THE FOLLOWING (season 1) *** AVOID ***

THE FOLLOWING (season 1)

A tv show starring Kevin Bacon as an FBI agent.  Created by Kevin Williamson (Scream, Dawson's Creek, Gossip Girl exec producer).

The story: a serial killer who, while in jail, gains a cult following of people willing to become serial killers and follow his every command.  They break him out of jail and set out to capture his ex-wife and son, whom he loves.  It is up to the ex-FBI agent (Kevin bacon) to come back and catch him.

Was it good?

No.  Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to like about the show.  Kevin Bacon is always interesting and James Purefoy, who plays escaped serial killer, is great.  The idea of a cult of killers is interesting as well.  The problem is that every acts incredibly stupid.  The serial killer wants his ex-wife back, but his plan is basically just send people with guns to any place he might think.  The FBI agents are also stupid.  Seriously, they let the cult agents get the drop on them every episode.  It's amazing how often it happens.  These agents look less competent than Paul Blart, Mall Cop.

Unfortunately, while there is a lot of interesting elements in the set up, nothing is really explored.  A cult of serial killers?  Cool.  But does it explore that?  Not really.  It's just a cult.  Go with it.  You get more insight into character in an episode of CRIMINAL MINDS.  And for all the backstory about the characters (the FBI agent fell in love with the killer's ex-wife) there really isn't anything going on interesting there either.  The way it is set up it is supposed to be a chess match, but there's nothing that either side is playing for.  The killer wants his ex-wife back.  Why?  And how does he think he will get it?  Again, there's an idea but it's just an empty one, a placeholder so you will watch people run around with guns.  What does Kevin Bacon want?  There's also no clear end game.  Chess works because we know what the endgame is -- checkmate.  You can guess from the FBI side it is capturing the bad guy, and yet there's almost nothing about locating him or capturing his people.  And of course, there's the ex-wife who is at the center of it all and is as well developed of a character as a table lamp.

Maybe the show was exciting in its original run, with episodes spread out a week apart.  But marathoning this show just makes all the empty, stupidity of it way too obvious.

*** AVOID ***

KILLER HOLIDAY (2013) *** AVOID ***

KILLER HOLIDAY (2013)  *** AVOID ***

A horror movie by Marty Thomas.  Stars Michael Copon, Rachel Lara, Julia Beth Stern, Alex Mandel, Rachel Wixom.

The story: a group of friends go on a road trip and visit a closed amusement park where they are stalked by a sadistic killer.

Was it good?

No.  No, no, no, no, no.  It's horror that has absolutely nothing scary about it.  And that could work if it were entertaining in some other way -- if there was an interesting dramatic thru-line or if it was funny...but there's nothing here.  the killer is just this guy who acts like he is auditioning for Beetlejuice (without realizing this isn't a comedy).  Slasher films can work easily in one of two ways: (1) give us characters we like and build the horror as they are killed off or (2) give us characters we don't like and build the enjoyment from watching them die.  Of course that helps if you have a villain who is scary or imposing in some way.  This is just this guy.  Seriously, I don't even I would be scared of him and I'm a wuss.  What would be nice is if directors thought for a few minutes about what is actually scary when constructing their scripts instead of thinking they can just copy the copy of a copy of a movie that made an impact 30 years ago and think it will have any impact.

This isn't a movie to avoid simply because it is bad.  Bad movies can be fun when the filmmakers are trying to explore something they think are interesting.  It's a movie to avoid because it's just a crappy, lazy copy.   Why bother?

**** AVOID ****

BOUNTY KILLER (2013) ** RENTAL ***

BOUNTY KILLER (2013)

A post-apocalyptic action comedy with sexy bounty hunters.  Directed by Henry Saine.  Stars Matthew Marsden and Christian Pitre with appearances by Kristanna Loken, Beverly D'Angelo, Eve,  Alexa Vega and Gary Busey.

The story: After corporate greed has left the world a giant wasteland, white collar crimes get a death penalty.  Bounty Killers are the people who go after them and are celebrities with fans.  The story follows Drifter (Matthew Marsden) and Mary Death (Christian Pitre) as a bounty is placed on Drifter and they team up (after she goes after him for the bounty) have to evade killers and gypsies to track down the council to find out what is going on.

Was it good?

It was entertaining for a bit.   The strange mix of desolation and celebrity was interesting, and this is certainly a movie that tries to do a lot more than most low budget films.  The co-star Christian Pitre is beautiful and energetic.  This is a movie that just wants to be a B-movie, almost more homage than
real film.  Where as other movies like DEATH RACE 2000 and MAD MAX used the concept to delve into something more, this is just all superficial fun.  Unfortunately, like most movies that are 70% recycling, the humor isn't funny, the characters are cardboard, the plot doesn't make sense and ultimately the movie feels like a pretty empty thing.

Still, Considering the title and cover, you get the feeling the renters will know what they are getting, and while it doesn't have enough to it to make it a cult classic, it has enough for people who like action, sexy women, and ridiculous sci-fi a watch.

***RENTAL ***

HATCHET 3 (2013) *** RENTAL ***

HATCHET 3 *** RENTAL ***

This is the third (and last?) in the series for HATCHET, the horror series by Adam Green.  Green doesn't direct this one, but he wrote and produces it.  Directed by BJ McDonnell.  Starring Danielle Harris, Kane Hodder, Zach Galligan, Caroline Williams, Robert Diago DoQui, Derek Mears.

The story: Picking up where HATCHET 2 left off, Marybeth Dunston(Danielle Harris) kills Victor Crowley (Kane Holder), then goes to a police station where she is immediately made the prime suspect in the murder of all the people from HATCHET 2.  First the police, then FBI go to  Honey Island Swamp to investigate.  Meanwhile, Amanda Fowler (Caroline Williams), who wants to write a book about Crowley, tries to interview Marybeth, telling her that Crowley can't be killed because he is already dead.  Now the police are attacked by a rejuvenated Crowley and Marybeth with Amanda will try to find a way to stop Crowley once and for all.

Was it good? 

It was, especially the first half.  Starting with a bang, we get right into the action.  Then having Dunston locked up while the police investigate was a nice twist to the standard horror plot and keeps everything interesting.  The writing and acting aren't anything special here, but Danielle Harris does a nice job and it's good to see Zach Galligan (who starred in one of my favorite movies of all time -- GREMLINS!) here as well.  The story really bogs down when the rejuvenated Crowley begins attacking the police, where everything starts to feel very by the numbers.  By the end I didn't really care which side won.  Crowley kills people.  They kill him, but he isn't really dead and he kills a bunch more and they kill him again, but he isn't really dead, etc, etc.  Just crazy repetitious.  Some of the beats were entertaining, but you never like or hate the characters enough to root for or against them. 

Still for all the predictable parts and not-funny dialog, there is still enough here that I liked to recommend it to horror fans.  This isn't horror that will thrill, but for a slightly twisted group looking for a group looking for a fun Friday night splatter-fest, this will fit the bill.

*** RENTAL ***

MISCHIEF NIGHT (2013) *** AVOID ***

MISCHIEF NIGHT (2013)

A horror movie that takes place on Mischief Night, which might be the night before Halloween but I'm not sure and the movie doesn't care.  They just like to say Mischief Night and talk about people pulling pranks, except this is a horror movie not a prank.  Although the movie would have been better as a prank.  The actors seem good and give a good effort, but they have nothing to work with in this derivative mess that tries to combine THE STRANGERS with hints of SCREAM without really getting why those movies worked.  Written/directed by Richard Schenkman from a story by Jesse Baget.  Stars: Noell Coet, Ian Bamberg, Adam C. Edwards, Stephanie Erb.

The story: Emily (Noell Coet) is a blind asthmatic girl who lost her sight after her mother died in a traffic accident.  Her father is finally going to start dating again, leaving his blind daughter alone on Mischief Night, a night when teens run around playing pranks on people.  Except Emily is visited by a mysterious man in a mask who isn't playing a prank but toying with her while killing everyone who tries to help her.

Was it good?

In parts.  The leads actress is charismatic and the movie uses suspense more than gore so there are parts of the movie when we realize the mysterious man is in the house and stalking her that have a definite creepy feel.  Unfortunately, it's about 5 minutes out of a 90 minute movie.  The rest is hack work and even worse doesn't make any sense.  For instance, her boyfriend comes over and she is panicking so he is going to hep get her to safety, but then they go into a room with her mother's stuff and suddenly they are perfectly okay just standing and talking for a while.  Yeah, there's a killer running around, her aunt might be dead, but this is a good time to go through a yearbook.

The movie might have been more interesting if it played against conventions.  The girl is blind so there's one scene where she walks past a dead body.  Wouldn't she be able to smell the body?  Or at least wouldn't it be more interesting?  What if the attacker was used to hiding in the darkness, but because she is blind she actually can tell he is there even better?  Wouldn't that be more interesting?

Even worse, as much as it rips off THE STRANGERS and SCREAM, it doesn't understand what made those movies work.  SCREAM takes the idea of a girl unsure if she is ready for sex (trust her boyfriend) and externalizes it in horror movie fashion into her not trusting if he is a killer.  THE STRANGERS takes a couple who love each other but are about to break up, then they are attacked and realize they love each other and want to be together.  See -- each of those stories took strong emotional stories and used horror to externalize them.  That's why you can build thrills and scares, because the audience has keyed into the characters from the real emotional stories.  Here there is nothing.  She has a boyfriend, and at a point it seemed like they were playing with is he cheating/is he the killer but that gets dropped and becomes nothing.  There's the stuff with her sight/blindness but that doesn't have any connection to the killers or Mischief Night.

Derivative.  Boring.  Not scary.  It's not the worse movie out there, but it's not good enough to bother watching.

*** AVOID ****

FRIGHT NIGHT 2 (2013) *** AVOID ***

FRIGHT NIGHT 2 (2013) ** AVOID ***

A sort of sequel, sort of remake of the 2011 film that was a remake of the classic 1985 horror comedy.  Directed by Eduardo Rodriguez.  Stars: Will Payne, Jaime Murray, Sean Power, Sacha Parkinson, and Chris Waller.

The story: a college student with his class in Romania realizes his female professor is really a vampire, so he, his best friend, and the girl he likes but who doesn't like him because he cheated on her find a guy who plays a vampire hunter on tv thinking he will be able to help them and of course it goes badly.  The friend is killed, the girl kidnapped and turned and the boy must stop an ancient ritual that will let the vampire continue to walk in sunlight.

Was it good?

No.  I mean, really no.  While is a pitched as a sequel it really has nothing in common with its predecessor (the remake of the original).  All they basically did was do the first movie over while changing the vampire to a female and adding lots of nudity.  Now the nudity I'm fine with, but the change of the vampire messes things up.  You see, part of what made the first (1985) movie work so well was that it was a simple play on a common story -- the boy in love with a girl who loses the girl to another guy, only in that case the other guy is really a vampire.  Changing it to a female vampire really ruins that and it just becomes a story about kids running around and a vampire that can kill people at will and not have the police investigate or anything.  It's disappointing (though not surprising).  Still, I would love to find a good, fun vampire movie.  It's a shame there are so many made and yet so few that are good.

*** AVOID ***

Much ado About Nothing (2012) *** AVOID ***

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (2012) *** AVOID ***

The modern retelling of the Shakespearean play.  This is the second of the no budget projects Joss WHedon has been doing (second after Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog, which is fantastic!) where he called up a bunch of actor friends (many of whom have worked with him before in Firefly, Angel or the Avengers) and filmed it in his house for a couple weeks.  Sounds pretty cool, don't it?  (It's good to be Joss!).  Directed by Joss Whedon.  Stars: Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Nathan Fillion, Clark Gregg, Reed Diamond, Fran Kranz, Sean Maher, and Jillian Morgese.

The story: Benedick had a one night stand with Beatrice, which went badly and now they hate each other.  So, while another marriage is being arranged, everyone connives to get the two of them together.  Also while that is happening there is a scheme to break up that marriage by making the groom think the girl has been unfaithful.

Was it good?

No.  In many ways this play is the a great early example of almost all of our romantic comedy cliches.  It has the couple that hates then falls in love, the misunderstanding that gets blown out of proportion, the evil scheme to break people up, the scheme to get people together.  Really just all the cliches we are tired of.  Which is the problem.  Even if this is the first story to use those tropes (or some of them), is it still comes off as being all those same ridiculous cliches.  At least TAMING OF THE SHREW dives into the gender wars a bit.  This just flits along consumed with its own silliness.  It would have been interested if Whedon had done a real reinvention, taking some of these cliches and turned them on their heads.  But no.  Nothing like that.

Beyond the faults of the source material, there isn't much great here.  Amy Acker (Angel, Person of Interest) and Alexis Denisof (Angel, Buffy) are very good supporting tv actor, but they just don't commend your attention as romantic leads in a movie.  The only actor who really seems to pull off his role is Nathan Fillion, who as a blustering detective steals his scenes and makes his scenes funnier than the scenes should be.  Most of the other actors do well, but rarely elevate the material.

Oddly enough, this group is much more entertaining when you see them live.  I saw them doing a panel at a comic convention and they -- the whole group, every one of them (except Fillion, he wasn't there) were funny and charming and wonderful.  Maybe it was the Shakespearean  mumble rocks they had to speak around or the contrived plot, but the movie just doesn't live up to what the director and cast showed they could do.  So if you are a fan, try youtubing the panels they did -- they're better than the movie.

***AVOID***

PACIFIC RIM (2013) *** RENTAL ***

PACIFIC RIM (2013) *** RENTAL ***

The big sci-fi/fantasy action film by Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy).  Features giant robots fighting monsters.  Stars Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Robert Kazinsky, Max Martini, and Ron Perlman.

The story:  a rift to another dimension opens up in the ocean floor and giant monsters start coming out and attacking cities.  To fight them, the world build giant robots.  But as the attacks escalate, they have to carry out a dangerous mission to try to stop them once and for all.

Was it good?

Um...kind of?  I mean look, there's something about watching giant robots fight giant monsters that's just plain cool.  As dopey as it sounds, don't you want to see it?  Some guy in a giant robot suit going toe to toe with a godzilla-like monster all in glorious full screen cgi?  And really that's why I'm giving this a RENTAL because there is just some stuff that is cool to see and this has lots of cool.  However -- and let me repeat that -- HOWEVER I also have to add that this movie is filled with some of the dumbest of everything you could ever imagine.  First, they say we built giant robots to fight the monsters like that is a normal thing.  Who the frack would think of building giant robots?!?!?  And that really is the biggest problem.  This is a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters and everything else is just an excuse to let this happen.  Really you could replace almost every line of
dialog with Charlie Brown's teacher going "wawawawawa" and the movie would be the same.  There's no thought to the creatures -- they just destroy.  There's no logic behind the dimensional portal (or explanation) -- it's just there.  And why can't they close it?  Because they can't, until they can.  It's like a little kid telling a story where they just kind of make up one thing and then hop to another.  Even the computer interface doesn't make sense (you need two people to pilot a robot...except not always...and is it important?  no, not really).  There is not one piece of genuine science fiction (i.e. thinking), not one piece of clever, not one piece of smart in the entire movie.

But it has del Toro directing giant robots fighting giant monsters.  And that's why I'm giving it a rental, because that is enough to keep you watching once.  Once.

**** RENTAL ****

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)  *** RECOMMEND***

A twisted revisionist update to the classic fairy tale.  Stars Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, Bourne Ultimatum), Gemma Arterton, and Famke Janssen.  Written and directed by Tommy Wirkola.

The story:  Hansel and Gretel, after escaping from a witch when they were children, have grown up to become kick a** witch hunteres!  They come to a town where children have gone missing and learn a powerful witch is taking them for a ritual that will make her immune to fire.  Hansel and Gretel try to save the children and defeat the witch, while learning things about their past.

Was it good?

Yes!  Which surprised me.  It is such a silly, goofy idea, but here's the thing -- the filmmaker seemed to understand that and embraced it.  Instead of doing something grounded and dark, he made something vibrant and fun.  Hansel and Gretel aren't just witch hunters, they are witch hunters with a bunch of cool a** steam-punk inspired weapons.  The plot, while not inspired, does a good enough job to keep things interesting.  This isn't a deep, brain teaser of a movie -- it's popcorn for action/horror buffs.  My biggest complaint is that the movies seems divided whether it wants to be rated R or PG-13 (it's rated R).  Some times it would embrace the R-rated sexy/violence and other times it seemed to pull back from it.  Hopefully in the sequel (it was a big hit so I assume there will be one) they will embrace the R-nature and really give us a sexy, crazy action movie for adults who like to be giddy kids!

*** RECOMMEND ****

SORORITY PARTY MASSACRE (2013)            *** avoid ***

A low budget horror movies that has a bevy of good looking girls (including Marissa Skell, Eve Mauro, Casey Fitzgerald, Rebecca Grant, Adrian Kirk, Alison Mei Lan and Yvette Yates)  and Kevin Sorbo (Hercules) and Ron Jeremy (porn star).  Why it has them I don't know, but it does.  Written by Chris W. Freeman.  Directed by Chris Freeman and Justin Jones.

The Story: a bunch of girls go to an isolated house to compete for their national sorority until a killer begins killing them off.

Was it good?
No.  In fact, it wasn't even as good as my description.  If they had just made the movie from that description they could have made a fun, sexy, horror movie.  Instead what they made was just horrible.  It begins with a girl getting killed (as many horror movies do), which is fine except it's the whole killer-taunting-on-the-phone in a way that is so stupid and painful it is an embarrassment even without being a rip off of SCREAM.  Then there is a bunch of stuff with Kevin Sorbo.  Why?  Who knows.  It's not like anyone renting a sorority horror movie really is doing it to watch Kevin Sorbo.  Maybe they did it for foreign sales?  Or maybe they are just idiots.  Anyway...after that it means they have used up the first 30 minutes before they even get to the main girls who will be gathering at the house.  And as hard to believe the movie just gets worse.  There's nothing scary.  There's nothing funny.  There's nothing to the whole sorority girl competition.  And they don't even do a good job of showing off the girls!  Serious, how can you screw up that!!!
     I could go on about the painful stupidity of the movie but I won't.  Instead, let's talk about b-horror movies and what can make them great.  Simply, horror movies (especially those silly b-horror movies) are the most pure rebellion against society you can have.  Forget reading Catcher in the Rye, horror movies are the real deal.  Horror movies (b-movies) work when they are filled with and embrace all the things parents try to keep away from the children -- sex, drinking, parties, bad decisions, and of course getting killed.  It's why viewers have a sense of glee as the characters get killed.  The ultimate rebellion, cheering for kids to die!  Horror movies are the perfect balance: rebellion and partying, but then getting caught in your own bad decisions, leading to the ultimate punishment which ironically is the things parents fear even more than the drugs and sex.  It's why you can make an incredibly cheap movie with crappy scripts and bad actors and poor lighting and worse special effects and have it still be incredibly watchable. 
Unfortunately for everyone involved this movie is just beyond lame, beyond stupid, beyond dull.

**** AVOID ***

SEASONING HOUSE (2012) *** RECOMMEND ***

 

A British horror movie.  The directorial debut of Paul Hyett, who mainly had worked in the make-up/fx department.  Stars Rosie Day, Kevin Howarth, and Sean Pertwee.

The story: Set in the Balkans,  it follows a young girl whose mother has been killed by soldiers and if forced to work in a prostitution house for soldiers.  The soldiers like to brutalize the girls, so her job is to keep them drugged up and to clean them up after the men beat them.  However, after befriending one girl who is savagely attacked, she attacks her attacker, setting the soldiers after her.

Was it good?

Half of it was good.  First, let me say it is a powerful concept for a movie.  This isn't your typical kids-in-the-woods stuff.  Seeing this prostitution house (based on a true story) makes for a powerful (disturbing) experience.  In addition to the drama of this girl working in the house is the story that the operator of the house is in love with her, setting up another powerful dynamic.  And for the first half of the movie, it is a powerful movie experience.  The acting is also excellent.  The whole cast is good and Rosie Day especially was fantastic.  The set design and the directing (for the most part) were very good too.  Part of what makes the first half work so well is the mood and atmosphere they have build for the place and the way the director follows the main character as she goes about her duties tending to the girls and slipping in and out of the vents as her only way of having any sense of freedom and control.  However, after she attacks the first soldier and the soldiers go after her, the movie quickly slips away.  The story devolves into little more than chase after chase.  Instead of going for emotional depth, the script goes for action.  Even worse, by the end of act two they have her leave the house.  What was a tense, contained thriller for the first 2/3rds, now becomes little more than a generic chase movie.  What hurts the movie even more is that the chase elements as usually pretty stupid.  For a thriller to work, you want the characters (hero and villains) to be smart, to think ahead and plan.  Here the villains just chase her, pretty much one by one, and even when they grab her or could shoot her they don't (or they miss).   

However, while the movie definitely doesn't live up to the potential of its concept or it's cast, there is still a lot here worth recommending.  It's not a fun horror movie, and not an easy movie to watch, but for people looking for a powerful movie experience and able to deal with the violence/sexual brutality, the movie has more impact than 99% of what is out there.  Hopefully the director will learn from this and next tiem get a better script.

*** RECOMMEND ***

EVIL DEAD (2013) ** RENTAL***

EVIL DEAD (2013)

This is the remark/reboot of the classic 1980's horror series Evil Dead by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man 1 2 and 3, Darkman, Great and Powerful Oz).  Produced by Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell (Burn Notice and star of the original Evil Dead movies).  Directed by Fede Alvarez, after directing a short film that got Sam Raimi's attention.  Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez,  Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, and Elizabeth Blackmore.

THE STORY:  A group of friends bring a girl (Jane Levy) to a remote cabin to detox her from drug addiction.  She has recently OD'ed and they feel extreme measures are needed.  However, they find bodies in the basement and one of them reads from a strange book and soon they are being possessed by a horrible demon who tries to kill them and collect their souls.  

WAS IS GOOD?

Sort of.  If you are a fan of the original then, well, this doesn't measure up.  At all.  And I'll talk about why in a minute.  If you haven't seen the original twenty times and used the phrase "Groovy" as your ringtone then there is a lot to like.  The basic idea of a group of friends trying to detox a girl who becomes possessed is interesting, and there are some nice twists and turns.  The action is pretty much non-stop.  The problem is that you don't care.  There are no relationships and there's no real build up to anything.  It's the girl gets possessed and then messes up he friends, pretty much one-by-one, killing them off.  the movies makes an interesting turn when the girl is cured by her brother and now she becomes the target of the demons, but while it has a cool "what will happen now" effect, there's no real emotion or sense to it.  And it builds to a big dramatic ending that is simply solved with a chainsaw. 

Now compare that to the original, which slowly builds for the first ten minutes, allowing you to meet the characters and see them interact.  Next the demons are invoked.  Now one girl becomes possessed, but instead of just inflicting violence, the demon wants to possess the people and terrorize them, turning their friends against them and taunting them.  In this movie there is some of that, but it just never lands.  The demon isn't trying to terrorize, but simply to kill and it isn't nearly as interesting.  Seeing people get picked off one-by-one (let me go visit the demon girl and hey, look, I got attacked) isn't as interesting as a group in a room together trying to protect each other.  There is also the odd switch of the girl at first being the antagonist (once she is possessed) and then becoming the hero at the end.  It was an interesting choice, but I can't say I was really hoping for her to win.  It goes back to the original concept of a group of friends trying to get a girl to detox.  It is he friends that are the protagonists and they are the ones we bond with.  Switching to the girl as the protagonist at the end breaks the concept.  If the idea had been a girl trying to detox is attacked by demons and has to save herself, then it would have been fine, but in general when you switch concepts in the 3rd act, you are going to lose a lot of mojo.  And this movie felt over with 15 minutes to go.

Another thing to mention is that there is a lot of gore in this movie.  The idea of people cutting off their own limbs is a recurring thing.  (And you thought that was the sort of thing you only needed to see once?  Ha!)  It got to the point where it felt like most of the brainstorming was about what gruesome effects they could do, because they go for the gross out a lot!

All in all, while this was an interesting movie, it didn't have that "Evil Dead" feel.  Worth a rental though.  Hopefully next time they will concentrate on story and character more and less on gore.

** RENTAL **

TRAP FOR CINDERELLA (2013) *** AVOID ***

A British drama/thriller with more drama than thrills.  Stars Tuppence Middleton, Alexandra Roach, Kerry Fox, Aneurin Barnard, Frances de la Tour, Emilia Fox.  Directed by Iain Softley, who also wrote the scrrenplay based on the book by Sébastien Japrisot,

THE STORY: After an explosion at an expensive villa, a woman with svere facial burns and amnesia undergoes reconstructive surgery to her face and finds diaries that help her recover her memory about the explosion and what happened that night.

Was it good?

No.  It was pretty boring.  While the description might make it sound like a thriller, it was so slow it felt more like a character piece.  In many ways the story is similar to the Greta Scacchi/Tom Berenger SHATTERED
 with questions of identity and a murder, but the first half is so slow that it just doesn't have any thrill.  And while the second half does pick up, the twists lack any emotional punch.  In the end I didn't care what her real identity was or is she got away.  Simply there are better thrillers and more interesting character pieces than this one. 

*** AVOID ***

EVIDENCE (2013) ** AVOID ***

EVIDENCE (2013)(a review)

This is a found footage film. I'm a big fan of these when they are done right. CLOVERFIELD and BLAIR WITCH PROJECT were great. EVIDENCE is not. Written by John Swetnam. Directed by Olatunde Osunsanmi. Stars Stephen Moyer (True Blood), Radha Mitchell (Red Widow), Dale Dickey, Torrey DeVitto, Nolan Gerard Funk, Aml Ameen, Harry Lennix, Caitlin Stasey, and Svetlana Metkina.  

THE STORY: Cops find a horrible wreakage filled with dead bodies and have to sift through the camcorders of the victims to find out who was behind it all.

 Was it good?

No. The thing about found footage is that it is supposed to be more like reality tv where you feel like these characters are real people. So the best of them, even ones like CLOVERFIELD that have giant monsters, have a compelling story about the characters. CLOVERFIELD has a guy realizing that he loves a girl the day before he is going to leave for Japan. BLAIR WITCH has a group of kids getting lost and turning on each other. This movie didn't have anything. There's a few minutes of "get to know them" footage of the characters, but there isn't much to get to know. Then the horror starts and there's just a lot of screaming. Even the mystery isn't a big deal. The police have very little to do and since the event is over, there isn't anything really pushing them. Even worse, they don't seem to do much to try to solve it. In the first 70 minutes they come up with one idea. And the final reveal is pretty weak. It is a clever concept that could be interest, but they just don't do anything with it.
*** AVOID ****