totalitarian foe. Certainly worth making a movie about.
This is not to say that it's not entertaining. The classic idea of a small force of free men defeating an enormous overwhelming opponent is stirring and inspiring especially because it is based on true events.
The over-the-top nature of the graphic novel comes through in a clear fashion with big screen visuals and 5.1 audio that lives up to the source material.
Thermopylae was one of the first examples of independent city-states banding together to face a totalitarian foe. Certainly worth making a movie about.
The Black Dahlia
(2006)
Truly terrible.
13 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film proves that it's possible to make a film so bad that it emits a stench while being viewed. Brian De Palma can be an artist, but like many artists, when unrestrained he can overindulge his own appetites. It's like a B-movie remake of "L.A. Confidential" without the humor, class, or acting. Hartnett is wooden. Johanssen is vacuous and Swank's performance approaches high-camp.
I hope people who see this film won't be too turned off because some excellent movies have been made of this genre including the aforementioned "L.A. Confidential" and "Chinatown" Do yourself a favor and skip this piece of junk because I already wasted the two hours and two minutes for you. You're welcome.
I hope people who see this film won't be too turned off because some excellent movies have been made of this genre including the aforementioned "L.A. Confidential" and "Chinatown" Do yourself a favor and skip this piece of junk because I already wasted the two hours and two minutes for you. You're welcome.
Children of Men
(2006)
Bleak, pessimistic and unlikely vision of the future
22 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film borrows heavily from the dark, brooding apocalyptic sci-fi downers of the late 60's and early 70's like "Soylent Green" and "Planet of the Apes" with a touch of "Blackhawk Down" gritty realism thrown in for good measure. The basic plot consists of a journey with a protagonist who gives us very little reason to like, relate or sympathize with him.
He is a former radical who is reintroduced to a former flame (Julianne Moore) whom he met during his protest days. The manner in which he becomes involved with these terrorists is contrived and forced.
This future-world is littered with revolutionary and terrorist factions who have a desire for an "uprising" against a "big brother" police state. The missing fact and the only interesting storyline in the film is that mankind is barren, impotent and incapable of reproduction of the species. A single, teenage pregnant girl is discovered.
The protagonist becomes her protector and guides us through this future world on her journey to "The Human Project" and collection of enlightened souls who desire to save the human race. Exactly WHY they wish to save the human race is unclear. After all if humans are so noble and worthy of life why would their inevitable fate be a world divided into a despotic militarized regime and terrorist factions? It is the lack of any real alternatives that relegates this movie (and the anti-everything attitude of today's protesters)to utter irrelevance.
He is a former radical who is reintroduced to a former flame (Julianne Moore) whom he met during his protest days. The manner in which he becomes involved with these terrorists is contrived and forced.
This future-world is littered with revolutionary and terrorist factions who have a desire for an "uprising" against a "big brother" police state. The missing fact and the only interesting storyline in the film is that mankind is barren, impotent and incapable of reproduction of the species. A single, teenage pregnant girl is discovered.
The protagonist becomes her protector and guides us through this future world on her journey to "The Human Project" and collection of enlightened souls who desire to save the human race. Exactly WHY they wish to save the human race is unclear. After all if humans are so noble and worthy of life why would their inevitable fate be a world divided into a despotic militarized regime and terrorist factions? It is the lack of any real alternatives that relegates this movie (and the anti-everything attitude of today's protesters)to utter irrelevance.
The Pursuit of Happyness
(2006)
Inspiring performance from Will Smith
4 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I admire passion. It's the courage to live with all that you have. Will Smith has it and the character he portrays in this film has it. I love an inspiring story. I particularly love a story where the main character must overcome realistic set-backs and obstacles that were too difficult for others.
I had a wise old teacher who liked to say that "Life is a testing place not a resting place." I think Will Smith, because of his upbringing, understands this better than most Hollywood actors. This comes through in his exceptional performance here. I love how Smith's character never loses his essential decency.
The film hearkens back to an era of film where story and acting are emphasized over flash and style. The early 80's "graininess" of the film stock is intentional and not distracting.
I recommend this film.
I had a wise old teacher who liked to say that "Life is a testing place not a resting place." I think Will Smith, because of his upbringing, understands this better than most Hollywood actors. This comes through in his exceptional performance here. I love how Smith's character never loses his essential decency.
The film hearkens back to an era of film where story and acting are emphasized over flash and style. The early 80's "graininess" of the film stock is intentional and not distracting.
I recommend this film.
Apocalypto
(2006)
Jarring and otherworldly
26 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
With "Braveheart", "The Passion of The Christ" and "Apocalypto" Mel Gibson seems intent on focusing his artistic abilities by bringing us stories which center around the frailty of the human body and the fortitude of the human soul.
After seeing "Apocalypto", I think I can understand a bit more about what makes Gibson tick as an auteur. He wants to wake the modern day audience up out of their spoon-fed stupor and re-introduce us to the world as it really is.
Most modern day humans have no clue what it is to deal with nature and find our own food. In fact, if we can't get a toasty hot Krispy Kreme when and where we want it we get rather perturbed.
In Apocalypto, we see first hand the effort and skill that goes into hunting and surviving in an unforgiving jungle. This is no idyllic Disney fantasy as in Pocahontas. This is a harsh unforgiving world where animals that can kill may be around the next tree and quicksand-like bogs might swallow you whole if you don't watch your step. And, as if this set of obstacles wasn't enough, Gibson introduces the antagonists in the form of warriors from a decaying totalitarian society. This makes an already tough existence almost unbearable.
Our hero, Jaguar Paw, is a natural survivor and easy to like. He cares for his family and friends and provides for the tribe with his hunting and fierce combat skills. His ordeal is extreme and we watch through his eyes as his journey takes him from a natural state of balance, living in the jungle with his wife and child to a world where entire fields have become mass graves, where people toil without any connection to the natural world and where corrupt and power hungry leaders have taken what Jaguar Paw holds most dear,life, and made it worthless.
This is a social commentary indeed, but it's not nearly the granola enviro-dweeb propaganda that some critics have made it out to be.
Gibson's commentary here echoes his work in "Braveheart" and "Passion" by affirming the importance of free will and the essential goodness of man in a natural state.
There may be an allegorical statement in the film regarding Gibson's father who has been villainized and attacked by the media for ,shall we say, "controversial" views and statements regarding the holocaust. Gibson has a particularly unsavory character execute Jaguar Paw's father right before his eyes. It is certainly possible that Gibson feels that a man he has great respect for has had his character assassinated right before his eyes.
After seeing "Apocalypto", I think I can understand a bit more about what makes Gibson tick as an auteur. He wants to wake the modern day audience up out of their spoon-fed stupor and re-introduce us to the world as it really is.
Most modern day humans have no clue what it is to deal with nature and find our own food. In fact, if we can't get a toasty hot Krispy Kreme when and where we want it we get rather perturbed.
In Apocalypto, we see first hand the effort and skill that goes into hunting and surviving in an unforgiving jungle. This is no idyllic Disney fantasy as in Pocahontas. This is a harsh unforgiving world where animals that can kill may be around the next tree and quicksand-like bogs might swallow you whole if you don't watch your step. And, as if this set of obstacles wasn't enough, Gibson introduces the antagonists in the form of warriors from a decaying totalitarian society. This makes an already tough existence almost unbearable.
Our hero, Jaguar Paw, is a natural survivor and easy to like. He cares for his family and friends and provides for the tribe with his hunting and fierce combat skills. His ordeal is extreme and we watch through his eyes as his journey takes him from a natural state of balance, living in the jungle with his wife and child to a world where entire fields have become mass graves, where people toil without any connection to the natural world and where corrupt and power hungry leaders have taken what Jaguar Paw holds most dear,life, and made it worthless.
This is a social commentary indeed, but it's not nearly the granola enviro-dweeb propaganda that some critics have made it out to be.
Gibson's commentary here echoes his work in "Braveheart" and "Passion" by affirming the importance of free will and the essential goodness of man in a natural state.
There may be an allegorical statement in the film regarding Gibson's father who has been villainized and attacked by the media for ,shall we say, "controversial" views and statements regarding the holocaust. Gibson has a particularly unsavory character execute Jaguar Paw's father right before his eyes. It is certainly possible that Gibson feels that a man he has great respect for has had his character assassinated right before his eyes.
Lady in the Water
(2006)
ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful
30 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Marketing is a big part of any movie. I have seen this movie marketed as a horror film and as a human story. When the viewer goes to a movie with certain expectations it is difficult for a film to be all things to all people. M. Night Shyamalan has created a few masterpieces in his short career. With this film he takes elements of "Signs" and "Unbreakable" and gives them a twist.
