8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Lake Mungo (2008)
5/10
It's not a bad movie, exactly. Just mortally flawed and unsatisfying.
30 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The acting is very good (though I think it was a mistake for the family of the dead girl to be played so dispassionately), and the night-sky and nature footage is often fantastic. In general, all the technical aspects were well done (except the mediocre ghost effects) but all it amounts to is a lot of well-done stalling to hide the fact they only had about 10 minute's worth of story.

The movie tells you what's going on and what to wait for in the first minute. The next 45-minute obvious red-herring is a very uninteresting ghost story. Well done, but dull. Once you find they've wasted your time with that, the film ostensibly tries to make it up to you with 20 minutes of gratuitous, unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant revelations about the girl's life. It soon becomes obvious that this too is only here to pad out the film's run time.

When the good idea introduced in the beginning finally comes up, the reason for all the padding and stalling becomes clear: The idea is concise enough that it doesn't take much time to explain, and the approach the filmmakers took in telling this story made it impossible to dramatize in any effective or satisfying way. So the audience would have been better off stopping after the first minute because the idea isn't explored any more than that anyway.

Unfortunately, once all is revealed, the movie STILL keeps going and going even though it has nothing important to add. It throws a bunch of supposedly revelatory ghost photos at you in the end credits, but at this point they can only evoke a big "so what?" because their redundancy renders them insignificant.

So all the separate technical elements of the film are like nicely painted puzzle pieces that fit together to make such a boring picture that you end up regretting having wasted your time watching it being put together.
26 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The "Trekkies" of Conspiracy Theory Believers
22 April 2009
I got the impression from comments here and articles elsewhere that this documentary would be another expose on the alleged New World Order and related subjects. But that's not what this is at all.

This film isn't about conspiracy theories; instead it's an intimate look into the lives and mindsets of people who honestly believe in them. It's fairly objective and relatively nonjudgmental -- so much so it might even come off as a sympathetic review of what they have to say if you're already a believer.

However, if you previously dismissed people like Alex Jones as kooks, you might gain a very different kind of sympathy here, and it becomes more difficult to call those "911 was an inside job" demonstrators stupid. While misguided, all the people featured in this film are depicted as victims of obsessions that have targeted each of their specific vulnerabilities. This documentary doesn't support their positions but instead demonstrates how such ideas can take hold in otherwise rational people.

Again, this is not done in a mocking tone. It's actually hard to come away from this film without feeling sorry for all the people involved. By their own actions, admissions, and candid comments, those featured here reveal that they're the ones actually wearing the blinders they're committed to telling everyone else to take off. On some level Alex Jones even seems to understand this, but his occupation forces him to stay trapped inside his obsessions. For others not so invested, time might be a simple cure if they can get away from the cult-like reinforcement their obsessions have encouraged them to seek.
35 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shutter (I) (2008)
1/10
Shutter vs. Shutter: Comparing the original to the remake
14 February 2009
Unfortunately, I took seriously all the gushing comments about how Shutter (2004) was "the best thing since The Ring" and out of curiosity watched it back to back with the remake. The only thing fans of the original got right is how dismally bad the remake is.

Shutter (2004) would have been a lot of fun in the 1980s, and I can understand why kids and people new to the genre like it so much, but there's not much here for those more experienced in the genre -- Asian horror, or horror in general. It's not a bad movie, but I've seen the same story so many times in earlier, lesser-known Asian horror movies that it didn't do anything for me. The scares are all textbook routines; again, done well, but done so many times before they're never a surprise. I put off seeing this for years because it sounded so generic, and it turned out I was right. That said, it's a masterpiece compared to the remake.

Shutter (2008) is so poorly written and plotted that it could only have been made in-house by studio wonks who don't have to go through the slightest quality control regarding scripts or production skills to get the green light on a film project. Shutter (2008) would have insulted me as a moviegoer even if it weren't a remake. The characters are weakly written and performed (this should be a career-ender for Joshua Jackson), and the special effects are so cheesy they're embarrassing rather than scary.

Now I see why this new version makes fans of the original so angry. I'm not even a fan of the original, but I found it frustrating that the remake ineptly ignores the only story-telling hook that made the original good enough to watch in the first place. Then it goes on to parrot some of the original plot points while skipping others that make them contextually relevant. The result is a jumble of pointlessness. No one involved in the making of this film had any idea what they were doing.

Verdict:

Shutter (2004) was a decent movie, but nothing special, and has little to offer more experienced moviegoers who'll find it rather dull. Shutter (2008) is an insult, not to the original, but to the movie-going public that studio execs must think are tasteless imbeciles who will watch whatever crap they're given.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Marebito (2004)
8/10
A Detailed Explanation of What's Really Going On in Marebito
2 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The most obvious and important thing to keep in mind while watching Marebito is that the audience experiences everything from the main character's point of view. However, Masuoka is NOT having delusions. To really see through his eyes, you have to know where he's looking.

Masuoka is a man out of balance and incomplete. He's emotionally empty and alienated from other people. He's not alive in what he does. He experiences life only artificially through the eyes of his video cameras and by taking the antidepressant Prozac. Masuoka says he's recorded UFOs, ghosts, and other phenomena but they don't interest him. Those are "known" mysteries. He spends all his time looking for the "unknown," the thing that's missing. Then one day he catches a glimpse of it in the eyes of Kuroki, a terrified man who commits suicide in the subway. Suddenly realizing the answer lies on the inside instead of the outside, he embarks on a quest to find the source of Kuroki's terror.

To begin, he stops taking Prozac; he's casting off the Band-Aid to treat the real wound. From this point on, the audience is accompanying Masuoka on an inward journey into his subconscious. To Masuoka, this takes the form of a descent into the tunnels beneath Tokyo and reveals his inner landscape to be a vast "Hollow World."

The ghost of Kuroki, who Masuoka meets in the tunnels, explains another reason to use Shaver's Hollow World mythos as a backdrop: He says that when Shaver wrote it, it was fiction, but when people read it, it became real. Masuoka is going down into the collective unconscious, home of the archetypes present in us all. Here he finds F, a pretty, naked girl imprisoned in a small cave.

Chained, pale, and without a voice in the middle of this metaphorical empty cavern, F personifies Masuoka's anima, his underdeveloped and neglected emotional/feeling side. The English "F" doesn't stand for Fuyumi -- that's a red herring -- it stands for feminine (i.e. anima). He takes her back and hides her in his apartment, but his intentions throughout the film are to nurture and care for her. That's important.

F is only awake a few hours a day. She needs Masuoka to give her his blood (life/vitality) to drink so she can fully awaken, but he keeps holding back. He only lets her have a little or else substitutes other blood for his own.

All the characters Masuoka talks to during this ongoing journey are manifestations from his subconscious. Notice he encounters them all in cave-like settings (did you catch "deep" written large on the wall at the bathroom murder scene?). He doesn't literally kill anyone. He's facing his own personal "Deros," defined as the flawed, deformed robotic elements that advanced people leave behind. His actions on the surface are no more physically real than the Hollow World is underground. The murders are a kind of personified psychoanalysis. Remember, we're seeing everything from Masuoka's point of view, and he's looking inside himself.

Early on, before he descends into the depths, Masuoka sees a woman in a window and says he saved her soul by filming her, that is, by recognizing her existence. That's what he's doing throughout much of Marebito. He's recognizing the elements at work inside his psyche that caused him to withdraw from others. In doing so, he's trying to save his own soul. He takes away their life so F might live.

But change is difficult. He gives up and leaves F sleeping in Shinjuku and retreats to the safety of distance. After he's been away from his camera for a while (i.e., back in the real world), he starts thinking about getting a job and rejoining society. He's reverting to the way he was: rational, unfeeling and robotic. Then Kuroki's ghost appears at the seashore to remind him of the splendor of the depths.

Masuoka admits his supposed madness was only a pretense for opening himself up to the terror he seeks. He says he understands that he killed his wife and treated his daughter like an animal, but he's speaking figuratively; he's accepted his previous failures as a husband and father. Putting these ghosts behind him (like in the elevator) enables him to go back to find the terror Kuroki describes as true wisdom.

On his way, he spots the Deros, whose stated role is to "take people back into the depths." He checks in on the phone-camera they bring him and is surprised to find F waiting in his apartment, but the picture on the screen is his own. This leads to the satisfying, upbeat conclusion.

Masuoka's final letting go is a victory. If F represents his anima/emotional side, then finally giving her what she needs to thrive frees them both. Seeing his own picture on the phone means he is at last able to integrate this buried aspect of himself into his personality. The terror of the unknown is his fear of opening up emotionally, and experiencing this terror means becoming an active participant instead of an outside clinical observer -- it's the terror of living.

Cutting open his mouth, he fully commits to giving F all the blood/vitality she needs. When she feeds, it looks like a kiss. They're devouring each other to become one.

The Masuoka that F leads back underground is the formerly dominant unfeeling aspect of his psyche that carries a camera as its totem. F is awake now, and she gives him a peaceful smile that's the opposite of his look of terror.

One of the last shots in Marebito shows Masuoka and F lying together in the cave, his black clothes curled opposite her bare white skin. This is a yin-yang symbol. A union of opposites. Together, these two forces at work inside Masuoka are finally in balance and complete. Inner harmony has been achieved, and his Hollow World isn't quite so hollow anymore.
100 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
10 stars for the fight scenes, 1 star for the story
12 March 2006
If all you're looking for are some great superhero-style fight scenes and cool visuals, listen to the people who give Shinobi a high rating and then fast-forward to the battles, because they kick @ss. Most of the characters have interesting powers and the movie isn't too bad when they're actually using them.

Overall, however, the film is slow-moving and the plot is extremely annoying. About 40 minutes of this film should have been left on the cutting-room floor, especially at the beginning and the end.

Shinobi is the kind of movie where every single character must do the dumbest thing possible at every opportunity to keep the story going. Seriously, these are the stupidest ninjas* who ever lived. To make matters worse, the two clan villages are full of the weakest, most oblivious ninjas-in-training who ever lived.

The hero and heroine are excruciatingly passive and unbelievably gullible. They never take a stand for or against anything -- they're too busy trying to pretend the movie has a message. You end up rooting for them to die just so they'll stop moping about things they can easily change.

The Romeo and Juliet comparison sounds catchy, but it only applies in the most general sort of way. This movie fails miserably as a romance because of the one-dimensional, apathetic natures of the two "star-crossed lovers." They repeat that phrase about 50 times in case you somehow forget, which is easy to do since there's very little keeping them apart. They simply prefer their angst to each other.

Shinobi is definitely not worth buying, because you won't want to sit through it twice. But the fights are fun to watch, so it's worth renting just for that.

--------------------------------------------------------------

*Technically they aren't supposed to be ninjas; they're magical warriors. Whatever.

--------------------------------------------------------------
15 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Futago (2005)
4/10
Nothing Special
24 February 2006
Futago ("Twin") has a good atmosphere, but it's a very simple supernatural revenge tale, and not much else.

The characters are fine, and the guilt-ridden police detective who's contemplating a crime of his own is a nice attempt at a subplot, but there's just not enough story here to carry a 90-minute movie.

Dialog is effectively sparse, and the director does a good job using visuals to move the story along (though often to the point of exaggeration).

However, there are no surprises, no impressive ideas or effects, and no real reason to go out of your way to see this.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Victorian-style murder mystery with a touch of Hammer-ish horror
20 February 2006
The current IMDb plot summary might lead you to think La Residencia (or The House That Screamed) is a cross between Girls Gone Wild and Susperia. Luckily, it's neither. It's more like Picnic at Hanging Rock caught making out with Alfred Hitchcock.*

Let's clear the room right away: No nudity, even in the uncut version. That "rampant sex, lesbianism and torture" gushed about in the description is a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, there is a constant erotic undercurrent that slips out into the open once in a while, but all sex, rampant and otherwise, is subtext and innuendo. It's strong, sweaty, heavy-breathing innuendo at times, but that's what makes this such a well-crafted film.

That said, the guy who "delivers wood" to the school once a month has the best job ever.

The huge, old mansion and the sets look fantastic. The story is good. The cinematography is very cool. The acting is just right. The soundtrack is surprisingly clever. The dialog is sharpened by that fine edge of politeness that makes compliments feel like paper-cuts. And your feelings about each of the major characters will change as the story develops.

Horror purists won't find much horror ("The House That Screamed" is a great title, but not especially appropriate, even as a double entendre).

The squeamish won't have to close their eyes during the violence because the murder scenes are prudishly lit.

There are some minor plot points to argue about afterward, but overall, this is well worth the time of anyone who likes old movies, Victorian atmosphere, candle-lit mansions, and hot girl-on-girl action (just kidding).

---------------------------

*You could also say this is a women's prison movie without the literal prison and mandatory nudity, but where's the romance in that?

---------------------------
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
It's too late for me, but save yourself from this utter waste of time
19 February 2006
Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.
21 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed