Reviews

First of all, I like suspense movies normally. They build plot and with the right pace, make for great tension. This movie however, drags for about 77 minutes and then packs everything of interest in the last 17 minutes. Not very well acted but plausible story makes for a fair to OK backdrop but a few holes.

One, they never really showed you what the invitees learned down Mexico except they filmed a death. Two, who visits their ex they haven't spoken to in 2 years with a new gf in tow and finally, EVERYONE HAS A LANDLINE THAT DOESN'T HAVE PHONE SERVICE A HOUSE THAT SIZE.

The end was kinda neat and unexpected. The lanterns all being lit up let you know this was a mass event. The end of the movie makes up for a boring beginning but still just OK to watch.

It is not that I did not like Reasonable Doubt. I was entertained and the movie has its good moments. Synopsis: An up-and-coming assistant in the D.A.'s office (and new father to boot) Mitch Brockden has many things going for him. He is a solid attorney. He even boasts early on in the movie that in court, he never loses. He has a beautiful wife as well. One night after drinking with buddies, he gets into a hit & run accident with a pedestrian. Not wanting to get a DUI, he makes a call to 911 and then leaves the scene. Another man, Clinton Davis played amazingly well by Samuel L. Jackson, gets arrested while taking the man to the hospital in his van. Brockden is now torn on what exactly to do...

Now back to what I was saying earlier. I did like the film somewhat but... I pretty much knew early on that Clinton Davis was the killer. I think anyone who watches it will as well. I also figured out with relative ease why he went to different self-help meetings: to find future victims. Those set up the main problem I have with the movie.

The problem I have with this movie is the amount of cliché's that are used. Hit & Run has been done so many times and to avoid getting that DUI, call it in. Lets count the rest shall we? Mitch having a "brother" (step-brother actually) on the wrong side of the law, The attorney getting the case in court, A cop who suspects the attorney after he tanks the trial, Man getting set-up like he is the killer by the killer, Killer coming to attorney's house and "harassing" him by leaving something for him to see, Killer attacking attorney's family. (there are more but I am getting writers cramp.

The two reasons to see this movie are as follows: The performance of Samuel L. Jackson & the camera work/sound. Both are EXCEPTIONAL and I really hope other film makers watch just to see how the music really helps set the tone of the movie. Jackson excels in this type of role. I truly think he plays a bad guy better than most in Hollywood.

I give it a 5. Good but the cliché's keep it from being great. Watch it for S.L. Jackson.

Man, I really wanted this one to pan out more. Shot on a shoestring budget with good scenery and okay to better than average acting, Munger Road tells two stories that intertwine in St. Charles, Illinois. The first being that a former serial killer is on the loose and the second being that a group of teenagers want to test the paranormal limits of an urban legend of an old road (Munger Road). They both happen on the same night! Gonna try my best not to give too much away on this one. Shot in and around the actual town of St. Charles, Illinois, there really is a "Munger Road" who happens to have an urban legend attached to it. Supposedly, a group of school kids were on a school bus on Munger Road and the bus stalled on the train tracks, forcing it to get hit by a train. If you kill your engine on Munger Road on the train tracks, the spirits of the children will move your car off the tracks (TONS of variations of this urban legend exist about Munger) I actually liked that this urban myth was built in to the story.

This is the basis for the beginning of the movie as four teenagers set out to prove this urban legend true. At the same time, the town law enforcement finds out about an escaped former serial killer that killed in that area. It is the weekend of a HUGE festival that will have an additional 6,000 people in the town. Will the killer return to St. Charles?? I loved the premise. Every town has that one haunted place or road that EVERYONE knows about.

Starts slow, builds gradually, but has things that make little to no sense happen in the movie (with no explanation) and then there is the ending. Trust me when I tell you that you will either LOVE or HATE the ending. Their is no middle ground. Leaves you wanting more or completely fed up.

No gore, no nudity, little violence and lots of tension make this film go. (NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A STRONG IMAGINATION OR NEED MOVIES SPOON-FED TO YOU, THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR YOU.) I liked that they tried to make a modern day Hitchcock-meets-Halloweeen style film. The only problem(s) with the film are: A lack of a good explanation about 11:14 p.m. (watch it and see), The idea of the cops splitting up, and finally the ending. Had they have shown the footage...it may have been a 6 or higher. Too many loose ends can only get you so far.

4. 75 stars out of 10 (rounds up to 5) If you are a fan of slower moving genres with "shot video" added (think Blair Witch meets Halloween with Hitchcock style), check this out.

If you need gore, violence or have little to no patience...pass on it.

I wanted to see this film for a long time. I loved the premise of the idea of the film. After seeing it, I realized that this film should be called "Two Film Mashup". After 40 minutes, it goes off to be another film altogether.