He places a deeply human story within the strange confines of a ancient story book complete with innocent nymphs, fantastic creatures and magical powers, all this inside a slightly dilapidated apartment complex. I found Giammatti's excellent performance to be slightly reminiscent of a Richard Dreyfuss everyman circa 1975. This is perhaps intended...after all Shyamalan is sort of the new Spielberg: Hollywood's creative golden boy outsider.
In this film Shyamalan makes a few major errors. He doesn't play it totally straight. He has a few too many winks and nods at the audience. He breaks the "fourth dimension" in at least one instance by having a character speak directly to the audience.
In "Signs" we had a similarly moving human story with a similarly far-fetched plot, but it seemed to work. Here it's too much of a stretch for the audience and so much of what is a well crafted film falls flat. The premise MUST work.
I also wasn't a fan of the over-the-top performance of Cindy Cheung which almost played like a stereotype from an old Warner Bros. cartoon.
There are a few goose-bump inducing "Shyamalan" moments which make you jump, but true horror fans will be disappointed by the lack of gore.
By contrast, those looking for a human story about a damaged man finding his worth and companionship might be dismayed by the horror/fantasy elements.
He places a deeply human story within the strange confines of a ancient story book complete with innocent nymphs, fantastic creatures and magical powers, all this inside a slightly dilapidated apartment complex. I found Giammatti's excellent performance to be slightly reminiscent of a Richard Dreyfuss everyman circa 1975. This is perhaps intended...after all Shyamalan is sort of the new Spielberg: Hollywood's creative golden boy outsider.
In this film Shyamalan makes a few major errors. He doesn't play it totally straight. He has a few too many winks and nods at the audience. He breaks the "fourth dimension" in at least one instance by having a character speak directly to the audience.
In "Signs" we had a similarly moving human story with a similarly far-fetched plot, but it seemed to work. Here it's too much of a stretch for the audience and so much of what is a well crafted film falls flat. The premise MUST work.
I also wasn't a fan of the over-the-top performance of Cindy Cheung which almost played like a stereotype from an old Warner Bros. cartoon.
There are a few goose-bump inducing "Shyamalan" moments which make you jump, but true horror fans will be disappointed by the lack of gore.
By contrast, those looking for a human story about a damaged man finding his worth and companionship might be dismayed by the horror/fantasy elements.
Mission: Impossible III
(2006)
Gritty realism replaces slick set-pieces
8 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Our favorite IMF agent Ethan Hunt is back and the suspense never lets up in this second installment of the "Mission: Impossible" series. Why second you say? Because I would prefer to forget the atrocious second installment. It's dead to me. We may never forgive you, Woo.
This series is really the new James Bond. The real Bond series became a bloated self-parody years ago when the comical Roger Moore took the character in that direction. The "Mission: Impossible" series is equally implausible but at least takes itself seriously.
Ethan Hunt is the impossibly competent agent who can keep his cool under all circumstances and double-cross the double crossers. Cruise gives Hunt an energy and fire that make him a compelling and likable character. But unlike the first installment when he was always a step ahead of his nemesis, here Hunt starts out behind the eight ball.
To continue the Bond analogy, this episode of Mission: Impossible reminds me of "From Russia with Love". In that classic "Connery" Bond, our hero is constantly being out-smarted and beaten up by the bad boys of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. until he finally uses his wits and talents to pull out the win.
In the first "Mission: Impossible", Hunt is set-up and manages to cleverly manipulate his knowledge of the system to expose the true mole, redeem himself and ride off into the sunset.
This film is a different story. From the start the rules have changed. Hunt is certainly not in control. He is reacting the best he can to variety of difficult challenges. (Some could be described as "impossible".) Philip Seymour Hoffman proves, once again, that he is an extraordinary actor by making us hate his evil character with every fiber of our being. The other characters seem one dimensional except for Ving Rhames warm and decent Luther character. The action is non stop and the action scenes are paced quickly and chaotic in the style of modern action films. Gone are DePalma's smooth and slickly packaged set-pieces but a gritty realism is in it's place. Except for a few moments of much needed humor, this film is bleak and unromantic in it's portrayal of the life of a top agent like Ethan Hunt.
I would recommend seeing this film if you are a fan of the first movie.
This series is really the new James Bond. The real Bond series became a bloated self-parody years ago when the comical Roger Moore took the character in that direction. The "Mission: Impossible" series is equally implausible but at least takes itself seriously.
Ethan Hunt is the impossibly competent agent who can keep his cool under all circumstances and double-cross the double crossers. Cruise gives Hunt an energy and fire that make him a compelling and likable character. But unlike the first installment when he was always a step ahead of his nemesis, here Hunt starts out behind the eight ball.
To continue the Bond analogy, this episode of Mission: Impossible reminds me of "From Russia with Love". In that classic "Connery" Bond, our hero is constantly being out-smarted and beaten up by the bad boys of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. until he finally uses his wits and talents to pull out the win.
In the first "Mission: Impossible", Hunt is set-up and manages to cleverly manipulate his knowledge of the system to expose the true mole, redeem himself and ride off into the sunset.
This film is a different story. From the start the rules have changed. Hunt is certainly not in control. He is reacting the best he can to variety of difficult challenges. (Some could be described as "impossible".) Philip Seymour Hoffman proves, once again, that he is an extraordinary actor by making us hate his evil character with every fiber of our being. The other characters seem one dimensional except for Ving Rhames warm and decent Luther character. The action is non stop and the action scenes are paced quickly and chaotic in the style of modern action films. Gone are DePalma's smooth and slickly packaged set-pieces but a gritty realism is in it's place. Except for a few moments of much needed humor, this film is bleak and unromantic in it's portrayal of the life of a top agent like Ethan Hunt.
I would recommend seeing this film if you are a fan of the first movie.
The Sentinel
(2006)
workmanlike thriller
1 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film stays somewhat plausible during the set-up portion of the movie, but starts becoming less and less realistic as the plot is unraveled. Micheal Douglas (even though he is looking more and more like his old man with each film) doesn't come across as the secret service "hero" type. He comes across as a self-absorbed pretty boy. He seems to always play the same character in every movie. Keifer Sutherland owns his role but isn't given much room to show his stuff. The back story and relationship between Douglas and Sutherlands characters is only glossed over but would have been far more interesting that "rogue former KGB" conspiracy to kill the leader of the free world. Why is it that movies won't simply depict terrorists as they really are? Why is it always some lame cold-war carry-over of euro-trash white-supremacists? It's idiotic.
Eva Longoria plays the "hot" rookie who wants to be appreciated for what she brings to the team even though what she mainly brings are her "assets".
The cinematography is annoying at times, filmed like a TV commercial and music video instead of a straight-forward thriller. New is sometimes good, but hacking technique out of music videos and commercials isn't. Different isn't always better or an improvement and while I respect the cinematographer's boldness, I can't approve of his artistic choices.
Save your money and watch the far superior "In the Line of Fire"
Eva Longoria plays the "hot" rookie who wants to be appreciated for what she brings to the team even though what she mainly brings are her "assets".
The cinematography is annoying at times, filmed like a TV commercial and music video instead of a straight-forward thriller. New is sometimes good, but hacking technique out of music videos and commercials isn't. Different isn't always better or an improvement and while I respect the cinematographer's boldness, I can't approve of his artistic choices.
Save your money and watch the far superior "In the Line of Fire"
The Pledge
(I) (2001)
quality character study and proves that Penn can direct
14 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As in "Indian Runner", Sean Penn takes a average tale and makes it something more. Penn skillfully uses imagery and visual poetry. Nicholson's performance is excellent and is at it's best when he is subdued and patient.
The plot unfolds at a deliberate pace. but that draws the intelligent viewer deeper into the movie. If a shot lingers, we wonder why. We scan the frame looking for clues not only to help us figure out "whodunit", but also for clues into the motivation of our protagonist. It is actually vague enough for me to question whether it isn't Nicholson himself behind the murders.
We see another excellent performance from Robin Wright (Penn?) who is made up to look simply awful in this film. We watch the patient and obsessive retired cop use all sorts of bait to catch the fish he is after. I found myself trying to give advice to Nicholson's character. I empathized both with his dilemma and his loneliness. His police instincts are honed from years of obsessive but effective law enforcement. Quality acting all the way down to the bit parts.
The plot unfolds at a deliberate pace. but that draws the intelligent viewer deeper into the movie. If a shot lingers, we wonder why. We scan the frame looking for clues not only to help us figure out "whodunit", but also for clues into the motivation of our protagonist. It is actually vague enough for me to question whether it isn't Nicholson himself behind the murders.
We see another excellent performance from Robin Wright (Penn?) who is made up to look simply awful in this film. We watch the patient and obsessive retired cop use all sorts of bait to catch the fish he is after. I found myself trying to give advice to Nicholson's character. I empathized both with his dilemma and his loneliness. His police instincts are honed from years of obsessive but effective law enforcement. Quality acting all the way down to the bit parts.
The Aristocrats
(2005)
Sometimes funny, sometimes hilarious
14 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The concept for this film is quite clever. Take a famous joke and get many funny people to give you their take on it. At first, you hear the joke and sort of chuckle, but somehow like my brother at a party it just keeps getting more funny as it goes along.
The least funny part is watching the "think-tank" of comedians sit around in a focus group and try to dissect the comedy. It's sort of like that scene in "Comedian" when Orny is going through his "joke file" and trying to perfect his routine. If you listen to the commentary during this scene, it is clear that a professional (and funny) comic like Jerry Seinfeld is simply at a loss to understand this obsessive compulsion. The very act of trying to uncover what is funny about comedy makes it not funny at all.
Some of the comedians who try to be outrageous just embarrass themselves. The placement of the "Billy the Mime" bit made me laugh so hard I though I was going to pop a stitch (I am currently recovering from surgery) Bob Saget is gleefully raunchy but undeniably uproarious. I've always heard he was really a dirty comic but couldn't believe it after all those sit-com and "America's Funniest Home Videos" years. That must have been a purgatory for him...
The least funny part is watching the "think-tank" of comedians sit around in a focus group and try to dissect the comedy. It's sort of like that scene in "Comedian" when Orny is going through his "joke file" and trying to perfect his routine. If you listen to the commentary during this scene, it is clear that a professional (and funny) comic like Jerry Seinfeld is simply at a loss to understand this obsessive compulsion. The very act of trying to uncover what is funny about comedy makes it not funny at all.
Some of the comedians who try to be outrageous just embarrass themselves. The placement of the "Billy the Mime" bit made me laugh so hard I though I was going to pop a stitch (I am currently recovering from surgery) Bob Saget is gleefully raunchy but undeniably uproarious. I've always heard he was really a dirty comic but couldn't believe it after all those sit-com and "America's Funniest Home Videos" years. That must have been a purgatory for him...
A History of Violence
(2005)
still waters run deep
29 March 2006
The pacing and style of "A History of Violence" really transform what could have been a pedestrian tale of identity and hidden past into a superb thought-provoking yarn.
Quality performances enhance the excellent cinematography and the "Cronenberg" knack for interesting details.
I truly felt for Tom/Joey and, like him, wanted for everything to return to normalcy for him and his family.
The actual acts of violence aren't really as frightening as the loss of that sense of normalcy and trust that families need.
Even with an questionable (rotten?) past, we sense that the character fleshed out by Viggo Mortenson is a man looking for peace, decency and dignity in a world where violence, evil and disgrace are becoming all too common.
Thank you David Cronenberg! You have become seemingly one of the first directors who finally filmed a beautiful and erotic love scene between (gasp!) a husband and a wife. (I am of course speaking of their first encounter.) It's sort of a nice change of pace in a movie world populated by incestuous, adulterous, pedophilic perverted lechers, to see some good old-fashioned physical attraction and intimacy between a husband and wife.
Quality performances enhance the excellent cinematography and the "Cronenberg" knack for interesting details.
I truly felt for Tom/Joey and, like him, wanted for everything to return to normalcy for him and his family.
The actual acts of violence aren't really as frightening as the loss of that sense of normalcy and trust that families need.
Even with an questionable (rotten?) past, we sense that the character fleshed out by Viggo Mortenson is a man looking for peace, decency and dignity in a world where violence, evil and disgrace are becoming all too common.
Thank you David Cronenberg! You have become seemingly one of the first directors who finally filmed a beautiful and erotic love scene between (gasp!) a husband and a wife. (I am of course speaking of their first encounter.) It's sort of a nice change of pace in a movie world populated by incestuous, adulterous, pedophilic perverted lechers, to see some good old-fashioned physical attraction and intimacy between a husband and wife.
