Reviews

What's so bad about "The Collector"? I mean come on! The premise is intriguing and ostensibly viable: Arkin, an ex-convict trying to get back on the straight and narrow, works as a handyman for the lovable Chase family. When he his wife reveals that she needs money to pay off some loan sharks. Arkin is forced to rob the Chases to get the money. Just one problem. The Chases are a bit busy being tortured to death by a psycho in their home, which has been booby trapped with a squirm-inducing variety of death traps.

Sounds awesome! Even the acting is generally great! Josh Stewart is sympathetic and believable as Arkin, and young Karley Collins does a great job as Hannah.

The death traps and kills are interesting and complex, making even the most gruesome dispatching a joy to watch.

Brandon Cox's cinematography is masterful, giving the film a shimmering, modern look, deftly evoking tension from scene to scene (if somewhat heavy on visual stereotypes.) Hell, even director Marcus Dunstan shows he knows what he's doing. He builds tension for a painfully long time before ever triggering the first horrible booby trap.

"The Collector" is sick, slick, and pretty to look at! So...what's wrong with it? Well for starters the story stops making sense after the first 30 minutes. I wish I could rattle off a list of the ridiculous leaps of logic and poorly thought out plot points, but it would give too much away.

Trust me, by the end of the movie the characters will be behaving so nonsensically you'll wonder if you're really watching a Saturday morning cartoon.

You can have all the fancy cinematography and special effects in the world, but it doesn't make a good movie. It's pretty hard to f*ck up a good screenplay and make a bad movie. But it's impossible to make a good movie out of a terrible screenplay.

3 out of 10 for being an insipid piece of torture porn.

"God Bless America" is a blatant ripoff of "Super", borrowing everything from the plot progression, character personalities, even the protagonist's name(!), Frank, from James Gunn's film. "God Bless America" is entertaining only in the sense that its version of Frank does what we all wish we could do.

After being rejected by his ex-wife and bratty daughter, getting fired from his job, and discovering a life-shattering news from his doctor, Frank decides to go out in a blaze of glory by busting a cap in every symbol of mediocrity and bigoted ignorance in the media he can find.

You know the types. Those brats on "My Super Sweet 16" or whatever the show is called. Bill O'Reily. Shawn Hannity. The asinine producers of American Idol who intentionally allow poor singers to go before the judges to boost laughs and ratings. Every scumbag that's dragging this nation down and deserves a mouthful of boomstick.

I love this premise because it's very empowering to know that we as Americans don't have to sit back and take it.

And Frank would be an interesting, lovable character, except he feels the need to slip in preachy soliloquies every 10 minutes. At one point he even looks dead into the camera and starts preaching to the audience. This would have been mitigated by greater shot variety and a little camera movement. A speech sounds less boring when the camera slowly dollies in on the speaker.

We GET IT. American culture has fallen victim to cruelty and mediocrity, and we are sheep, eagerly grazing on the filth of the mainstream media. WE GET IT.

It's a little unfair to call Tara Lynne Barr's performance as Roxy is wooden, considering what she had to work with. Her character's homicidal tendencies aren't extreme enough to protect her motives from scrutiny, or to even illicit laughs. As a result her actions are nonsensical; and woefully overshadowed by Elene Paige's performance as Bolty in "Super." Perhaps if more time had been spent examining Roxy's supposedly apathetic parents and her lackluster home life, then director Goldthwait might have developed a fascinating character: a girl who uses violent fantasies as a means of escape, after being ignored and diminished by everyone around her.

Don't get curious, please, because it's NOT in the movie.

3 out of 10 for being frustratingly preachy, and a blatant knockoff of the film "Super." Go watch that movie instead. It's racist, but much funnier and features greater acting and abandon.

The series follows Casshern in his journey to find himself and combat the Ruin, a devastation that causes his fellow robots to rust and die. An immortal killing machine, Casshern must watch everyone around him fade away. The Ruin began with the death of Luna; and rumor has it she was murdered by Casshern himself.

It's a very nice setup with strong philosophical questions. I feel, however, that the series doesn't dive deep enough into the issue of immortality vs. death. It doesn't matter though because the stylized visuals, excellent voice acting, and ferocious action keep the audience entertained. Think about the series' plot and philosophical conclusions too long, however, and you'll be disappointed.

I can't reveal anything, but let me say that after watching the whole series....it makes no sense. The plot has several glaring holes in it. It wouldn't be so bad, except character's actions and motivations HING on these plot holes. So their actions end up not making any sense either. The series concludes with nonsensical violence and philosophical posturing. Do any of these characters understand what's going on, or why they have to accomplish their strange goals? Do they even know what those goals are??

There's a strong theme of madness and desperation in the face of eternal death, but it's nothing anime viewers haven't witnessed (and better done) before. The ending is such a let down, and the main characters' motivations so nonsensical that the slow build up to the final climax hardly seems worth it. Don't get me wrong, there are genuinely insightful moments here and there. Opening sequences before the song and titles are helpful to fill in the mysterious back story, creating tension.

But the series ending? Sorry, such nonsensical rubbish is a Sin (ho-ho! zinger!) 4 out of 10 for wasting my time.

I went into the Savannah Film Festival screening of this film not really expecting much. Of all the movies I saw at the film festival, this one resonated with me the most, and came closest to my heart.

Sam Levinson has woven a dark dramedy of epic proportions as Lynn (Oscar-worthy performance by Ellen Barkin) drives her two sons to her mother's house for the eldest son's wedding. Through it all the audience witnesses the public and private meltdowns and sentimentality's of this flawed, and deeply human family.

From Lynn's confrontation of her divorcé husband (Thomas Haden Church), to her drug-addled, caustic-mouthed son Elliot's (genius performance from Ezra Miller) flirtation with grandpa's meds, to catty quips from Lynn's sisters, past trauma, guilt, and resentment flow onto the screen. What rises from this fertile emotional landscape are frightening moments, and hysterically funny scenes. For the audience it's an event, but Lynn and her boys it's just 'Another Happy Day.'

Humor is the pallet cleanser for this hearty cinematic meal. The viewer fears for Elliot's life after he nearly OD's on the bathroom floor; then breaks into hysterics as Elliot tries to hide his blue lips with mom's rouge, the following morning. It's all so funny, and so smart. You will be cry as much from laughing as you will from the sorrowful scenes.

Performances cut deep with their stark realism. From Ellen Barkin's Lynn, Ezra Miller's Elliot, Ellen Burstyn's Doris, down to 14 year old Daniel Yelsky's Ben - someone is going to get an Oscar nomination here. And if not, then the critics aren't ready for Levinson's dark blend of laughs and tears.

Highly recommended: 9 out of 10.

Some stories don't translate to modernity completely, and Coriolanus is a sad example. This is not a movie for the common person, and would really only appeal to die hard Shakespeare fans. Director Ralph Finnes attempts to place the story of Coriolanus in the modern setting of contemporary Rome. So instead of chivalrous sword play, the actors duke it out with tanks and AK-47's. This is intercut with quiet segments bogged down by copious stilted dialogue in a thick Elizabethan voice. What results is a loud, incomprehensible mess that is physically and intellectually difficult to digest, and wholly unbelievable, given its modern setting.

Other filmmakers attempt to snap audiences out of a passive receptive mode of viewing by using unusual visual devices or atypical storytelling. A voice de-synched from the speaker, surrealist imagery, non-linear story lines; these distance the audience while simultaneously encouraging them to actively analyze the film. Coriolanus' is a one trick pony that relies on Shakespeare's eloquence to get it through.

Doesn't work, sorry. Because of the language, none of the characters has any distinct voice or characterization. If everyone wore a mask, you wouldn't be able to tell one character from another. It's unclear why the central event happens, and characters, lacking a rational modern motivation, end up as caricatures.

Performances by Vanessa Redgrave and Brian Cox stand out convincingly. You can't tell what they're saying, but conviction reads intelligibly enough on their faces.

It's freaking war - why don't they just shoot each other, instead of fighting with knives?? Sexual tension, intended or not, comes through quite thick; not that I complain. Enemies suddenly become friends for no apparent reason and vice versa. It works on the stage, but on the big screen it doesn't translate.

Unless you read the play you won't understand a darn thing; 5 out of 10. Screened at the Savannah Film Festival.

La Casa Muda is a gimmicky, uninteresting, and overall derivative entry into the horror genre. To dispense with all the hype over the single-shot claim, I'll address that first.

This film is obviously NOT shot in a single take, as the filmmakers claim. There are several (at least four) times where the camera wanders into a pitch black area, holds still, or goes out of focus just enough for them to cut on. There's also an interesting scare mechanic at the film's midpoint, which is obviously cut together. Also I've read reports that other films have actually done first. Sorry to disappoint you.

The plot of Silent House is paper thin and easy ascertainable. I want to spoil the ridiculously simplistic ending, but I actually don't have to. You'll figure it out on your own in the first ten minutes.

I will say that Silent House makes an achievement in terms of mood and lighting. The movie grabs your attention in a few segments; but during the down town the viewer is left checking their watch. Not a whole lot happens. There are blurs in the background, creepy music, and bumps in the night galore. But all in all Silent House is fairly underwhelming. The scariest part of the movie is also its single most creative moment. You'll wake up from your daze wondering why the whole movie can't be this horrifying.

Check it out if you're curious. But if you want real atmosphere, scares with depth, and a plot that keeps you in the dark at least for half the movie, then watch Insidious instead. The house goes silent at 4 out of 10.

Super is...well, super! It is a fantastic new entry into the subgenre of "unqualified super heroes" popularized by movies like Special and KickAss. In fact, Super takes a lot of inspiration from KickAss - with its over the top gore and comic violence - while at the same time drawing the viewer in with new ideas about what it means to be a "super hero." In this case, Super probes deeper than KickAss into the question "What kind of person would actually become a super hero?"

Rainn Wilson plays Frank, an awkward, homely looking fry cook who married an extremely hot wife. Oh wait...his wife, a recovering drug addict, has been seduced by a drug dealing crime boss! After a bizarre vision, Frank dons a red costume and begins calling himself the Crimson Bolt! It's time to SHUT UP, Crime!

Wilson (who could very aptly voice Batman if he wanted) is marvelous as Frank. He shows the capacity and timing to dive in and out of side-splitting deadpan humor and heart-wrenching seriousness, almost as if he had a cinematic grappling hook. Puns aside, Wilson is amazing and shows his dramatic range. He is officially one of my favorite actors now.

Meanwhile Liv Tyler is non-annoying in her role as perpetually comatose Sarah, Frank's wife.

Elene Paige is captivating as Crimson Bolt's psychotic side-kick, Boltie. Her slow descent into insanity is believable and disturbing.

There's a lot more to Super than first meets the eye. You may have to watch it more than once appreciate its meditations on obsession, morality, and comic book violence. As good at the movie is though, it is marred by some unfortunate directorial decisions in characters and casting. I would have given Super a 7 out of 10, but for the incessant racism.

Nearly all the criminals are people of color. Kevin Bacon, along his high-ranking thugs, are, of course, white. And there are some petty street criminals who are white. I don't have a problem with blacks being shown as criminals, because crime is prevalent in poorer black communities. What I have a problem with is the refusal to show any positive examples of blacks, save for Frank's fellow fry cooks and a couple students during the ending sequence.

