Review: RUSHLIGHTS (2013) *** PASS ***

RUSHLIGHTS (2013) *** PASS ***

RUSHLIGHTS is a thriller directed by Antoni Stutz from a script by Antoni Stutz and Ashley Scott Meyers.  It stars: Beau Bridges, Haley Webb, Josh Henderson & Aidan Quinn.

The story: 
Two delinquent lovers from Los Angeles, find a dead body that looks exactly like the girl and decide to travel to a small town to try to claim the inheritance, only to find there are problems with the inheritance and a drug dealer from LA has followed them looking for money.

Was it good?

It was okay, which for a mystery/thriller isn't good.  The set-up with the inheritance is okay, but something I've seen before (or at least read before).  The sheriff nosing around, the problems with the inheritance...all of those were okay but they never felt like they meant anything.  The couple didn't seem desperate for money until the drug dealer comes looking for his money and he just wasn't that menacing.  In fact, he seemed more interested in sex than money, which probably would have been a more interesting story -- a girl trying to get away from an abusive drug dealing boyfriend, only to have him follow her and ruin the new life she is trying to build (one that's built on a lie and in danger of falling apart).  Here, there were lots of mysteries and little thrills.  Well acted, especially from Beau Bridges, but a story that was all surface and and no thrills.  It wasn't bad but blah, which honestly in a thriller can be worse than bad.  I wouldn't say it's a horrible waste of time, but there are just too many better things out there to watch.
*** PASS ***
Watch instead: movies I'd go with classics like Body Double, Body Heat, and Dressed to Kill.  Modern I'd go with tv shows like Person of Interest, True Detective, The Bridge and Fargo.

THE RETURNED (2013) *** WATCH ***

THE RETURNED (2013)

Less a horror movie than a drama/thriller that uses the idea of zombies to nice effect.  Written by Hatem Khraiche.  Directed by Manuel Carballo.  Starring Kris Holden-Ried, Emily Hampshire, Claudia Bassols, Shawn Doyle, and Melina Matthews.

The story: in a world where a zombie outbreak has happened, humans have developed a drug that if given to an infected person soon enough will keep the zombie virus dormant.  However, the supplies are running low and people are beginning to panic.  This is the story of a doctor (Hampshire) whose husband (Holden-Reid) has become infected and is trying to keep the virus dormant long enough for a synthetic solution to be developed.

Was it good?

Yeah.  It wasn't great, but it was solid with a lot of stuff worth watching.  The concept is a great twist on the classic zombie concept that focuses more on the characters than on gore.  The acting is all very good, the directing solid and they do a lot with the concept, having a black market and the shortages and groups of people who are violently anti-zombie.  It's definitely worth watching especially if you are looking for something a bit different than other zombie movies.

So why only a rental?  Well, partially because there is some clumsy plotting toward the end and honestly, while the movie isn't really about zombies the concept is about zombies and there definitely should have been more with them.  This movie took the easy way out in many ways dealing with the zombie infection and could have been much, much more interesting.  The main reason, however, is the story's lack of depth.  While it is more character oriented, there isn't a lot of emotion and while there are some interesting plot-elements with the lack of the antidote, none of them really investigate the characters.  Compare that to, say, CLOVERFIELD, where there is a story about a man trying to save his relationship with the girl he loves and then the monster arrives and now he has to save her from a bigger, external threat.  Or SCREAM which has a teen girl unsure she trusts her boyfriend enough to have sex and then he is accused of being a serial killer and she has to decide to trust him or not.  See these stories set up a parallel that allows them to use the external concept to explore an internal concept.  That's how they are able to get emotion out of their stories.  Here, there just isn't anything.  So while the story is interesting, it also starts to feel a bit flat.

Still, for the strong concept, good acting and clever plotting, I think it's worth a RENTAL.

HOMEFRONT (2013)

A action/thriller where the South is full of hillbillies and meth addicts/dealers.  Nice.  Directed by Gary Fleder.  Screenplay by  Sylvester Stallone, based on a book by Chuck Logan.  Movies stars: Jason Statham, James Franco, Winona Ryder, Kate Bosworth, Rachelle Lefevre, Frank Grillo, Clancy Brown, and Izabela Vidovic.

The story: an undercover DEA man moves to his wife's Southern, rural hometown with his daughter after his wife's death.  There he gets on the wrong side of a local meth dealer who sets out to get rid of him and his daughter.

Was it good?

Almost.  And what I mean by almost is there's a lot of good stuff here and it's worth watching, but it also gives hints of how good it really could have been, so while you are watching it the movie manages to be entertaining and disappointing at the same time.

The problem is the way pieces connect and grow.  For instance, I'm not real sure why Statham moves from the city to his wife's hometown.  His wife is dead, she doesn't seem to have any relatives there -- so why move there?  It's almost random.  Then once there, the build to his confrontation with Franco is all odd.  It starts with a confrontation between his daughter and a boy at school that somehow keeps building until it gets to Franco who happens to be a meth dealer.  Of course, his being a meth dealer doesn't really add to the direct conflict (even after Statham finds out he is a meth dealer he isn't trying to get him busted really).  Then Franco pulls in the drug dealers from the beginning of the film, but the father is in jail so it really is just random people that come down to kill Statham and his daughter.  There also is a side note between Statham and a school staffer his daughter likes, but that doesn't really add anything or go anything.  Eventually the conflict between the daughter and boy (and Statham and that family) seems to fall away for these random people from the drug lord. 

The story just lacks the clear focus that a good action movie needs, making it feel muddled and emotionally flat.  That said, there is a lot here that works.  Statham and Franco played their parts very well.  Statham is the stoic tough guy (as always), but seen as a father helps give him more than more of his action movies.  Franco as the meth dealer plays against the tough guy, he is more of a thinker, a plotter and schemer, and it makes the movie much more interesting. 

This is a good movie with some nice acting and pieces, but suffers from a muddled core and lack of compelling direct conflict between the two main characters.  An action movie with some heart (for Statham) and a smart villain (Franco) could have been intriguing.  This was entertaining, but didn't quite get to intriguing.

*** RENTAL ***

Watch also: DIE HARD (a classic), MOMENTO (Christopher Nolan's breakthru), BANK JOB (a very good Statham movie).

THE COUNSELOR (2013)

This is a thriller (supposedly) directed by  Ridley Scott, from an original screenplay by Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses, ).  It has an all-star cast with Michael Fassbender (lead), Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem, Penélope Cruz and Brad Pitt.

The story: A lawyer known only as "The Counselor" (Fessbender)gets involved in a drug deal with aruthless Mexican cartel, but when it goes bad the cartel come after him and everyone he loves.

Was it good?

No.  Why?  Because it was SOOOO BOOORING.  The entire first half of the movie is setting up The Counselor getting involved with the drug deal and it going wrong.  For the most part, it's just people sitting around talking in a strange, clipped way that I think is supposed to make them sound deep.  Maybe there's supposed to be a feeling of suspense, but it isn't there.  Also not there is motive.  No one seems to have a need for the money.  It's like all this is just a thing to do.  Also lacking is any real sense to the way The Counselor gets blamed for the deal going wrong.  It's just a strange coincidence.  Now coincidences happen and it can be okay for movies to turn on them, but you usually want them in the first quarter of the movie, not the second half.  From there, there's a feeling of inevitability as the cartel and other close in on The Counselor.  Now in all fairness, McCarthy's novels are incredibly praised in large part for the sort of "deep" sparceness he used in this film.  It just didn't work for me at all here.  It lacked tension, it lacked depth, it lacked emotion.  And the thing with Cameron Diaz uses the car windshield to masturbate herself was just dumb.

*** AVOID ***

See instead: GONE BABY GONE (Ben Affleck's directoral debut), EL MARIACHI (Robert Rodruigez's first feature length film), or RUN LOLA RUN.

OUT OF THE FURNACE (2013) *** AVOID ***

OUT OF THE FURNACE (2013)

A movie about brothers and revenge.  Directed by Scott Cooper (director of Crazy Heart, which won Jeff Bridges an Oscar) from a script he co-wrote.  Stars: Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson, Casey Affleck, Forest Whitaker, Willem Dafoe, Zoe Saldana, Sam Shepard.

The story: After getting out of jail, one brother (Bale) tries to look after his younger brother (Affleck) who is in debt and getting involved in an underground fighting ring run by violent drug dealers.  When the younger brother goes missing, the older brother goes to find out what happened...

Was it good?

No.  There's nothing wrong with the concept -- in fact, it sounded pretty cool to me when I first saw the previews for it.  However, this is not an intense thriller.  This is a slow, plodding, disconnected character piece with the trappings of a thriller.  There's never any mystery and there are no interesting twists and turns.  There really aren't any thrills -- what little conflict there is always has a feeling of a result that is inevitable.  Now that alone doesn't mean it is bad.  A slow character piece can still be fascinating, but there just isn't anything fascinating here.  There's no depth, no conflict.  It's a movie that seems to want to say something but ultimately seems to have nothing to say.

Now all this isn't to say the movie is all bad.  The performances by Bale and Harrelson are solid.  They just don't have much to do.  Bale plays the tough but caring big brother.  Harrelson plays the dangerous psycho.  That's it.  No exploration of character.  There's also a bunch of other elements that never really pay off -- Bale going to jail, Bale losing the woman he loves, Bale losing his father.  Maybe all that was supposed to push him to a point of desperation with his brother, but it seems like losing your brother is already enough to make you do anything to find him, so none of that really felt like it added anything.

In the end, while some of the performances were solid, there just wasn't enough here to overcome a sloppy, plodding screenplay and a lack of character depth or theme.

*** 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 ***

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 ***

I.C.U. (2009) (a review)

I.C.U. (2009) (a review)

A low budget horror movie from Austrailia. Well, not so much a horror movie as a direct rip off of DISTURBIA with all the good stuff taken out and replaced by bad dialog, bad acting and poor story construction.

The story: three teen visit their dad to bond except he gets called out (he's a cop). They sit around and begin spying on the neighbors. The girl goes for a swim. They sit around some more. There are clips of the city and of someone who is committing murders. Then, finally, the teens witness a man attacking a woman and now try to convince their father to help.

Was it good?

No. And even my description doesn't reveal how bad it was. LAME, LAME, LAME.

Look, I understand seeing a cool movie like DISTURBIA and wanting to do something like it. I can even understand seeing it and thinking you could do it better. But either way, you'd think you would either (a) copy all the cool stuff to make sure your movie is cool and/or (b) find cool things the other movie didn't do that would make your movie better.

Fail and fail.

There is one nice moment when the teens try to explain to the father what has happened and it becomes an argument about their relationship -- he has never been there for them and he doesn't believe them now (from the kids pov) vs he is trying to make up for it and so he will go investigate (father's pov). Unfortunately, those ideas come too little, too late and nothing is ever done with them later on. There are a couple lame plot twists and that's it.

I could go on -- there is the whole voyeur thing and they make a big deal of the apartment the kids are in having cameras, but except for allowing them to show PG shots of the girl changing into her swim suit, I don't see what they had to do with the story at all.

Just lame all around.

*** AVOID ***

PLAYING HOUSE (2011) (a review)

PLAYING HOUSE (2011) (a review)

A thriller by writer/dictor Tom Vaughn. This appears to be his directoral debut.

The story: newlyweds struggling with their mortgage ask a friend to move in and pay rent. He begins a romance with a woman who then sets her sights on his married best friend and the house.

Was it good?

No. There are some good parts and some good elements but there are a lot of things that sabotage the movie, and unfortunately for the actors two of the biggies are the writing and the editing, two things totally out of their control.

First, the writing. What a mess. The idea is basic enough, but they never get beyond it giving the movie a very cardboard-n0t-making-sense feel to it. The big motivation seems to be that the femme fatale wants a house (not a condo) and when she finds a guy who owns a house she is willing to kill for it. Really? She's never met a man who owns a house before? Is that really that hard to do? I could understand if it was the middle of Manhatten, but they are off in the suburbs -- everyone owns a house!

Now it would be more understandable if she fell in love with that specific guy or if they made it clear that she wanted that house and no other houses...but they don't. Also, if she's so coco for a house then why did she start dating the houseless friend in the first place?

Now, to give some credit, for a lot of the movie they make things interesting. The first half is less about house-crazy than about the relationship stuff. The friend seems to have a thing for the wife, the girl has a thing for the husband, the couple is fighting about stuff...will they won't they...there is a lot of entertainment to it. The problem is that many of those elements aren't well set up and there is almost no follow through for any of it, except for the girl wanting the husband, so you spend a lot of time bringing up questions (is the friend making a play for the wife, for instance) that just go nowhere and you realize were wastes of time.

Better (to me at least) would have been to pick exactly what the woman wants. Does she want that specific house? Does she want that specific husband? Maybe they both (the friend and the girl) want to switch (and go for the wife and the husband)? Either of those could have been a compelling movie if the story were really well structured around that concept. Instead we get bits and pieces of all three which are brought up and dropped at various places.

Of course, there are obvious comparisons to HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE and, unfortunately, this movie isn't in the same league. The story structure for that is head and shoulders above this one and one of the problems this movie has is that it feels like a poor man's rip off of a better movie. Just compare -- this movie has a woman who wants a man with a house and begins to seduce and kill for get him. HTRTC is about a woman whose husband commits suicide after being accused of sexually molesting a patient and then the women sets out to destroy the woman who made the accusation, taking away all the things she has lost -- her husband, her home, her baby.

The other thing that hurt the film was the editing. It was really bad. Where it's most noticable is in the arguement scenes. Normally a good editor will pre-roll or post-roll dialog to help tighten a scene and keep the tension up by eliminating a lot of the unnecessary pauses. This editor didn't do it. Because of it some of the scenes that are supposed to have the most tension become almost comic with these extra beats. It's may not seem like a huge thing (we're talking a fraction of a second), but in how a scene plays it ends up having a huge effect.

Still, for all the problems it wasn't a horrible film. If you feel like watching a poor-man's version of HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE, you could do worse. The real shame is that if they had just structured the movie better and gotten a better editor the movie might have been actually good instead of just not bad.

*** RENTAL ***

HANNA (2011) (a review)

HANNA (2011) (a review)

Hey, look, it's a teen girl assassin movie! Maybe I'm just sensitive about the subject because I have an idea for one that I haven't gotten a chance to write yet, but with Hanna and Hit-Girl from the movie KICK ASS it seems to be the current trend. Directed by acclaimed director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice, Atonement) with a script that landed on the Black List (a list of the best unproduced screenplays in America) not once but twice! Also stars Eric Bana and Cate Blanchet.

The story: Hanna is a teen girl who has been raised in complete isolation by her father who trains her to be a perfect fighter. However, she becomes bored of the isolation and wants to leave. To do that however will set the CIA operative who killed her mother and wants Hanna on her trail. Hanna does it anyway which sets a cat-and-mouse game to the powerful conclusion.

Was it good?

Kind of. I mean, it wasn't horrible and it had a lot of fun in it, but like with KICK ASS, it's one of those movies that you can't think about because none of it makes sense. At all. Really...at all.

And part of the diff with Hanna is that it seems to want to be about something, this idea of kids having to grow up and enter the world, but that metaphore (which I like) just doesn't work in the movie. Part of this is the central problem with the script -- things in a small scale might make sense, but then they don't. For instance, the female agent that wants to kill/capture them. Um, why? I get that she might want to finish the job when she killed the mom, but there really isn't anything behind it. If Hanna's desire to go into the world is a metaphore for kids wanting to grow up, then she is a metaphore for people that want to kill them? Or stop them from growing up...except that doesn't seem to be what she wants because she never mentions anything. She doesn't seem to want a relationship with the child or anything, it's just kill her.

Also, for a girl that wants to leave the weird life of isolation, the only other people she stumbles on are the strange kind of hippy people that she befriends for a short time. Again, it's not like she gets a shot at normal. So is it just that she wants adventure? Because that isn't the feel and the fact that *** SPOILER *** her father dies *** ----------- doesn't really make it seem worth it. In the end, she might have her freedom (unless the agency sends someone else after her now that she has killed a dozen operatives), but she is lost in a world totally strange to her, with no family, no friends...how the hell is that a good thing? What has she really won?

It reminded me of the end of FROM DUSK TIL DAWN when Clooney leaves the girl stranded there by the bar and she just has nothing. Um...yay?

That said, there is a lot of fun stuff in the movie, and as a mindless action movie it does a good job. But this is a movie that screams that it wants to be something more, and the something more just doesn't work.

Still, there's enough good stuff that if you are in the mood with an action movie with a European sensibilty (i.e. slower pacing, weird characters, some plotless mood segments) then it's a good one to check out.

**** RENTAL ****

BLOODED (2011) (a review)

This is a Scottish thriller. Never heard of any of the actors before, or the director. It's pretty good though and worth checking out. It's available on demand and on dvd. The offical website is here.

The story: a group of friends go to a remote cabin in the Scottish highlands. This is after fox hunting has been banned in Britian, but fox hunting continued as the police chose make the law a low priority. One person in the group is very vocal, public pro-fox hunting. After shooting and gutting a deer, the next morning they wake up stripped to their underwear and left on the moors in the cold where they are hunted by pro-animal extremists who force them to read an anti-hunting statement. However, all does not go as planned...

Was it good?

Yes.

I had never heard of this or any of the people in it so I had no idea what to expect. The movie does a lot of things very well that make it a film worth watching, but makes a few bad choices that prevent it from becoming a real classic.

*** SPOILERS -- there's no way to talk about the film without having some spoilers, but they are more general spoilers and fairly mild ****

First the good. The story takes it's time. It let's us get to know the characters and the situation. It starts talking about the banning of fox hunting and how polarizing that was. Then it focuses on the people. Two couples are in relationships. In one a man is preparing to propose to a woman. The other is a relationship just getting started, with a man bringing his American girlfriend out to Scotland for the first time. There is also an element with two brothers where one brother left for a long time, basically abandoning the other brother. All of this is well done. The writer finds interesting spaces for these relationships with lots of questions and lots of tension. Throughout the movie, there are clips to interviews with the characters where they can fill in some backstory about the people and places. It let's them give a lot of information quickly, so you feel like you get to know all the people fast and keeps the story moving. There is also a scene where the American woman shoots a deer and they later gut it. It is very disturbing and a nice prelude to what will happen when these people themselves are hunted.

The parts where the people are hunted have lots of tension and moves along. First they wake up with no idea what has happened, then the shooting begins. For the most part, they stick to a POV style, so we are in the situation with the characters which is effective. However, it is also here that the problems begin to appear.

The first problem is that the short interview segments continue. Now in the beginning, they were a nice way to quickly add information. Here, they keep pulling us out of the action and continually remind us that these people don't die. For a movie centered around people being hunted and shot at, to know none of them die takes a lot of the tension out of this section of the film.

The second problem is with what I call "the plan." Now most thrillers have two different plans -- there is the plan the bad guys have and the plan the good guys have to foil them. It's part of the fun of watching these sorts of movies. However, here, because the people-hunting-people are completely unknown we never get much sense of what their plan is. On the flip side, the people-being-hunted don't really ever get a plan either. Now this might work if the movie really stay in the POV of the characters (or better yet, one character) so it was a true man-in-the-trenches sort of feel, but they don't do that and with the constant cutting to the external interviews, it really cuts out a lot of the tension and makes you feel in places like you are just watching people run almost randomly, which isn't very exciting.

The third problem is the twist. Or rather lack of one. Anyone who reads a logline for the movie (hunters stripped almost-naked and then hunted) can guess most of the movie and it plays out according to form. What it needed was one good twist around 1/2-way or 3/4's in to shake things up. It wouldn't have to be a plot twist -- it could be something more emotional or perosonal. There is a shift when the people-being-hunted find a gun, but even that is pretty expected in this sort of movie. It's why movies like this need to have another element, usually something personal. THE DESCENT has the reveal that the woman's husband was having an affair, which puts a startling twist on the emotions of the film, since the movie revolved around the closeness of these women and how they had been affected since her husband's death. They do have a powerful emotional moment in the last quarter of the film, which would have made a powerful ending, but then the movie drags on another five minutes with boring post-interviews, making you feel more like you get to the end, rather than having that last rush of excitement that great movies have.

Even with those flaws, it's a well made movie and a good watch for people who like realistic thrillers.

*** RECOMMEND ****

CHOOSE (2009) (a review)

CHOOSE (2009) (a review)

A horror movie about starring Kevin Pollack (Money Drop, USUAL SUSPECTS) and Katheryn Winnick (that episode of HOUSE MD where he talks to the girl who was raped)

The story: a serial killer is running around forcing people to choose between two horrible decisions (like losing their face or their looks, killing their mom or their dad, etc). A journalism student and her police office father race to catch the killer.

Was it good?

No. But it wasn't bad. It was just so by-the-numbers. From the concept, which felt like SEVEN-lite, to the murders (which were kinda gross but not really twisted enough like in 7), to the characters, to the dialog, to the reveals at the end (oh my -- a personal connection -- I never would have expected that!) There isn't one single beat in the movie that feels new or original or interesting. You watch it and ask "What did the writer find fascinating? What was it that drew him to want to write this?" And honestly I have no idea. It's like a movie dreamed up by a producer slapping together elements form other hit movies he didn't personally like but that were successful so what the hell.

Also there are two completely useless scenes in the movie. One has the lead actress take a shower for no reason and the second has her taking a bath for no reason. Now, I'm not one to wet blanket some old fashioned gratuitous fun, but there isn't even any gratuity in the scenes, so why have the scenes there are all? I'm not sure I've ever heard of gratuitous non-nudity before but this film has it. If you aren't going to make the scenes useful (i.e. help the story) and if you aren't going to make the fun (whoo-hoo nakedness!) then just cut them entirely. It's called editing. When you use it, it can actually help your film.

And what was Kevin Pollack doing in this? Maybe it was before he got the gig for MONEY DROP, or he owed someone a favor? It's hard to imagine the guy in USUAL SUSPECTS making this because he loved the script.

Now, that's the bad, but there is good here. Namely, the actress Katheryn Winnick. How crap is she hot. I mean, just beautiful. I'd watch her in anything. In fact, I checked IMDB and she's been in a bunch so by next week this blog might be full of her movies. Unfortunately, the story an dialog don't let her do anything that really would qualify as "good acting" but there is something about that girl that is interesting on screen. I'd be nice to see her in a better role.

Also, while the story is very by-the-numbers, for the first half it's also doing the job and pretty entertaining. You have a killer running around and people trying to stop him. If it can work for every procedural on tv it can work here too.

It's in the second half, where they start to figure out who the killer is why he is doing it and the personal connection, etc, that the movie starts to feel move like a spoof and less like a thriller. I've never understood why people who make crime movies also want this personal connection. SEVEN didn't have one. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS didn't have one. It's like they need to have every single aspect of the movie tie together, but what they forget is that it just becomes too much.

Now this could have been saved if they started the movie more from the killer's point of view, so that you plant the idea that he was building this giant trap for the protags. Of course, this would lessen (negate) some of the mystery of who he is, but it would also make the ending not be cheesey and suck.

It's not all bad, but you can do better. Personally, I'd just watch eps of CRIMINAL MINDS or even NUMBERS again over this.

*** AVOID ***

THE DOOR (2009) (a review)

THE DOOR (DIE TUR) (2009) (a review)

A GREAT MOVIE!!! How is this not getting more attention? A Dutch/German film, a very cool little twisted thriller...one of the best movies twisted thrillers I've seen in a long time. With time time loop movies all the rage (ala SOURCE CODE with Jake Gyllenhaul which is coming out next year) this is a movie that does something a little different and does it in a very cool way

The story: DAVID is cheating on his wife, and while out getting some nookie his daughter falls into the pool and drowns. David is devestated. His wife leaves him. His life is in shambles. Then one night while wandering he finds a strange door. He walks through it and it is daylight. More thna that he has been transported to an alternate universe where it is five years earlier. Now he is able to save his daughter, but afterwards he is surprised by this world's version and David and he accidentally kills him. Now he has to cover up what he has done so he can stay in this world where his daughter is still alive and he is still with his wife. Except of course covering it up isn't easy, especially when his daughter is the one person to recognize that he is not in fact her actual father.

Was it good?

GREAT MOVIE! Not only is this a nice little twisted thriller, but this movie has what most thriller don't -- EMOTION. The scenes of the man losing his daughter are painful. Then when he is able to save her, and then that gets flipped around when he accidentally kills himself and then when his daughter knows he's not the real father and he has to explain what happened (without wanting to tell her the truth). AMAZING STUFF!

There are some other great twists that come about later. Not only does he have to cover up his crime and try to win over his daughter, but he has to break things off with his mistress without his wife realizing what is happening and then it turns out he isn't the only one able to use the door, which adds complication onto complication.

If I have any problems it's with the third act which gets a little too plot-y and goesa bit over the top and doesn't deliver the emotional punch that it should. Otherwise, this was a knick out film for me.

*** RECOMMEND (and then some!!!) ****

OXFORD MURDERS (a review)

OXFORD MURDERS (a review)

A detective/thriller starring Elijah Wood and John Hurt, based on the novel of the same name.

The story: a man goes to Oxford to study under a famed mathmatician. The mathmetician humiliates him, but as the boy is getting ready to leave he and the mathmatician come across the body of a murdered woman with a note, a mathematical symbol. She is the first in a series of murders and the pair must try to find the murderer before his final murder.

Was it good?

No. The problem isn't that the movie is especially bad, it's just there isn't anything great in it. The characters aren't particularly interesting, there isn't a great emotional componant to it (like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS) did, the actual mystery doesn't have any cool aspect (like SEVEN did), and the ending and reveal just wasn't anything special. There are SOOOOO many detective shows on tv, and this really didn't have anything to separate it from any of them. In fact, a lot of tv shows are better put together and more interesting. Maybe there could have been something interesting here, but they just didn't find it.

*** AVOID ***

AND SOON THE DARKNESS (2010) (a review)

AND SOON THE DARKNESS (2010) (a review)

A remake of a British thriller. Stars Amber Heard and Odette Yusman.

The story: two girls traveling in Mexico by themselves, one a party girl and one the responsible one, have a fight and split up. When the party girl doesn't show up at the rondesvou spot, the party girl tries to find her. The police won't help. A man who is looking for his missing sister helps her, but when they are able to finally find the girl it only makes all three of them targets by the kidnappers.

Was it good?

No. God, no. It was horrible. In fact it was worse than horrible -- IT WAS BORING. I mean, seriously, shouldn't the one basic rule of filmmaking be, especially when you are making a thriller, that you can't make it BORING???

The story has all the elements of a fun thriller -- two beautiful girls (and yes, Heart and Yustman are gorgeous), an exotic locale, the conflict between the nice girl and the party girl, then the drama of the one girl going missing, etc. All the beats are there...but it's just so BORING. It would be easy to blame the director (and yes, the directing is lame), but the bigger problem is the story itself. Stories need to give the audience the feeling like they are going for something, that they are pushing the edge at least a little bit. It doesn't matter if you are making a comedy, a horror movie, or a thriller -- you need to know what is it that you are pushing. Maybe it's something abou the characters, maybe it's something about the threat, maybe it's something else, but you always need that "go for it" feeling. Usually you can tell what it is because it shows that that's what the filmmaker was most fascinated by. This movie, however, has nothing. It doesn't seem to be interested in these two girls, not for their relationship, not for any internal drama, not even as eye candy. It doesn't seem fascinated with the locale. it doesn't seem fascinated by the drama of the girl going missing and the one girl being left alone with no help to find her friend. It doesn't feel fascinated by the bad guys. It doesn't seem fascinated by any moral or thematic statement.

It's just all kind of there. Which makes it all boring.

And all of that is ignoring all the ridiculous elements in the movie. Like the fact that she just seems to randomly walk around and stumble on her missing friend with no detective work at all. Just walk around in a strange country, look through some rubble, and you'll find a kidnapper within 24 hours. I can't express how stupid that was.

So a message to all filmmakers -- find something in your project that fascinates you and GO FOR IT. Maybe then you won't make soething as boring as this movie.

*** AVOID ***

EXAM (2009) (a review)

EXAM (2009) (a review)

An interesting thriller/drama.

The story: six people are put into a room as the last stage of a competition for an ultimate job. They are given a piece of paper that they cannot mark and they cannot talk to the guards or address the cameras before time is up. There is one question and one answer. They need to figure out what the question is and give the answer to get the ultimate job.

Was it good?

A was good. Not great, though. The first half the mystery of what the heck is going on is pretty interesting. At first the people decide to work together. This feeling out process is probably the most interesting for me. There were also hints brought up here about an infection and the type of company they were trying to get a job with that added an interesting element. After that they begin trying different things, all of which seem strange and outlandish (smashing lights, setting off a water sprinkler). The logic that they were using certainly wasn't any sort of logic I was familiar with. And while there had been those earlier hints of the corporation this job was for, nothing really more came out of it. The second half gets more tense as the people turn on each other, but it felt less interesting and more a generic "Only one gets out alive" thriller.

Still, while it wasn't great and it faded in the second half, there was a lot of interesting stuff here, and it was very well acted for a small movie.

*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND ***

DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED (a review)

DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED (a review)

A Brittish thriller starring Gemma Arterton (Prince of Persia, James Bond: Quantum of Solace, Clash of the Titans, Men in Black 3).

The story? A contained thriller about two guys who kidnap a young woman and hold her hostage, but things become more complicated when one of the kidnappers knows the girls and plans to backstab his partner...or does he?

Was it good?

No.

This is one of those contained thrillers with plot twists that aren't really that interesting and then a lot of running around when everything starts to fall apart. The biggest problem is that I just didn't like any of the characters and didn't really care if they succeeded or failed. Unlike RESERVOIR DOGS or SHALLOW GRAVE, there was just nothing interesting going on. And while those movies rely on people in difficult circumstances becoming mean and nasty in scary ways, this movie is more about how all these guys are really pussies.

Here's a shocking idea -- if you are making a thriller, then make at least one character be an evil bastard willing to do nasty things. Otherwise your thriller will be as lame as this one.

*** AVOID ***

HORSEMEN (a review)

HORSEMEN (a review)

A mystery/thriller starring Dennis Quaid.

The story: a detective who has become distant from his sons following the death of his wife struggle to reconnect to them while getting pulled into a series of murders by a group inspired by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Was it good?

It was okay. If you want a mystery/thrill then this one is good enough to watch. If you just want something really cool, then this doesn't make the cut. The problem ultimately is the interweaving of the two stories -- Quaid trying to reconnect with his sons and the Four Hoursemen, which plays out predictably and doesn't have the depth of feeling that it should have. Still, I'm a big Dennis Quaid fan and this movie is good enough that if you are a fan of Quiad you should check it out.

*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND (for mystery/thriller fans) ***

ALTITUDE (2010) (a review)

ALTITUDE (2010) (a review)

A tight little thriller with a supernatural twist. These are some of my favorite types of movies if they are done well, but that means the supernatural element should be cool and the explanation for it all needs to be really cool. So how did this one do?

The story: a girl who has just gotten her pilots liscence takes her friends up in a plane when something goes wrong and the plane won't stop climbing and become lost in a large cloud formation where they are attacked by a strange creature.

Was it good?

Almost. I mean, for the first hour it was good...almost really good...but then it fell apart.

So what worked? The basic idea of these kids being caught on this plane that has this malfunction forcing it to keep climbing was cool and then they start piling on the problems -- the instruments are malfunctioning, they can't reach anyone on the radio, they fly into a giant storm cloud...and then they start heaing/seeing a strange creature.

Hell yes! All that worked and I thought this was going to be my sleeper movie of the year. And then...

Well, first, things started to get TOO outrageous. The supernatural creature is this giant monster that just felt impossible. It isn't like that Twilight Zone episode where it's this gremlin -- this is a giant monster. In some ways it was cool, but it was definitely too much. But ti still might have been okay...until they explained it all.

*** SPOILERS ***
So apparently, all this is because this kid is reading a comic book and he gets scared on planes and has this supernaturla power that whatever he sees when he gets scared manifests in real life. Not only that, but it turns out it has happened before on the plane crash that killed the girl's mother. But I guess he only gets scared while flying because it apparently has never happened any other time. Oh, and then it turns out he can control it sort of and even cause them to travel in time somehow.

Yeah, it just doesn't make any sense. It's one of those WTF endings that I assume was inspired by bad episodes of LOST or something, because it just becomes a giant steaming pile. If they had come up with something better than psychic comic book scaredy cat guy (like just making them real monsters or aliens or something) then it could have been really cool. It could have been this year's DESCENT (the first one, not the sequel). But no, they flubbed the ending and the whole movie fell apart. I went from ready to e-mail my friends and family to, well, writing this review.

It's a shame because it was close to being good. Really good. The other thing they needed to fix was the characters. Compare this story to THE DESCENT -- there they have likable characters and some real emotional stakes (one girl lost her husband and is trying to become sane, the others lost their group and are trying to get back together), and here there are no emotional stakes. It almost forces the filmmakers to come up with that BS ending because there's no other way to get any sort of emotion to the ending at all. Which isn't an excuse for the ending -- there's NO excuse for that ending -- but it shows what happens when you write yourself into a corner.

**** AVOID ***

MONKEY PUZZLE (2008)

MONKEY PUZZLE (2008)

Another movie about people who get lost in the woods. Seriously, with all these movies why would anyone leave the city. Has anyone ever gone out into the woods and come back alive?

The story: people go out into the woods and have to die

Was it good?

No. It was pretty boring, especially since I've seen about a hundred of these freaking movies in the last month. Bad things happen in the cities too, people! The idea for them going out in the woods is to find this rare tree that means a lot and while out they get lost and hurt and turn on each other...it's all standard stuff. It wasn't that it was bad, but I just felt like I had seen it all before. It's like a boring version of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT with better camera work, which oddly enough made it even more boring.

NOT RECOMMENDED