Change Your Image
acerbus_8
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ghost Chasers (2016)
A more objective counterpoint to the sensationalistic American "paranormal" shows
Most "paranormal" shows are all about horror imagery, hysteria and a lot of jumping to conclusions. I get the reasoning behind, as the producers are most likely identifying a target audience of horror fans. Which makes sense targeting-wise. But which absolutely don't make sense to me, when these shows over and over again claim the merits of their "scientific" approach. I've often been annoyed by, for instance, Ghost Adventures, where the host will jump to conclusions about demonic hauntings from a small tidbit he got before his "investigation" has begun, only to claim multiple times during an episode how "scientific" his approach is.
Ghost Chasers manage to offer a more objective counterpoint to the sensationalistic approach of most American "paranormal" shows.
The team behind adopt the role of (somewhat) skeptic. Instead of almost everything being construed as paranormal. Most of the time the team of Ghost Chasers offer up more mundane explanations for some of their experiences, where most other shows would've called it demons or sassy witchings or super haunted portals to the afterlife of hell or whatever.
I love the fact that there isn't any horror imagery, which gives more credence to the seriousness of the show.
In my opinion this show could've been even more serious and objective. Using an app on your smartphone to hear ghosts speak, doesn't strike me as super logical. What ghost sensors did Samsung put in their phones? Underlying music and sound effects could've been used more sparingly as well, because sometimes its hard to tell if it is postulated paranormal captures or post-production added effects to add tension. And a more consistent objectivity would also suit the 3 guys who aren't psychic. As sometimes there is still the unwarranted conclusion that it must've been a ghost.
But to sum up. An interesting and a bit more serious addition to the whole "paranormal" "reality"-show trend. Definitely recommendable.
Ghost Stalkers (2014)
Terrible name, so-so reality show within the genre.
Ghost Stalkers ... terrible name. But for the most part this genre of reality filmmaking hasn't set itself apart by having good copyrighters.
For the most part Ghost Stalkers is an alright show compared to it's peers (like for instans Ghost Adventures, Ghost Asylum etc.). Unfortunately GS exhibit the same latent problems that most of the genre exhibit and a few original.
The hosts of Ghost Stalkers had probably looked at the marked of ghost hunting shows before pitching their idea for a show, and concluded that they had to have some kind of schtick to sell it. That schtick is all to obviously an incredible focus on (ghost) portals. This quickly becomes a huge weight on the show as the hosts keep trying to pigeonhole everything (and I do mean everything) into some kind of portal theory. "Some people say they have ghosts here. There must be portals as well." "This was once a big hospital. Then there's definitely portals here." "There's rumors of shadow people. A portal started those rumors." "Somebody snatched my sandwich. That darned portal again." "This dude died? Hey, it must've been a portal who did it." "Look a rock. And it is right under a portal ... maybe."
Most of these ghost shows are terrible in their rhetoric. Whenever they see something it is demonic in an effort to amp up the drama factor. Whenever they talk to "witnesses", they put words in their mouths and so on. Historic records and witness statements are overdramatized, for instance: "There have been sighting of a shadow man. A possibly violent shadow man". But Ghost Stalkers are probably some of the worst at it. Mostly because they have this portal concept they simply have to sell. So whenever they try to conclude anything. It always end up in some ridiculous explanations of lapsed logic about portals.
They try to be "scientific", but with pages taken from the other ghost hunting shows the science involved is kept to a modicum (and I'm being generous here). For the most part they just pull some real equipment in and try to "explain" why the equipment should work with their mission in mind. For instance at one point they put a smokemachine into a room and when the smoke twists a little, they conclude they have a portal.
There's other problems too, the biggest on is the voice-over (done by one of the hosts) that tries to go for some sort of eerie monotone vibe. It doesn't work. It just sounds ridiculous.
Ghost Stalkers has a lot of shortcomings but at least it doesn't have to fill it's running time with recreations and unnecessary horror cuts, to try and make up for little substance. Even though it isn't overflowing with substance.
A long story short. Ghost Stalkers is an alright ghost hunting shows. If you've run out of everything else in that department then it is fair enough viewing. Just don't expect any miracles from it.
FrackNation (2013)
A personal attack masquerading as documentary
It quickly becomes pretty clear that this "documentary" is a personal attack on a documentary called Gasland and it's director. Had the "doc" been much better in it's execution and less eager to subvert just one man and his work. Then it could actually have delivered something that could've sparked a debate.
The theme is therefor less about researching fracking, and more about trying to discredit Gasland.
A lot of effort is poured into maintaining that the film was funded on Kickstarter. Actually so much effort go into iterating this, that it begins to become suspect. On top of this, researching superficially on the director "Phelim McAleer" quickly tells the story of a "documentarian" who has worked to support big business.
As for FrackNation as a whole it is a disjointed piece of work that, in its quest to connect human emotion with fracking, keep losing focus throughout. From obviously staged "demonstrations" in Dimock & ridiculous confrontations. To the involuntarily humorous, with it's attacks on renewable energy: "Wind turbines are massive, 24/7, ruthless, bird killing machines" and scenes where fracking becomes the great savior of farms (even though fracking has nothing to do with farming) around the country, purporting that should a farm dissipate it would automatically be replaced by residential buildings which would contribute massive amounts of pollution through traffic and well-digging.
We also have an interview with a biochemist called Bruce Ames on the chemicals used in the fracking process. But instead of explaining the chemicals, the issue is sidestepped and the conclusion just becomes "Scare stories sell newspapers", again taking jabs at Gasland.
It all closes with a corny propagandistic ad for energy, that feels completely disjointed from the rest of the movie. And a monologue that concludes, without any real data, that fracking is completely without problems.
In conclusion. The documentary merits of this film are severely lacking and even though the film-maker behind, goes to great lengths to talk up the "documentary's" independence from the energy industry. You're left with the distinct feeling that even though the film was financed through Kickstarter, the backers are the energy industry who've just made the contributions look like they were donated by a lot of different people.
Now I have to see Gasland. Hopefully that will be much better than this dribble.
Constantine (2014)
Constantine without the intelligence
John Constantine is (as some people may know) a comic book character from the same company that counts Superman, Batman and such among its properties. But there are 2 main differences between Constantine and his "colleagues". While Superman and the likes are selfless ideals and more archetype than men. Constantine is fiercely human and, for the most part, deeply self-serving. He lives in an occult world of angels, demons, magic & squalor. And this world is never black nor white, but always morally ambiguous and bathed in nuances of grey.
Others have pointed out that the TV series is a more faithful adaptation than the 2005 movie (of the same name). Which is something I actually disagree with. On the surface, yes, this TV Constantine resemble the comic book character a lot more, than the Keanu Reeves of Constantine the Movie. But where the Constantine movie actually had inspired visuals and a shimmer of intelligence. This pilot unfortunately doesn't even have that. And this is my point. If you want to do Constantine. He needs intelligence above anything else. The comics have a long track record of consistent intelligent writing.
In the Pilot we get acquainted with a Constantine who's remorseful for having a hand in the damnation of a little girl. He quickly gets a demonic "letter" telling him to go to America. Why would a demon invite someone to interfere with its plans? Constantine meets a girl that is tormented by, apparently, the same demon who invited him to the party. And after this the pilot is about introducing this girl (and the audience) to the world of John Constantine. Leaving us at the end of the episode with the setup for the rest of the season. Which is a map marked with locations across America where bad stuff happens. Basically the most lazy of plot devices for a show: A new case every week without having to describe how this case came about. Which again is far removed from the story telling of the comics. Where Constantine takes on different problems much more organically.
The writing is far from good with sub-par dialogue, unnecessary exposition dumps, lapses in logic and a character who can't figure out if he wants to be mysterious or give everything about him away. We are far removed from the mysterious & intelligent Constantine of the comics, who only gives enough away, to serve his own selfish motives. One example of this dumb Constantine comes when a demon tries to trick him to let it go, with a very weak trick. Constantine falls for it instantly. Despite the fact that he's supposedly had so much contact with demons that he should be able to see through their tricks. But no.
The direction is serviceable but lack sophistication and undersells the action scenes.
The effects are hit an miss. Some are alright but others are just terrible. On top of that, the visuals of the pilot are just rehashings of the same clichés you see in the lowest budget horror films you can imagine.
The one good thing is Matt Ryan (who plays John Constantine). He looks the part and at times manage to hit the sinister charm of his character. There is great potential in this department.
Unfortunately the pilot generally leave little hope for the series in the future if you're acquainted with John Constantine from the comics. If you have no experiences with Constantine and don't mind less than stellar writing/direction/special effects. Then this show might be alright to kill some time with but nothing more.
Arrow (2012)
An entirely forgettable show with lackluster performances and lacking any plot depth
I am entirely surprised as to this shows rating. At this moment in time the rating is at a 8.2. This compared to a show like Deadwood which is at a 8.9.
Now Deadwood was an examination in the creation of civilization out of a savage land. Filled to the brim with good actors inhabiting multifaceted and complex characters that touted amazing dialog.
Could one expect some of the same from Arrow. One could but only with ensuing disappointment.
I have now seen the first season and I won't be moving forward with season 2. Granted this 2nd season might take a quantum leap in quality. But I highly doubt it.
As a lot have pointed out. Arrow is basically Batman Begins in TV form. This could've been exciting if it weren't for the huge difference in quality.
I love characters. Unfortunately these characters pretty one dimensional even though they do evolve slightly over the cause of season one. Unfortunately they never really become real people because of their one note personalities. The show tries to create complexity but fails. It doesn't help that the actors for the most part aren't particularly fantastic. The chemistry between the supposed friends, lovers, family members also leave a lot to be desired. Needless to say I had a hard time finding a real character to empathize with.
The dialog is very stiff and unengaging, which again doesn't help when the different characters are struggling with finding chemistry with each other.
The plots are for the most parts predictable and clichéd. It's like the writers have studied a very traditional story model and lack the fantasy to try something new. There are plot holes abound and more than a few unexplained events.
Not everything is bad. As the show does manage to create a hook for the viewer. A hook that would've worked better if the characters had been deeper and easier to sympathize with. The show reveals new tidbits about the main protagonists road to becoming Arrow for every episode. Which is a pretty good hook instead of the formulaic setup of finding a new villain for every episode.
But for the most part this show, at least through season 1, is a lackluster and clichéd outing with one note characters and forgettable plot.
Future by Design (2006)
Wrongfully categorized as a documentary
This isn't as much a documentary feature as it is a propaganda vehicle for the lead character Jacque Fresco.
From the outset we are presented with Jacque Fresco as the new Leonardo Da Vinci and receive no questioning as to Mr. Fresco's ideas. We aren't even treated to anything deeper about Mr. Fresco than superficial background information and the reason why he knows what he's talking about is that he has observed the world. For almost 1 and a half an hour Mr. Fresco speaks about society, environment, the monetary system and offering a utopian alternative.
All of this is wonderful and Mr. Fresco do have some good ideas and thoughts. Unfortunately there is inherent contradictions in his train of thought.
Fresco uses a lot of time in iterating how our current communications-form isn't viable. His proposed alternative is that of communicating scientifically. Because in science we only communicate factually and not in belief, in his opinion. This is funny because Fresco apparently do not understand that most science is build on belief in theory. Which becomes even funnier when most of what Fresco proposes is what HE believes in.
Fresco isn't trained in anything apparently and we aren't even given much reason to believe in him other than he has looked at the world so he has a lot of "empirical evidence". For instance at one point he begins his lecture on society and anthropology. Fresco BELIEVES that the right environment will cure any animosity, anger and so on, in people. So with his system we effectively could remove prisons, wars and the likes from the world. He apparently do not factor into his calculations that humans aren't necessarily logical. And this is the problem with much of his reasoning. Most of his thoughts are just that and are not backed by practice.
I don't know why this "documentary" has a director, because there really was no need. There are no interviews with anyone other than the main character and his indoctrinated assistant. So there are no counterpoints, no scrutiny, nothing objective and nothing which opens this "documentary" up for questioning.
In all essence Jacque Fresco is apparently nothing more than a concept artist with some good ideas who, in this "documentary", is more along the lines of a "cult" leader whom always speaks the truth and are above questioning.
Franklyn (2008)
Character drama without involvement
I had fairly high expectations coming into this film. Good score on IMDb and interesting trailer. The trailer, very misleading, pegged this as and action movie with substance. I found nothing of what the trailer promised.
It can be said briefly that the movie is about 4 people who have next to nothing in common, other than being being wounded mentally. I suppose the director had figured he would do a movie akin to Crash or Magnolia. The problem here is that these movies work. Because we are presented with people whom we can identify with, understand, and above all whom we can find interest in.
Franklyn delivers none of this. From the onset we are introduced to people we are given next to no information about. They are complete enigmas. Sam Rileys forgettable and whiny Milo is apparently a romantic, who's been stood up at the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. Eva Greens Emilia is apparently something of a rebel (and art student), with a thoroughly poor relationship to her mother. Ryan Phillippes Preest is stuck in "superhero" vigilante mode. And Bernard Hills Peter is completely inconsequential throughout the first half of the movie.
This amounts to a character drama without involving characters. Milo for instance seems to be completely insignificant to the story as a whole, and could easily be left out without it affecting the story.
We are treated to trivial symbology which seems to have been put into the film, to try and convince the audience of its "art-house" merits. Furthermore there are times when the dialogue or narration borders on the bad. For instance Ryan Phillipes character finds himself imprisoned at one point, where we get treated to: "And suddenly out of the blue they came". If I had been locked up, I would expect that somebody would come to get me at some point. I wouldn't count that as out of the blue. The banal symbology and bad narration/dialogue would probably have gone unnoticed, had the characters been slightly involving though.
Even the films title: Franklyn is beyond my meager intellect to understand. I have no idea who/what Franklyn is. Other than a label on a doorphone.
The ending is clichéd, but the best part of the movie. As we are treated to something. But once more the lack of involvement makes the clichéd ending worse than it had to be.
My favorite parts were of the comic-esquire scenes in the religious metropolis, and would've liked to see this world unfold. I thought there were some interesting possibilities here.
If we could just have started with the ending of the movie. Take a strained situation and spin involvement into the characters this way around. Then I think it could've been surprising (figuring a surprise-ending is what the director had wanted), if the real world ended up being Meanwhile City. Especially since we're treated to 3 protagonists in the "real world", it would be something of twist to find out they were suffering from mass psychosis or something. Besides, Ryan Philippe is introduced saying the people of meanwhile city are mad.
Speed Racer (2008)
To follow up V for Vendetta with this, doesn't make sense
Visually this movie is quite its own and thats certainly a compliment. Flashy and highly saturated, which goes well with its origins being a cartoon. Unfortunately the saturated color fest stops having an impact after 15 minutes. The bombastic colors just makes the images busy and in this way they kinda kill their own uniqueness. Very interesting compared to Sin City, where "the less is more" approach keeps making an impact all through the movie.
After this, there was little to hold my attention. Surely this was apparently made for kids. But personally I don't see why you cant write a good movie that can appeal to both kids and adults.
My greatest problem with the movie was my own lack of interest in any of the characters. The story is rubbish, dialog meaningless & acting quite senseless. But I definitely thought the worst thing was that none of the people in the movie aroused anything within me. I didn't care about anyone. It might be the point that everything was exaggerated and cartoony in some aspects. But I'd think that you'd still want the audience to care about the good guys. The only feeling I had towards anyone in the movie, was to the smallest of the Racer boys, and that feeling was irritation.
I wasn't expecting V for Vendetta 2, or something close to it. Every Wachowski movie cant be based on stories from a master like Allan Moore. But I expected a good movie, even if it was a movie intended for kids. I definitely didn't feel like this was a good movie, even if the brothers accomplished whatever they set out to do with this one.
Seed (2006)
A magnificent movie in showcasing how not to make a movie
This movie made me remember story-structure which were taught to me in high school. Because if you sit through Seed you will come to understand that the known story structure might be something you'd want to adhere to, should you want to write stories or make movies. The rampant lack of understanding for basic story structure in this movie is incredible.
On the other hand there is so much of this movie that just doesn't work, and I simply don't understand why not it just doesn't work. Perhaps this is the strength of Uwe Boll, although not a particular good talent to have.
The movie opens with the killer (Seed), watching PETA footage of animals getting skinned and tortured. This is horrible to watch and might very well be the closest to a snuff film you will ever see. It's horrendous to watch grown men stand on a dogs neck. A horrible way to open a movie. Not just because the acts of real men can be so atrocious, but also because it shows Boll don't have the talent to get under our skin in any other way.
Next we're treated to an intro however this intro is over 30 minutes long. The sequence of the intro is so horrible in pacing and crosscutting that its remarkable some of the crew who cut the movie didn't give Uwe some pointers. And in this intro the first critical flaw in the movie become obvious. Uwe Boll don't understand that you might not need to see every insignificant detail in every scene. Instead everything is drawn out further than what makes sense. These drawn out scenes continue all through the movie.
There's even a scene at one point where Seed has found a random woman he keeps hitting in the head with an axe and he just keeps going, way beyond what he should. Its a gruesome scene which looses all its power by the sheer tedium of being drawn out well beyond the point where you stare at your watch, waiting for the scene to end.
The movie ends in probably one of the most anticlimactic scenes I've ever seen. I cant fathom how this had been done, since the scene (when I imagine reading it) probably seemed like a good and climactic ending.
All in all its like the movie never gets going. One thing is the lack of plot, lack of something to say, lack of anything worthwhile. But none of what is left never really gets going.
A good movie to watch if you want to know what not to do when doing movies.