There's even a scene where a black male attempts to rape a white female. The white thugs look at each other gravely, remorsefully, as they allow it to happen...the same thugs who peddle drugs, kill cops in cold blood, and gleefully shoot heroine into Liv Taylor's foot, already dangerously close to OD'ing. The thought of a black male having sex with a white female somehow causes them to grow a conscience??

Birth of a Nation, anyone?

Super is an incredibly deep cinematic ride. I dare say it is more arresting than even KickAss. But at least KickAss had the balls to remove the prejudice against blacks apparent in its source text, creating a more positive film. I give Super a 4 out of 10.

Bottom line: Surrogates is a film with an interesting premise but poor execution. In the near future, almost all humans live vicariously through robotic "surrogates" that they control with their mind. People never physically leave their homes. Surrogate bodies are designed to be faster, stronger, and more physically attractive that the user's real body.

An obviously analogy exists with the internet, where human interaction has increasingly become facilitated by machines. Just like with the internet, surrogate users can be anyone they desire; their robot's appearance is custom designed to their specifications.

These ideas alone are enough to get the philosophical wheels turning. Especially when Bruce Willis' character Tom Greer steps out of his home for the first time in years, and begins to grapple with how surrogates alienate humans from one another. Unfortunately, this premise survives so well on its own that it drifts beyond Surrogates' jarring, action-filled plot. This movie is it own "surrogate" if you will.

Plot elements generally seem poorly thought out and conceived. The audience is asked to believe the entire world is somehow able to: legalize and mass-produce surrogates at an affordable price (remember that 80% of the world's population could considered to live in poverty), while popularizing them and otherwise render their use socially acceptable.....in about 15-20 years.

The result of these gaping plot holes is a colossal amount of camp. High quality CGI camp at that. Actually, CGI quality is toned down on the faces of some surrogates to emphasize their inhumanity. Theses special effects seem dated however, so I'm not sure it's an equitable trade.

Except for Willis and Rosamund Pike, who plays Greer's wife Maggie, the acting is fairly vapid. Not that this detracts much, as the film is carried primarily by its premise and Sci-fi action. If you can stomach Surrogate's lack of thought and suspend disbelief, then the thrills and action will take you to a....lack-luster and poorly thought out finale. But man, what a ride. I give Surrogates a 5 out of 10.

The 2008 horror film "Sight" can only be called a diamond in the rough. It's production values are humble, but the director, write, and actors all come through to deliver a surprising creepy and deeply dark tale.

The story centers around Jeffery, a quiet, introverted man who just so happens to be able to see the dead. A movie that never pulls punches, "Sight" opens up with a tableau of Jeffery's childhood and the abuse he suffers from his father. The acting and storytelling skill of this scene alone is enough to understand why Lionsgate would have produced such a low-budget film. From there the story transitions into Jeffery's adult life where he encounters the mysterious Dana, a woman sets off a chain of events that spiral our hero into a world of darkness. I won't give too much away, except to say that once you look past the image quality of the film, the story will make it impossible to stop watching until the end.

This brings us to the one bad aspect of the film: the low-budget appearance. You can tell they didn't have a lot to work with; but what they did have, they used remarkably well. The blood and gore look creepier and more realistic than in "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" - I kid you not. The lighting in "Sight" is both a blessing and curse. At times it gives the film an impressionistic feel, but at other points you're straining your eyes just to see what's going on. The movie is just SO dark at some parts, but too bright and blurry at other parts. The film quality they were using really shows, and it's sad.

What isn't anything to worry about is the acting. I found Clayton Haske (Jeffery) and Tony Luke (Paul) totally believable. Allison Persaud seemed a little amateurish, but more experience she is really going to do great.

All in all this is a movie that came out of nowhere to be something truly dark and scary. Schizophrenic shots, sadistic nightmare sequences, impressionistic lighting, gory visual effects and LOADS of blood, hair-raising sound effects and a score that will remind you of the Silent Hill games. It all comes together for a stunning American ghost story with a pitch black ending. With all the remakes that studios have been doing recently, I feel this one should near the top of the list. Regrettably, the gritty and dark storyline may be too much for some. But horror fans will definitely like this. Look out for writer/director Adam Ahlbrandt, he's truly talented.

This is one of those films that is both a staple of the genre and a definitive addition to it. This is one of the best films that I've ever seen--and trust me, I have seen a LOT of horror movies, good and bad.

If you want, you can read my quick summary of the film's points, or go on to read my extended review, where I elaborate in depth.

The Short of It: "Dead End" is simply one of the best horror films ever produced, because of its use ingenuous use of humor, unforgettable characters, terrifying storyline and concept, and its overall high entertainment value--all of which more than make up for the odd musical score in the film's preamble.

Extended Review: STORY/PLOT: This is a movie that really impressed me beyond all expectations. Let's start with the story. The premise is creepy, yet ostensibly makes no sense until the very end. Simply put, the Harringtons are trapped on a roar that never ends; and every time they stop the car, one of them dies. As a writing major in college, I study how to create effective plot lines and orchestrate effective characterization. And I think this the concept itself was very well thought out. I can't go too much into this without giving away the story, but suffice to say that the ending of the movie is very clever! We are drawn into the lives of the Harrington family through their arguments and quibbles throughout their horrifying trip. The viewer finds it hard not to care about them and becomes drawn to them more when their secrets are divulged one by one.

Each of them seems to have something that they want to hide from the rest of their family.It's almost as if they are running from something. And in their mind, if they ever stop to confront the truth, something terrible will happen. This family dynamic is symbolized brilliantly by their ordeal on the road--a haunted road that goes on forever.

Let me say again that the ending is clever and satisfying. By that point, no matter how messed up things get, the viewer feels sad for the characters and wants to see some light at the end of the tunnel. "Dead End" delivers.

LAUGHS: It's hilarious. Some points in the film make you wonder whether it's okay to laugh or not--but it's SO D*MN funny! The younger brother who sits in the back seat has his share of garden variety quips; and the Mother and Father argue back and forth frequently, constantly delivering well written dialog. But also there's a lot of black humor used as well. After the first two deaths, the Mother starts to lose her mind and draws a (badly drawn) illustration of one of the bodies, to which her daughter replies, "...Thanks mom.", or something to that effect. There's also a point where the Father gets shot--one of the more dramatic scenes in the film. The next thing we know, the Father is on the ground screaming, "I can't believe that b*tch SHOT me in the leg!" SCARES: Dead End is a very gritty, gory film to say the least, but its scares don't rely on the gore. Nor does it resort to the cheap pop-out/boo scares that are over used in horror movies today. The fear in Dead End is ambient. It's on the roar itself, in the car WITH the family--sitting right next to them--, and in the empty woods lining the vacant road. Several scenes are particularly disturbing and frightening, such as the death scene of the Mother. What's more, the dead bodies are never shown. We just see an upward shot of the family members looking down at the horribly mutilated corpses. And in a way, that is even creepier than actually SEEING them. I can't give away too much, but the woman they meet along the way is also a focal point of the scares. Not like the "grunge-girl" or those long-haired ghosts in the j-horror flicks either! ACTING: Wonderful acting through and through. I won't go too in depth here because it's something that you have to see for yourself. But praise should go especially to actors Ray Wise (Frank Harrington), and Mick Cain (Richard Harrington), who was a comedic maelstrom this film.

SYMBOLISM: Despite being a horror film, Dead End manages to be surprisingly well constructed to convey its concept and symbolic message about families and how they deal with life's troubles. This isn't a bloody, senseless horror flick. It really does have a deeper meaning that is conveyed through imagery of the endless road, the woman in white, and ominous black car.

And there you have it. This is one that I really enjoyed; probably the best horror film I've seen in awhile. So now you know why "Dead End" deserves a 10 out of 10. It really, really does. If you love horror movies and haven't seen it already: WATCH it! Rent it, buy it, watch it!!

At least until you've seen it for yourself. A relatively small number of people have voted on it, so its rating is up in the air. Anyway, I found this movie to be very interesting. Here's what I have to say about it. My summary is at the top and the longer explanation is at the bottom.

SHORT: Genuinely frightening and dark, as well as psychologically complex and chilling. If you can look past the non-linear plot and confusing pace of the film, then you will enjoy this addition to the horror movie genre. 6 out of 10.

LONG: This movie can be somewhat confusing and its direction takes a very schizophrenic approach to showing events in the movie. That can understandably be a turn off for some people, but the fact of the matter is that the direction is one of the elements that helps make Dark Corners a scary flick. From the get-go you have no idea if what the heroine is experiencing is real or imagined. The story follows the life of a woman who's trying to get pregnant; at night she has nightmares and cycles between her life and that of the woman in her dreams.

In the dark surrealistic world of her dreams, she sees people being violently murdered and is killed herself several times. The multiple cuts from fantasy to reality, as well as the camera angles help to unsettle the viewer and put them on edge, leaving them vulnerable to the movie's numerous scare scenes. And as much as they would cut from one scene to another, I never felt cheated or that it was over-done, because Karen's story with her pregnancy would always advance at an adequate pace. As for story, it cryptic all the way to the end, yet we are given small clues along the way. The ending itself is a little flat, yet creepy and appropriate.

The acting was awesome. I loved Karen's actress and that of her husband; they had great chemistry that made you want to watch their banter scenes. Supporting characters were okay. I felt their character parts were more of a draw than what the actual actors brought to the table.

Scares. This movie is genuinely scary! At times it is disgusting and disturbing, but does not have over-the-top gore. It doesn't rely on cheap jump-out scares too much, but instead relies on atmosphere and horrific situations. The two scenes in the mortuary were really what got me. You have to see them for yourself--classic, grade-A American horror. I was impressed.

So for its great scares, atmosphere, and good characters and acting, I give Dark Corners a 6 out of 10. Though the direction and pace of the film may be confusing and off-putting, the plot and story are there. This film is also more entertaining then a lot of other direct-to-DVD horror flicks that have more linear plots, yet look like they were made for the Sci-fi channel. *cough* Bottom Feeder *cough*

Forbidden Siren is a mixed bag of a movie. Yes, it's another video game movie. But unlike House of the Dead, this one is capable of holding your attention and is sufficiently frightening.

The story follows a young woman, named Yuki, who has moved to the island of Yame with her father and little brother. From the get-go, things on the island don't seem right. The villagers are strange and unfriendly. Throughout the movie, Yuki seems to have a hard time keeping up with her wandering little brother Hideo, and has strange encounters with a woman in red. And then she is given an ominous warning: never go outside when the siren wails.

It's a good premise for a horror/thriller movie. And I must admit that conceptually this film is strong; a feature which complements the awesome directing. That's why it's a shame that Forbidden Siren's ending is so poor. This movie excels in almost every area and would have been a great Asian horror if not for the ending. I won't spoil anything, but suffice to say that if someone tried to submit a story with a trick ending, like we see in Forbidden Siren, to any major magazine, they would not be published.

The ending of any story is crucial and they teach you not to write trick endings because they are deceptive and ultimately let your audience down. Which is what we observe happening in Forbidden Siren. We are built up from the very beginning to believe that something memorable and shocking is coming at the end, then it's just a big let down.

I was tempted to give this movie a 5 instead of a 6; however I was impressed by the good scares and the originality of the plot (even if they could have gone in SO many interesting directions with it.) These days it isn't often that you find a good Asian horror film that doesn't center around a "vengeful ghost" picking off a small group of young adults. So Forbidden Siren gets a 6 out of 10. Watch it and enjoy the creative scares and smart direction, then when you get to the climax turn it off and make up your own ending. Trust me, you can't do any worse than they did.