EXPLODING GIRL (2010)

THE EXPLODING GIRL (2010)

A movie I watched just because of the title. It is a misleading title. It, in fact, it a very, very, very quiet character film. Which isn't to say there isn't some good things about it, but unless you are multitasking it is going to be very, VERY slow.

The story? Ummm...I'm not sure there is one. There is this girl and then her boyfriend breaks up with her and there's this other guy who kind of likes her...that's it.

Was it good?

Look, with these sorts of plotless character films it comes down to a couple things: (1) is what the characters going through emotionally that gets to you and (2) is the acting/writing/directing good enough to make it feel real. Now, for me there just wasn't enough that the characters were going through. Yes, this girl gets dumped and I can relate to that (too well) and the other guy liking her I can relate to also, but it needed a lot more. That would be the first fifteen minutes of a normal movie and here it's the whole film. And, while the acting was good and the lead, Zoe Kazan, had a nice quality to her, the writing and directing didn't really add anything.

In the end it had a few nice moments, but overall was just too empty for me.

NOT RECOMMENDED

STUDY HELL (2006)

STUDY HELL (2006)

Did you watch BREAKFAST CLUB and think "This would make for a great horror movie? That teacher guy could just go nuts and try to kill them all?" Well, apparently the makers of this movie did.

The story: a bunch of kids are sent to detention where they are hunted and killed by the psycho teacher who is supposed to be watching them.

Was it good?

Not really. But it wasn't all bad either. IMDB has it as a 2.9 out of 10 and it's better than that. The bad is the fact that it is just a lowest of the low budget movie. Just visually, it looks bad. And the writing and acting don't do anything to elevate it. They aren't the worst of the worst, but there's nothing good there to really catch on. And for some reason the kids are cast with people who look thirty five. It is the most unbelievable cast of high school students since the 10th year of Beverly Hills 90210 when those kids were somehow STILL in high school.

So what made it better-than-dreck? The story. Specifically, the writer was smart and didn't just keep the concept of Breakfast Club, but kept some of the structure, so you get these different kids with different backgrounds and you have moments where they come together. Granted it was all basically just lifted from the original, but so many horror movies don't have anything other than the-thing-that-kills that for me it put this one just a bit ahead of the pack. There still wasn't enough to recommend it (nothing original at least), but it made the movie better than a 2.9.

NOT RECOMMENDED

The Mist (2007) by Frank Darabont

The Mist (2007) by Frank Darabont

This is the 2007 adaptation of a Stephen King novela by Frank Darabont, who has turned adapting Stephen King stories into a full career. Considering how bad Stephen King movies are when King adapts the material himself, maybe he is just out to prove that it can be done well.

The story: a group of people find themselves trapped in a grocery store by a strange mist that seems to have creatures inside it that are killing people.

So was it good? Um...kind of.

The story is more character based, focusing on the small town people and how they react to the strange mist. It seemed early on that it was an alagory for how people deal might a terrorist attack -- the uncertainty, the turning on each other, etc. This part was boring. We've seen a lot of it before and there just isn't anything new here. The doubt, then a monster shows up but only a couple people see it so most people still don't believe, etc. Eventually we get more monsters, which is okay, but doesn't really elevate this much. In fact, a lot of it felt closer to an EVIL DEAD movie than a Darabont film.

Still, for the most part it was enjoyable, but for some reason Darabont chose to have a dark ending. Like really dark. Depressing even to me. I don't know why. The main part of the story didn't feel like it was driving to such a hopeless ending. I think Darabont could have done better by watching the EVIL DEAD movies a few times more. The movie could have been a lot better if it were pushed in that direction.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (a review)

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (a review)

Is this a sequel to the Harvey Keitel movie Bad Leautenant, or just a similar sounding movie with a drug addicted cop? Either way it was wacked out. Starring Nick Cage and Eva Mendes.

The story: a drug addicted cop gets into crazy trouble and has to do lots of bad stuff to get himself out of it and there's a kid who is a witness and...I don't know.

Was it good?

No.

(more coming)

*** AVOID ***

THE BREED (a review)

THE BREED (a review)

Produced by Wes Craven, starring Michelle Rodriguez and a guy from . This has to be one of the worst directed movies with professional actors I've ever seen. They should do a double feature with this and PREY...it would be painful and hilarious.

The story: a group of frinds go to an island for a vacation when they are attacked by very intelligent dogs.

Was it good?

No. I mean...NO. This was amazingly bad. This movie was a tie with PREY for lamest horror movie I've seen of the year, which is saying something because Pray sucked and this movie had a couple girls in bikinis. But seriously this was bad and easily the worst directed movie I've seen in a long time.

So why was the directing so bad? Well, sure the attack sequences were lame but I don't blame him for that. Dogs trying to be vicious and actors that you don't want to actually get hurt...it can be tricky...but it's the other stuff -- the build into the attacks and the character moments -- that he has no excuse for not getting right. Now a quick check at IMDB shows this guy has done a lot of 2nd D work for movies, which means a lot of the action shots without real actors and cutaway stuff, so he should know a lot of the process, but apparently hasn't picked up much of the other stuff -- getting the emotion of the scene and coming up with interesting camera angles so everything isn't the most boring shot ever.

There are some other problems, mainly with the dogs. If it's a horror movies about people being attacked by dogs then at some point the dogs are going to have to be scary and these dogs never are. Just...never. They just look like dogs. And I'm not saying that being attacked by a normal dog wuldn't be scary -- it can be really scary -- but that never quite comes across. And a director in a dog-horror movie that can't make the dogs feel scary...yikes! He wasn't helped by the script, which hit the major beats it needed but had a lot of stupid stuff in it that didn't come together. Like the dogs sometimes are incredibly smart and work together and sometimes they aren't. A good example is in the middle of the film the dogs chew through a rope so that the people's plane will drift away, but later they leave a boat tied up that the people can easily get to. Other stuff, like sometimes they break through walls and windows and other times they just aren't around. Why? Because it works for the plot, but it doesn't build the animals consistantly as a threat in any way.

It's late so I won't go on.

But it was LAME.

*** AVOID ***

ZOMBIE DIARIES (a review)

ZOMBIE DIARIES (a review)

An indy British horror film about people trying to survive in the countryside when a zombie outbreak occurs in England.

The story:

Was it good?

It was okay. The beginning is good. A film crew going after a news piece goes to the country to interview some guy and it turns out the town is deserted, the guy is dead and there are zombies. They learn London is quarantined and they are stuck. This begins the problem of survival, but it's here that the story loses focus and energy and just wanders along. I got bored. Eventually they run into a couple of unaffected psychopaths, but by then I wasn't paying attention.

It wasn't as horrible as a lot of these low budget films, but it didn't keep my interest.

*** AVOID ***

MARIE ANTIONETTE (a review)

MARIE ANTIONETTE (a review)

Sophia Bush's follow-up to the acclaimed LOST IN TRANSLATION.

The story: a fictional biography of Marie Antionette, who became queen of France but as France became broke the peasants rebeled and throw out the ruling class.

Was it good?

It was okay. The biggest problem is that it felt totally directionless. The beginning is interesting. Marie was in the Austrian royal family and married off to a prince of France. She leaves everything she knows and is thrust into a family and royal court that she neither likes nor understands. Lots of awkward. To make matters worse her husband seems to have no sexual interest in her and she feels pressure from her family and the France family to produce an heir...even though her husband doesn't want to do her. Then the king dies and she and her husband become king and queen. And she finally has a child, but it is a girl. That's when things wander...she begins to exert herself a bit more, breaking classic royal traditions to form her own life, but there isn't much point to it. She has an affair, but that doesn't seem a big deal. Like I said it just kind of wanders. There's no real spine or drama going on. Then the peasants rebel and her family runs. The end.

Now, it's not like it was horrible. There are nice moments and it looks good and the idea of Jason Schwartzman as the prince/king is pretty funny, but it never really seems to deal with anything. The idea that these two people are overwhelmed by the responsisiblities of king-ness is fine, but it doesn't really get into that. It's just mentioned in a casual scene here and there.

So it was kind of okay, but not really good.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED ***