cobbler88 Reviews

Confessional (III) (2019)

Who would have thought my 5/10 would seem generous?

[5/10 · 16 August 2020]

I'll be a departure from a good number of reviewers and spare the synopsis. It's at the top of the page, for Christ's sake.

The direction was fairly minimal but I thought effective. An entire film shot in booths has its limits. With a couple of exceptions, I also didn't think the performances were that bad, especially given what little they had to play off of. Again, the limits that have to be dealt with given the approach.

I liked the premise, but it needs to come together at the end to be satisfying, and I don't think it really got there. I'm not saying you have to LIKE the resolution, but you do have to at least recognize it as the culmination of every bread crumb that's been laid before you, and there was too much that fell short.

The movie is obviously all dialogue, but surprisingly little of that dialogue actually contributed to the story. I recognize that maybe it was revelatory to some degree as to the mechanics of each character, but even as you watch it you know it's not really fleshing out the mystery in any substantive way. It's just padding. So, you're basically listening to a handful of archetypes blather on like any typical student does (to the ear of an actual adult). I'm guessing this may have first been done as a 30-minute student film with 3-4 fewer characters.

There has been mention of the anti-male talking points. Those were minimal, but once the first one hit, it took up a chair in the back of my mind and never really went away, right up through the false credits which included the final shot at men. It made it extra delicious that this shot not only was a shade off of the proper use of the term "derivative" to describe male producers, but it was misspelled as well. :)

If this were a typical indie horror pic of this quality, I'd recommend it as ambient noise while you're busying yourself with other things. But this one requires that you sit and actively listen to it, so it is held to a higher level before it can get a nod.

It's not garbage. If you're really interested in this approach to storytelling, give it a try. Maybe you'll get more out of it than I did. But I'm guessing you'll likely click out of it a little disappointed.

Take care.

Resonance (IV) (2018)

There is just nothing here

[1/10 · 18 May 2020]

I hate to give something one star. It seems excessive and hacky. But this was basically all atmosphere and no story, and sound effects and shots of the forest can only take you so far. Neither character was likeable, so you can toss that out the window as well even though the acting wasn't horrible for people who are fluent in English - but not CONVERSATIONALLY fluent. As in, maybe someone should have been brought in to smooth out the rough edges in the dialogue. The blurb for this on Tubi is "A young couple on vacation at a remote destination are (should be "is") stalked by something evil that tries to claim their lives when one of them is mortally injured.". I'm 'not even sure how much of that is even accurate, having watched the film, beyond they seemed to be at a remote house. Maybe it's genius. Maybe if you leave the entire story to the audience to fill in the blanks, each person will fill them in as per their personal preferences and everyone walks away happy. I just need a little more.

House of VHS (2016)

FillerFest: 15 minutes' worth of movie crammed into 84 minutes

[2/10 · 15 April 2020]

The only real positive thing I can point out about this film is that at least it's over before you hit the 90-minute mark. The boilerplate stuff for this genre (character intro, trip to the location, irrelevant grab-assing) that other films move on from at about the 20- to 25-minute mark extend through about 45-50 minutes. Seriously, you really don't have anything that resembles a functioning story up to and including that point.. By the time the story actually seems to be advancing a little at about the 60- to 65-minute mark, through the ridiculous ending, you just really don't care anymore. You're certainly not invested in any of the characters so you're not concerned with what becomes of them, which pretty much eliminates any suspense. I end up watching a lot of bad horror because I'm looking for a few gems. I don't expect them to be masterpieces. Just give me a decent twist or competent performances. Maybe a fresh take on an old story. I can honestly say that I can't remember a worse horror film that didn't include heavy doses of shooting day for night.

Strawberry Estates (1997)

Indescribably bad ... but here goes

[1/10 · 27 March 2020]

I'm almost at a loss, so I'll try to keep this brief. No aspect of this movie was done well. Until the last half dozen minutes, the only thing that "happened" in the movie was scene after scene of exposition. Seriously, it was like someone decided to roll film while various people took turns reading an audio-book. The acting was horrible across the board to the point that as we saw the pedictable turn a main character eventually took, all I could do was sort of laugh in a non-entertained way.. Cliff's Notes version: One long, multi-character exposition-fest followed by about seven minutes of conclusion. Life is too short.

Neverlake (2013)

Better than most low-budget dreck, but not "art" either

[6/10 · 19 January 2015]

There are pretty straightforward pros and cons to this movie, and to me it seems to really be stretching things to call it "horrible" or "great storytelling.

The story itself - overall - wasn't that bad and, in fact, I enjoyed the ending. It was darker than I'd thought it would be, and definitely not entirely predictable. Ironically, that's also part of the problem. There wasn't really enough story development in the first 70 minutes of the film to lead you to predict much of anything, and by that time you're almost a little apathetic. Very little seems to be holding together what is presented during this stretch, and much of it isn't really that necessary.

A lot of the bad reviews I've read include phrases like "I couldn't make it half-way through" and "I turned it off with 20 minutes left." Because the story is so back-loaded into the conclusion of the movie, their reviews (to me) are rendered almost completely irrelevant. But because of the glacial pace I definitely understand where they're coming from.

Before I get the usual condescending "Most people (who aren't as smart as I am) who expect explosions and non-stop action/killing/slashing just won't 'get' this type of artistic storytelling (and are not worthy to cast eyes on the film like I am)," I beg to differ. I don't need nonstop action, especially in a horror/psychological thriller movie. But in lieu of action there needs to be story/character development to keep you engaged. And in this film that all came at the end, with only fairly disjointed bits and pieces for the first 70 minutes.

I give this a better-than-average rating because it IS better than most of the low-budget garbage out there. It is, indeed, watchable. But your life will not change. You'll think, "Hmmm. Didn't quite see THAT ending coming," then get back to your housework.

Glorious 39 (2009)

Spellbinding ... if you're British

[3/10 · 31 May 2014]

I'm sorry, but this movie was a pile.

Yes, the acting and filming were well done, but anyone who believes that this was in any way suspenseful or a "taut thriller" is WAY too used to old-school, glacially paced British dramas.

Heck, I can't say for certain that there was any true drama to this rare combination of political intrigue AND plodding storytelling.

There was neither a single twist nor genuinely suspenseful moment right up to the end, which I imagine was supposed to leave us gob-smacked but only served to make us feel good that we were able to predict it about two hours earlier.

If you are wavering between this and something else, pick the something else. Even "Monuments Men" is preferable to this film.

The Castle Project (2013)

Absolutely nothing to see here

[1/10 · 11 May 2014]

I'm not sure if it actually qualifies as a "spoiler" if you reveal that absolutely NOTHING happened during the making of this documentary, but I thought I should turn the spoiler alert on anyway.

Here we have a house with a fairly pedestrian history and in which people with ties to it seem to suffer commonplace maladies at what seems to generally be the rate of the public at large.

The documentarian slept in the house for a couple of weeks, nothing went on, so he seemed to come up with a personal-safety angle (lack of smoke alarms that would have been evident on Day 1) so that he wouldn't have to remain there.

Even the anecdotal evidence of sightings, etc., seemed fairly pedestrian and there didn't really seem to be more than a handful of people with stories to share to begin with.

Things got so bad that the production deteriorated into a completely unrelated discussion of purgatory and how backgrounds of artists' depictions of purgatory from centuries ago look vaguely similar to locations in Garden of the Gods (Colo.), where the stone was quarried to make the mansion in question. Granted, if you torture the camera angles enough you can find the same similarities at ANY rocky location, but pointing that out would have removed what seemed to be the only remaining thread holding a narrative of haunting together.

The production values were fine, research/information about the house seemed VERY thin (or there just wasn't much to find), but overall this is just sad.

American Hustle (2013)

A SHORT review of the film (for a change)

[5/10 · 22 March 2014]

The performances in "American Hustle" were fine. It was competently directed and didn't beat us over the head by constantly screaming "it's the 70s!" But it didn't really serve the movie to stretch what should have been 30 minutes into 90. We don't need to worry about learning about the characters because their voice-overs give us that info.

After the first 1:30, it does pick up a bit, but other than not knowing the exact details of how things are going to unfold, we're TOLD that things have been set into motion. There are no surprises in how these play out, and at the end you're just thinking, "meh."

Take care.

Psychosis (I) (2010)

Good as ambient viewing; no real surprises

[17 August 2011]

I didn't find this movie as slow-moving as most, but it WAS as pointless as they've written. At first the ending was marginally surprising until I thought about it for five seconds. The only reason it was surprising is because of the misdirection of the movie's first 10 minutes. Remove that and the lease ingenuous viewer will know what the deal is after about 30 minutes.

Very linear and predictable with extra characters that really do nothing to advance or even influence the story. It really could have been told with about five characters.

Very little was done to explain why the lead sees what she sees other than a few vague words from a medium, but even at that there is no explanation as to why she sees things now, but apparently never did the first 35 (or so) years of her life.

Still, it's decent enough for ambient viewing while loading a dishwasher or doing some paperwork. You've seen it enough times to not have to pay rapt attention, but it's not some obviously cheap, horribly acted flick that shoots entirely in day-for-night blue.

Trespassers (2006)

You can do much worse with your time

[14 August 2011]

I didn't think this was that bad.

The camera work had a bit of that shakiness to it but the director didn't make the mistake of making it insist that you constantly notice it. It helped the feel of the show, even though it no doubt also served the purpose of covering up for a lack of real atmosphere and action during more frenetic scenes.

The performances were fine, although I have a couple of gripes for these movies in general. 1) Why is the lead almost ALWAYS the worst actor? 2) Why is the slutty girl with the actual personality almost ALWAYS one of the first to go, while the girl-next-door girlfriend who is about as interesting as a dishrag is always spared for a much longer stretch? My main criticism isn't that much. Contrary to what some reviewers here believe, I can't call the back story anything other than ridiculous. You do sort of need a back story for things like this, but they swung and missed with this one. It's not really a main component, so the movie does not fail because of it, but it could have made things a little more interesting had it been good.

I gave it 5 stars (I mean, really, the most you're ever going to give one of these is 6 or 7) because the director didn't tack on a completely ridiculous ending.

Regardless, if you're looking for a passable flick of this type with a little bit of a different feel, you can do much worse than this movie.

Lake Dead (2007)

A decent journey to a ridiculous destination

[14 August 2011]

Just to get it out of the way, I seem to be one of the only people here who understands that "low budget" isn't an actual criticism. A LOT of things can be done on a shoestring these days, and "low budget" doesn't mean a movie is bad any more than "big budget" means a movie is great.

That being said, I didn't think this was that badly done. Sure, you're working with no-name actors in archetypal characters who aren't particularly polished at their craft. And, of course, it's entirely predictable just like you know it will be simply by reading the synopsis of it before watching/renting. At least they when they shot "day for night" everything wasn't blue like in the first three movies I tried to watch tonight and stopped before getting 3 minutes in.

The problem with this movie - as was the problem was similar movies and others I've seen of late - is that they can't resist trying to slap a little epilogue onto the end of the film that makes no sense. For example, lets say you've been watching a movie where a female character has multiple rendezvous with men during the movie, and after everything is tied up at the end, they tack on a couple of minutes where it's revealed that the female is actually a guy, equipment intact. Because it's obvious that one of the guys earlier in the film would have noticed that, it makes that trick ending insulting to the viewer. This actual circumstance did not happen at the end of this movie, but something equally insulting did.

As in other films, I would have been perfectly happy to give this one 5 stars, but when the writer/director tries to be too cute at the end, I've invariably been left having to knock it down a notch or two.

A decent journey with an ultimately ridiculous destination leaves me no choice but to not recommend this movie.

Black Death (2010)

I just can't recommend this one

[6/10 · 17 June 2011]

I have to stick to my guns here and say that, when it comes to movies, even the best journey is ruined by a horrible ending, and the ending of this one was one of the worst.

Just to get this out of the way, it's good to see that every obnoxious atheist with a keyboard and an opinion has seen clear to use the IMDb movie review section to harangue us with how evil religion is and how stupid are its practitioners. If they'd get out of their own way for just a moment they might have actually recognized the true thread - intended or not - in this tale. Regardless, dunce caps off to you all! And what was the point? It wasn't that organized religion is evil, nor was it that witchcraft - either real or contrived - is evil. It's that people can be bent to do all manner of things given a charismatic leader and the proper set of circumstances to exploit.

For the most part, this movie did a good job, the performances were fine and the story was decent if uneventful.

Then they had to tack on an ending. My distaste for how they chose to conclude this movie doesn't have anything to do with whether I like happy or dark endings. Either can be fine given the right circumstances. Suffice it to say that it was silly and was a departure from what little character development had taken place up to that point. To you older folks, consider it a M*A*S*H ending. How much sense did it make for Hawkeye to possibly be going crazy at the end, considering he'd been an anchor throughout the entire war? It's similar in this flick. Characters are one way throughout the movie ... then the last two minutes the writer just sort of wings it.

If you're all about the journey, this isn't that bad of a movie. But if you want that journey to actually lead somewhere and wrap itself up at the end - even if it leaves the true end in question - you're likely to be disappointed.

Frat Party (2009)

Hate it for the RIGHT reason!

[2/10 · 15 May 2011]

Yes, this was truly an awful movie. But it's funny how so many people are criticizing it for ridiculous reasons.

"I hate it because the acting/directing/editing are horrible." Really? What the hell did you expect? Are there a lot of great performances in the late-night comedy genre? There is occasionally a fairly new character/actor who has a little something extra to offer, but the poor execution and archetypal characters are the norm for these movies - not the exception. When you chose to watch "Frat Party," you knew what to expect.

"The writing is ridiculous." Granted, some of these movies (generally those with a more 'robust' budget) spend a little extra for a moderately clever writer or two. But, again, horrible writing regarding dialogue is not particular to this lone movie. Again, you knew what you were getting.

I will concede, though, that the main problem IS in the writing, but for the reasons most people are listing. The simple fact of the matter is that - while I'm sure some involved with the movie think it could have fared well with broad release and some studio support - the ending is horrible! At this time, I should type this: SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! No studio would have EVER green-lighted this script for the lone reason that the couple gets back together at the end! He's a little late for his own wedding, this completely unlikeable skank immediately marries another dude who she HATES (the new couple is leaving the church as the groom-to-be arrives) and not only does our unlucky protagonist still love/want her, but he actually takes her back?! The married chick who married another guy at YOUR altar? Child, please.

The Cavern (III) (2005)

NOTHING like BWP

[3/10 · 10 November 2010]

First, there is nothiabout this movie that is a take-off on Blair Witch Project. Some have cited the shaky camera. Those who did are obviously 30 or younger because the rest of us are aware that cameras were being shaken LONG before BWP. If they were taping themselves, it might be different , but they were not.

Second - and this is responsible for most of the ludicrous things in this film - it's just not plausible that this could happen this way. Pretty much everything - from failed escapes to deaths - rely on the concept that someone scrounging for sustinance in a cave could grow very large, possess superhuman strength and pretty much dodge or be impervious to bullets.

There just isn't enough food available for this to unfold this way. A person would use almost every waking moment looking for food. I'll grant that a person in a cave could grow strong, but not to the point where he could move things that multiple people could not move back. He'd more likely weigh about 140-160 and have corresponding strength.

This could have been a decent flick but it was just too ready to insult the audience.

Black Christmas (2006)

Mostly entertaining, but weak points were HUGE ones

[3/10 · 27 October 2010]

I didn't see the original, and although people who harbor crushes for "cult classics," I know that generally if I watched the 1974 version of this movie I'd find it to be a piece of crap, so let's get over ourselves right now, shall we? Being one of 12 people who loved a cheap 70s horror flick doesn't make you special, and I don't believe that type of exclusivity is the type to generally be proud of.

Regardless, this movie was okay if for the fact that not really a lot happened in it. It didn't have a cheap look to it, and there were enough familiar faces lending modest credibility to it that I didn't have many problems with it. The fact of the matter is that everything took place in a matter of a few hours, and you really don't know anything about the characters who are methodically being killed throughout the flick. That's one strike against the movie.

Strike two - and I believe this to be maybe the thing that insulted me most - is that with the original ending it appears that we have an entire EMT and hospital staff that is incapable of properly diagnosing death. You'd think that would be fairly basic, yet completely alive people are put in body bags and sent to the morgue. Remember, these are not supernatural beings.

Strike three - and this is one that is a glaring weakness in probably 80 percent of horror flicks - please explain to me why the hell this pair decides to kill complete strangers. As in most horror movies, revenge is usually not even a factor any longer when it comes to the current story because wrongs were righted 10 years earlier when the appropriate people were killed at THAT time. In this movie, the people who put the children through hell were killed BY one of the children, so what exactly is the beef? Billy escaped this year, so that's why the sister and he hook up and try to kill everyone in their old home? Were they just going to keep killing everyone who ever moved into the place for ... what reason, exactly? Are the new occupants sullying the wonderful childhood memories of abuse, murder, and incest Billy and Agnes have of the place? We wouldn't want that! Ultimately, this is pretty much an assembly-line killing flick with no real value beyond a couple of nice racks, but it's got enough of a quality look to it that it's worth a 5-for-$5 rental at Blockbuster. Not much more.

Ghosts of Goldfield (2007 Video)

Insultingly Bad

[3/10 · 26 October 2009]

I don't watch a horror movie looking for perfection. I look for a decent story that isn't screwed up by the actors or production staff. Unfortunately, pretty much everything that could have been done wrong in this film was.

First, lets talk about the group of five documenting hauntings in the abandoned hotel. Only three of the five were actually doing so. The two remaining hangers-on were the stock obnoxious boyfriend and slutty girlfriend - both of whom were so obviously ill-matched with their partners that it trumped all suspension of disbelief. There was simply no way either of the documentarians would have been going out with either of their mates.

Second, lets talk about shooting day for night. This is when a film is shot in daylight but manipulated to make it appear that the scenes were shot at night. At the very darkest it appears that the events in this movie occurred at around dusk. During other interior shots throughout the film it was clearly daylight outside because - duh - you could see the daylight through the windows. I don't believe a single exterior shot was actually filmed at night, and sometimes within the same scene the lighting would change from more red to more blue. The characters also inexplicably kept returning to what seems to be the basement of the hotel, which not only seemed to be a bit more haunted than the rest of the place, but also generally had daylight streaming down into it.

Third, how about doing at least a LITTLE research for minor points? This Nevada hotel was, to paraphrase, "one of the grandest hotels between Chicago and San Francisco. Now it sits abandoned off I-95." Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that sentence? Exactly! I-95 runs north-south from Maine to Florida. Would it really have taken more than 20 seconds to find a genuine interstate or state highway along which to place this hotel? Fourth, the ending is never explained and the viewer is left not really knowing why it ended as it did. I know this is often a device used by inferior film-makers to deflect criticism by reflecting it back to how stupid the viewer must be to not understand the film. Viewers too often fall into this trap, and sometimes with good reason. In this case, however, the nonsensical ending is yet another symptom of a horrible movie - not the viewer's inability to follow a story.

Even when looking for a low-budget horror flick to pass an October evening, avoid this one.

Dead Silence (2007)

Good if you don't actually pay attention

[4/10 · 18 August 2008]

With the dummies, decades-old back story, creepy theatre, etc., this story had enough environmental things going for it that it's okay if you just want to sit and passively watch.

Unfortunately, a lot of questions are left unanswered, including a few that pop up with the final scene, and some other elements just don't make any sense whatsoever.

By the way, I'm confused by how many people compare this movie to Saw. Saw isn't a horror movie folks. Sorry to tell you that, but Saw is an exploitative slasher flick with a twist. There is no horror there. There is nothing supernatural there. There is nothing mysterious there.

Again, if it's early morning/late evening and there's nothing on, it's entertaining enough. Just don't look for the loose ends to be tied up, or for any of the questions you might have to be answered. This movie just doesn't do that.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Incredibly unremarkable

[1/10 · 23 December 2007]

I've seen the overwhelming number of glowing reviews of this film, and what they tell me is that people who are fans of musicals, Johnny Depp or Tim Burton will gush about ANY of their efforts that actually make it to the big screen. The songs were okay, but this movie suffers from the fatal flaw commonly found in movie musicals, in that the songs are just padding for a story that would otherwise take about 12 minutes to tell. Come to think of it, that is a flaw shared almost universally by films directed by Tim Burton, who has been exposed since his early breakthrough efforts as a director who is clearly more comfortable with style than any sort of story structure. A couple of actors were brought in for a bit more singing talent, but none of the songs really required much in the way of pipes. Burton is well-suited in his typical role as a decent director (as long as the film in shot in blue-and-white) who makes bad movies. Depp again sacrifices doing watchable fare in favor of being what he apparently considers an "artist," and Bonham-Carter does the yawn-through she usually does in roles donated to her by whoever her latest fling is. And as is also typical, a cast filled with actors many of us really like gives us a pedestrian effort, apparently believing that our affection for them is enough to keep us blindly attending sub-par fare. There's really just nothing to recommend about this flick, and if it's at the top of your list of movies to see, you'd really be best-served going with your No. 2.

Stupid Teenagers Must Die! (2006)

The kind of terrible you are looking for, with a FATAL flaw

[2/10 · 4 December 2007]

I have no idea how anyone can give this movie high marks. I didn't rent it thinking it was the next great horror flick, the next great horror spoof, or the next great low-budget horror spoof. Obviously, this isn't meant to scare, but one fatal flaw with the production entirely sapped the joy out of the viewing experience. The sound editing was horrible. I had to work the volume control the entire movie. You can imagine how difficult it is to get into something - even a low-budget spoof - when you're either turning the volume up or down, or trying to anticipate the next time you have to do so. The regular dialogue is very low, and all screams, noises, etc., are VERY loud. We're not talking about toggling between 5 and 7 on the volume control, finding a happy medium at 6. We're talking toggling between 2 and 9 on the volume where it is virtually impossible to leave the volume alone. Again, this movie might be a decent example of what it is meant to be, but you're going to be spending so much time adjusting your volume control that you'll never have the chance to enjoy it.

Rescue Dawn (2006)

Don't waste your time or money

[2/10 · 4 December 2007]

I'd been wanting to see this flick for awhile, but it was always the odd man out when renting. Tonight, I finally gave it a viewing, and couldn't have been more disappointed.

From some of what I'm reading, the Christian Bale fans are giving this movie and its performances WAY more credit than either deserves. This flick had the look and feel of a made-for-TV movie with subpar performances all around and ran about 20 minutes long at that. Characters that are supposed to demonstrate how imprisonment can affect the mind are simply annoying after a few minutes. Very little is explained regarding the setting or behaviors of any of the characters. Speaking of which, Bale's character is the most bumbling escapee I can recall seeing on film. The behaviors/judgement that he demonstrates would make it very difficult to avoid capture by a decent Boy Scout pack, let alone the Vietcong or Laotian militants.

Overall, this movie just leaves you feeling you wasted more than two hours, and $4 at the video store. I can honestly say - and this is no joke - that you will be more entertained if you rent Chuck Norris' "Missing in Action" movie. Granted, it's a little cheesy, but at least it's a movie that knows where it's going, and covers its bases.

The Mist (2007)

Nothing to offer but a few effects

[1/10 · 3 December 2007]

I'm only commenting on "The Mist" to spare some of you from wasting what these days is a good amount of money on a movie that is complete garbage. Sure, there were some nice effects regarding the "monsters" and a little gore, but effects are pretty much the only thing this flick has to offer.

As per the trailer, you all know that a bunch of people are trapped by the mysterious mist and what lives inside of it. In other words, your standard zombie movie scenario. NOW, imagine that typical zombie scenario where probably 60 percent of the time they spend trapped (and this is NOT an exaggeration) is filled with religious diatribes by Marcia Gay Harden's zealot character. After the first couple of outbursts, WE GOT IT! But no, the audience is treated to another, and another, and another, between every bit of action and alternate dialog. Do you really want to spend what is supposed to be a 90-minute escape listening to someone talking damnation for about 45 of those minutes? This movie provides no escape at all. It is a failed attempt at social commentary, wrapped up in the horror genre and is just not worth it, regardless of whether or not you find the ending satisfying.

Please do not spend a penny on this. Forty minutes after the last preview ends, you'll be wishing the exit is handy.

30 Days of Night (2007)

The idiot's vampire film. Please avoid it.

[2/10 · 20 October 2007]

I'll try to be as vague as I can, but I felt it was necessary to write that this may contain spoilers of one kind or another. But if you do not want to read further, my point is basically that this is a film in which almost nothing stands up to the least bit of logical thought, even with the suspension of disbelief.

Like many of you, I was lured to watch this film with the hope that it would be as entertaining as other films based on graphics novels like "Sin City" and "300." It seemed like a sure thing, giving the shaky-camera treatment to a twist on the vampire story. But something went horribly wrong along the way.

We begin with the town of Barrow, Alaska, closing down for a 30-day period in which there is no sun. Skip forward a bit, and we've got a town under siege by perhaps the most pathetic group of vampires since those in the original "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Don't get me wrong, they rate fairly high when it comes to freaky appearance. But we've got a town that, because of an exodus during the season, is down to 152 people. From here, we basically go to the same premise as every zombie movie ever made: A small group of survivors has to avoid capture, death, or a fate worse than both. The clock is ticking at 30 days because the sun will rise again after that stretch.

NOW, there seem to be a few dozen vampires. And they know they have 30 days to feast. So they proceed to pretty much exhaust the entire food supply on the first day, then have a HECK of a time finding the survivors over the next month in a town of about 40 buildings. This attempt is made even more difficult by the fact that, with their superior physical abilities and numbers, the vampires still choose to hide and lurk about, rather than systematically checking every building in town in groups.

There is some dialog on the part of the vampires, but it's generally nonsensical and doesn't really tell you anything. I'm not even sure more than one vampire ever speaks. In fact, you don't learn anything about the vampires, other than they don't manage to clean themselves up during the entire 30-day period. And as much as they enjoy the killing, once they seem to be seriously low on food (lets say, the last 29 days), there really is never any indication that they or the people trying to elude them are ever actually hungry. This being the case, you're kind of left wondering why they are attacking the town to begin with.

Ultimately, this basically is like "The Blair Witch Project" in one important way: Once you begin to think about it in the least, it suddenly becomes incredibly stupid. And style doesn't compensate the viewer for the lack of substance. Avoid this flick at all costs.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

If this is the last film, I won't shed a tear

[6/10 · 10 September 2007]

I went to this film with the hope that the weaknesses in the previous films would be improved upon and that this would be a solid flick. Of course, I ALSO went to the second one hoping for the same thing. In both cases, I was disappointed.

I thought the first movie in this trilogy had a good thread throughout, but was a little inconsistent and rough. But, with the promise of at least one sequel, I figured that the people who made the first film would see the flaws, strengthen them, and produce a really good second installment.

They didn't. Nor did they do so for the third movie. Honestly, these movies are pretty much interchangeable. Scant minutes of dialogue between chase scenes, and not much quality to anything non-action-related.

If you just want action with nothing special in the area of plot, this is your film. If you want a true suspense and thrill, you can easily do better.

Beowulf & Grendel (2005)

I liked it, but have not read it.

[6/10 · 11 March 2007]

I can empathize with all the people who have read the epic tale, then watched a movie that apparently bore little resemblance to it. I write as one who has not read the literature, so I base my opinion solely on the film.

As an American, it's always a bit difficult for me to pick up on some of the accents initially, especially when they take the form of grunted sentences. Once the cursing and actual conversations began, though, it was much easier.

I thought this was generally fairly well done. It was obvious there couldn't have been that great of a budget, and I think they did okay with the limited resources they had. The performances were fine, although I have no idea who decided that they should bring Sara Polley into the works. There wasn't anything particularly deep to the points that apparently were created from thin air. They were generally apparent although I do bristle at the main point that is made at the end. When Beowulf says he's not like the others, it's pointed out that because of a particular action he IS. But the comparison doesn't truly exist. Imagine being compared to a lumberjack because a tree falls down in front of you.

This was a bit of a ramble, and probably not that helpful since I avoided spoilers, but I would say that if you would like a movie that requires little thought, but has its merits, this isn't a bad one to try. But if you have something else you think you are more interested in, this one isn't so good that you should move it up higher on your list.

Take care.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

Good, but not what you probably think it is

[7/10 · 7 February 2007]

My impression has been that this film is being marketed as some girl's fanciful creation of a fantasy world into which she retreats during a time of upheaval. Technically, that's probably true. But not the way Americans might expect it to be.

If you expect to be drawn into Willie Wonka's chocolate factory for 90 minutes, you will be very disappointed. I would hazard that perhaps only about 30 minutes is spent in any sort of alternate reality. And that reality, while generally visually appealing, is actually much darker than Wonka's, for the most part.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed this film considerably. But it's not "Chronicles of Narnia." There are rather graphic acts of violence, and the escape the girl finds in her alternate reality isn't exactly as rosy as you might expect. Every time you think maybe you should turn away from the screen in anticipation of what is about to happen, turn away, because that's exactly what is about to happen.

The positive notes are not as readily digestible as they generally are in American movies. You have to be willing to accept that you have to work a little to find them.

Finally, I would recommend this movie, but don't go if you're expecting something light or fanciful.

Take care.