Starts off with a promising story: 6 years ago, a small town in Washington state loses their mine (main source of income)and most of its residence are poor or headed towards poverty level because of it. Children have become missing and the townspeople are blaming it on a almost mythical character, that lives in the woods, known as The Tall Man. Who is the Tall Man and what does he want with the children? This plot line excited me and had me ready for a taut thriller.

For the first 35-40 minutes, I got just that! Jessica Biel plays the town nurse who runs a free clinic (not sure how she makes money to afford the house she lives in or why townspeople did not wonder the same thing but oh well) and plays her role exceptionally well. She comes off as caring and more than eye candy. She helps deliver a baby and is respected by the townspeople. Her child eventually gets taken by The Tall Man (or so you think) and a chase ensues. From there, this movie starts to sink. Complicated story-lines, ridiculous actions by characters, and huge holes in concepts (examples: How come none of the kids run off at their new places? Why did the one assistant help the nurse in the first place? How did they explain the disappearance of the doctor aka the husband?) turned this movie upside down. Turns out there is not really a Tall Man per se but a system of removing kids from there homes. I could explain the ending but it will just give us both a headache.

I gave it a 5 because it was shot well,and the beginning was on point. Biel acts pretty well in it and despite SEVERAL holes/plot stupidity, it is a decent watch. I just wish instead of two movies, they would have stayed with what they started with.

First off, too many people thought this was gonna be a horror/slasher film. It truly is not one. This film deals with suspense and is a "thinking man's" thriller. Simply put, what would you do if you were put in the situation that these characters were put into? For starters, I watched the directors cut and I am not sure of any differences that may exist between this and the original theatrical version.

ATM starts out kinda slow, with a guy who is finally taking a chance on asking out a girl he has had his eye on for some time now. He offers to take her home from a Christmas party when his buddy reminds him that he is his ride home for the night. They end up stopping at an ATM to get some money and that is when the mayhem starts. A menacing figure begins to terrorize the ATM occupants and, as the night wears on, forced them into paranoid thoughts and acts of desperation.

I don't wanna give too much away but I have read a few things up here that I would like to comment on. First off, none of the three main characters are heroes. I read why not just beat him up...HE HAS A TIRE IRON IN HIS HAND. Are you gonna attack a weapon-wielding guy, especially if you don't know how to fight? Secondly, some people have said why not run in three directions? Hmm, interesting idea BUT here is some factors. One, they have dress shoes on. Ever try to run in dress shoes or for the women's case heels? Two, how many "bad people" are truly out there? Do you know if there is one, two or maybe more? Of course you don't, so you stay. Lastly, if it is cold, you are paranoid and beyond freaked and a guy has killed two people in front of your eyes, you probably have NO DAMN IDEA what you would do.

I loved how the killer pushes the cars up to the door to kinda lock them in. Adding the water was just another element of "OMG what now???" He was not going for drowning there people, the water would have caused hypothermia with the freezing temperatures. Loved the "chair" idea as well.

Yes, there were plot holes. Yes they could have parked closer to the ATM. Yes they could have opened the door a little when the water came in, even with the cars in the way (but remember, hypothermia was what the killer was going for. main character even mentions this so people would get it.) The acting is good, not great but reminds you with someone you work with if you work at an office or cubicle. The ending seemed a little rushed together but it makes sense if you think about it. Good to see no excessive gore just for the sake of having it, seems to be the norm nowadays and there truly is no need for it here.

6.75 out of 10. Despite the horrible reviews up here, check it out for yourself. Put on the actors shoes and ask yourself what you would do in each situation. Not a great film, but good enough for a rental at least.

This movie looks like it was shot on NO BUDGET and with very little idea of what entertainment is. I usually look forward to seeing Independent Films because they tend to go places big budget films do not dare go. This one goes nowhere...FAST! Movie starts out promising as you see a young man looking into a camera and you can tell he knows something that the viewers do not yet know. Here's where it gets REALLY GOOD (note the sarcasm here). For the next 15 min or so, you hear Micheal Madson talk about if there is good or evil or if there is a God while the most BORING images ever pass by your screen (including laundry being done, staring off aimlessly, looking in a trunk for NO REASON, etc. etc.) When something FINALLY happens, the cameraman appears to be having a conniption fit because the camera goes ALL over the place. The "killer' then looks around a bunch to waste more time, including moments where they just show him bloodstained staring off aimlessly. The movie finally picks up after about 45 min or so and then...WHAM! it's over. 1hr.10 min long of which 12 minutes is entertaining.

I give it a 2 simply because I made it through the whole thing without turning it off. If you wanna see Micheal Madson (you can tell he REALLY like s this movie, he looks about as stiff as starched underwear in this film.) talk aimlessly about good and evil, then this is your movie...otherwise, do not waste your time.