The Hills Have Eyes
(2006)
Reprehensible and abhorrently manipulative film-making
16 March 2006
O.K. Three showers later and I'm in a state where I can analyze this gruesome, disgusting, piece of trash. If this movie hadn't had some scares and shock moments, I would have rated it even lower. Aside from a brutal first attack and clever decoy tactic using a horrific human barbecue (Does Ted Levine have to moan in every film?) it was predictable and formulaic.
This movie was very manipulative and over-done. A great filmmaker could get the point across simply by letting the narrative depict the horror of a helpless baby and a teenage girl being trapped inside a trailer with two savage mutated freaks. Here, we have very average filmmakers so they resort to actually showing the events transpiring within. And what are those events?
The two savage mutated freaks dry-hump and terrorize the girl and act threateningly towards the baby. OOOOOOOH! Excuse me while I'm not shocked. Lesson: Don't go through the motions of shocking us without any actual shock.
Let's be clear: Shock is distinct from repulsiveness: Putting a child in harm's way and having a mutated freak breast-feed off a lactating woman while aiming a revolver at a baby is lower than most would stoop. Yes it's repulsive, but so is watching someone take a crap on stage or lick up vomit. It's beneath Wes Craven.
Besides, everyone in the audience knew you wouldn't actually have the cajones to go through with the worst of it.
Few movies actually make me mad. I can usually stay casually detached and objectively observant without seeing through the tactics so clearly. This movie made me mad. It insulted my intelligence. I could see what the director was trying to do a mile away and it was frustrating to watch as the fuse was lit only to have the bomb go off too soon.
I liked the allusions to "Straw Dogs" with the broken glasses etc. The "Total-nerd-turned-scrappy-survivor" was a neat idea and the transformation was well handled.
It always strikes me as funny how expert killers turn all thumbs in climactic showdowns. David slays Goliath so often in these glorified B-pictures that the betting line in Vegas always favors the little guy.
A great horror movie will have three elements:
1. Good shocks and scare moments 2. an overall pervasive sense of dread 3. abstract conceptual terror
This movie had all three elements but none were executed deftly or properly fleshed out. The shocks did come but were routine (Uhhh, guys? The fast sillouette moving by the camera has been done about a million times before!) The sense of dread was palpable in the first act, with just enough friction in the family to make it seem realistic, but enough family chemistry to make you dread what was going to happen. The abstract conceptual terror was that of human evolution or mutation due to radioactivity, but it was a poor rationale for the events depicted in the film.
This movie was very manipulative and over-done. A great filmmaker could get the point across simply by letting the narrative depict the horror of a helpless baby and a teenage girl being trapped inside a trailer with two savage mutated freaks. Here, we have very average filmmakers so they resort to actually showing the events transpiring within. And what are those events?
The two savage mutated freaks dry-hump and terrorize the girl and act threateningly towards the baby. OOOOOOOH! Excuse me while I'm not shocked. Lesson: Don't go through the motions of shocking us without any actual shock.
Let's be clear: Shock is distinct from repulsiveness: Putting a child in harm's way and having a mutated freak breast-feed off a lactating woman while aiming a revolver at a baby is lower than most would stoop. Yes it's repulsive, but so is watching someone take a crap on stage or lick up vomit. It's beneath Wes Craven.
Besides, everyone in the audience knew you wouldn't actually have the cajones to go through with the worst of it.
Few movies actually make me mad. I can usually stay casually detached and objectively observant without seeing through the tactics so clearly. This movie made me mad. It insulted my intelligence. I could see what the director was trying to do a mile away and it was frustrating to watch as the fuse was lit only to have the bomb go off too soon.
I liked the allusions to "Straw Dogs" with the broken glasses etc. The "Total-nerd-turned-scrappy-survivor" was a neat idea and the transformation was well handled.
It always strikes me as funny how expert killers turn all thumbs in climactic showdowns. David slays Goliath so often in these glorified B-pictures that the betting line in Vegas always favors the little guy.
A great horror movie will have three elements:
1. Good shocks and scare moments 2. an overall pervasive sense of dread 3. abstract conceptual terror
This movie had all three elements but none were executed deftly or properly fleshed out. The shocks did come but were routine (Uhhh, guys? The fast sillouette moving by the camera has been done about a million times before!) The sense of dread was palpable in the first act, with just enough friction in the family to make it seem realistic, but enough family chemistry to make you dread what was going to happen. The abstract conceptual terror was that of human evolution or mutation due to radioactivity, but it was a poor rationale for the events depicted in the film.
Tell Your Friends