yoshi_indo's Reviews

Troll Hunter (2010)

9/10

A must see monster movie that proves that money does not make the movie!

4 June 2011

I had an inkling feeling that this movie would be quite bland.I am not a big fan of the POV craze that movies such as "Blair Witch Project" and " (REC)" started, because of this I went into this movie with an apprehensive mind. However once the movie begins its draws you in with its brilliant pacing and spectacular cinematography. (Note: I watched this in Norwegian with English subtitles)

The Plot: A group of college kids begin investigating a bunch of bear killings only to discover it is a rouse used by a government issued troll hunter.

The Writing: The movie seemingly has a basic plot; A group of college kids begin to make a movie about a "bear killer" who turns out to be a government hired troll hunter. However unlike many movies that use this story (Godzilla, Predator, Any vampire hunter movie)the troll hunter played by Otto Jespersen despises his job as it is a dirty,poorly paid ,and a unappreciated life style, because of this he allows the college kids to video his job in hopes to elevate his lifestyle. The relationship he creates with the college students felt very organic and they get over the mundane "no such things as trolls" phase very quickly.This was because the script allowed us to see a troll (clearly) within the introduction of the movie, this surprised me as many movies would usually with hold this until the mid to the conclusion of the movie.Surprisingly this did not hinder the awe inspiring presence of these fantastical creatures.There is also some pseudo science that explains why trolls cannot take sunlight and why do they turn to stone etc..and for the most part this is done quite well(albeit the fact they smell Christian blood was rather to fantastical for this movie). Though this script is nothing ground breaking it is done excellently and one quickly begins to empathize with the grizzled troll hunter and passionate college students. (4/5)

The Acting: I did not know anyone in the cast but once the credits rolled I was already in love with them. The actors who played the college students were good, their leader Thomas played by Glenn Tosterud emanated charisma and leadership but was still able to convey his amazement at the existence of trolls. However the star of the show (as clearly stated by the title) is the troll hunter himself. Otto Jespersen is definitely the main attraction to this movie (second to the actual trolls) his portrayal of a secret government exterminator is nothing short of Oscar worthy. Throughout the movie he conveys the burden he carries through experience through acting, he only had one monologue in which he was able to explain the unappealing life of a troll hunter. The acting itself in this movie is worth a viewing and is definitely a strength in this movie. (5/5)

The Cinematography: This was the greatest strength the movie had in my opinion. For a movie that had a 20 million dollar budget I thought it bested movies with 5 times its given funds. The trolls look fantastic , they are not hidden by shoddy camera work or tucked away till the end. You will see a troll from the start and you will see them in the end, however they shown in such away where their appearance does not diminish their appeal (there are a variety of troll species).The environments itself was nothing short of breathtaking, from the dark forests of Norway to the its icy mountains this movie truly takes advantage of its wondrous setting. With visuals that rivals that of movies such as Thor and Avatar it is truly a wonder how the director could have done created this movie with such a low budget. (5/5)

The Score: Like many POV movies troll hunter has no score, however the sounds they do provide are very immersive. From the whipping winds of the mountains to the subtle rustling of trees in the forests once truly feels one is the camera man in this movie. The trolls sound fantastic and their bellows and moans truly venerate the bestial yet majestic nature of their existence. (4/5)

If I were to critique this movie I would just question one of the weapons used by the troll hunter,but that is a pin prick compared to the spectacular vision that is this movie.

Final Score: 9/10

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Thor (2011)

6/10

A comic book movie that is entertaining but far from satisfying...

23 May 2011

Having read / watched several reviews for this movie I went in with great hopes for this movie. What I was given was satisfactory but did not sate the expectations I had for this movie.

The Plot: Thor, son of Odin (king of a race of gods called the Aesir). Is sent to earth to learn a lesson on humility, for causing a possible breach on an already brittle relationship between the Aesir and the Frost Giants.

The Writing: I thought this was a weaker part of the movie. The portrayal of Thor was good but asides Odin and Heimdall the rest of the Aesir were something left to be desired. They managed to change quite possibly one of the most campy characters from the Marvel universe to a remedially serious one. However the whole movie has a twist that completely hinges on your knowledge of Norse mythology (I have read bull finches mythology book) and the whole movie seemed kind of pointless and kind of silly if one knows about the positions of the Aesir. Do not read the next bracket if you do not want a weak twist to be spoiled (Loki is the God of mischief and trickery). I thought they were unable to give the full breadth of Thor's powers as I felt ambiguously about the strength of Thor, this also applied to Heimdall as everyone seem to treat him with reverence but we do not really see why.There were also some plot holes that were never explained e.g. What is the Odin's sleep? (I know, but others who are not familiar with Norse mythology may find it hard to accept).The character Kat Dennings played also seemed to have no place in the plot and the deadpan humor she attempted to convey seemed to fall flat for me due to weak writing. What the movie does succeed in is turning a relatively enraging plot (putting an "alien" into our society and see him interact with it) to an entertaining spectacle. The director also made the dialogue believable and some of the quotes spoken by Anthony Hopkins warrants the viewing of this movie. (2/5)

The Acting: Most of the actors portray their characters very well in this movie and convey the right amount of charisma and or subtlety for their respective characters. Chris Hemsworth, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Sarsgard, and Idris Elba give a great energy to this movie but it is Idris Elba's subtle yet commanding Heimdall that really caught my eye. (4/5)

The Cinematography: This one was a relatively mixed bag, the scenes during the battle with the Frost Giants were very weak and lazily edited having all the Aesir and Frost Gaint (asides Odin) copy pasted several thousand times with a very lackluster set (that continuous in this set throughout the movie) of the Frost Giant's home world. Thor's abilities and the Rainbow Bridge were done very well and really brought a spectacle to be watched. The monsters were relatively mixed, some being detailed others being lazily edited. (3/5)

The Score: Nothing special, some scenes in the Aesir's world were filled with some dramatic and energetic music. (3/5)

Thor to the average person is quite enjoyable and I would definitely recommend on a lazy afternoon, but with if you are searching a movie that is remotely edifying you will not find anything of substance here.

Final Score = 6/10

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Feast (2005)

8/10

Imagine Scream with monsters, and more subtler self parody...

30 April 2011

I am currently in a phase where I am trying to find any independent and or B grade horror movie and review it, and of all the movies I have watched (including Dead Alive, Slither, Black Sheep, Splinter) this is probably the best from the ones I have mentioned.

Plot: A group people in a bar is warned by a blood stained hero carrying the head of a fanged monster, that a group of said monsters is on their way to attack the bar. They then begin fortifying the bar and try to survive the night.

The writing: Is the movies strongest points in my opinion.The pacing is excellent where it has a explosive start followed by a moderate body, climaxed by a chaotic ending. Imagine any horror movie but where the world itself is in collusion with the monsters. Everything goes wrong for the humans. The escape attempts they plan (which are actually seem quite effective in theory) fail as the monsters are actually quite smart even "Mentza" worthy. There are some cheesy scenes and lines but in can be excused due to self parody feel the movie is going for. At the start of movie we are given an 80's freeze frame of each of the characters and a short bio on them. This bio includes a life expectancy that is linear to that of a traditional horror movie, what this movie does is turn that up-side down but not to a point where it becomes predictable. The characters themselves are diverse, the movie does have jerks, old veterans, old people, a single mother, and even a cripple. Most of them are likable, and that brought a good sense of dread into the movie as I actually wanted most of these characters to live. I sympathized with characters in this movie more any characters from all of Eli Roth's movies combined. This movie also had the most awesome execution scene ever (if good characters, and writing was not enough of an incentive)4/5

The acting: This is where the movie becomes slightly sub-par, the actors are OK, but become a bit too ham fisted in some delivery. This can be attributed to the relatively new or low budget actors, and the fact the writing required a lot of charisma to be generated from them. Some of the actors where just out of their depth but I could tell they tried hard to en capture what the writing was asked from them. 3/5

The cinematography: It is so good to see a movie in this genre without any CGI and a decent monster to look at. Unlike other low budget monster movies (this one being 3 million) the monsters they provided were both fearsome, and scary to look at up close. The movie had some clear shots of the monsters and they looked great. The movie is also very gory, but not to a comical level which was very good. It managed to have a light hearted tone but with realistic violence. The lighting is very eighties with a orange / yellow tinge to the set giving it a gritty grind house feel. For what funds they had to work with I thought they did a spectacular job in filming and editing this movie. 5/5

The score: Mostly comprised of metal, and heavy rock tracks. It was good but some shoddy mixing made some scenes jarring as the music would cut abruptly. however the tracks themselves captured the energy and terror on screen on that merit it does quite well. 4/5

Criticism: This movie could have been slightly more serious, and did not need to be as comedic as it was. The actors where relatively weak at delivering their roles, and some shoddy editing int the sound department (some scenes obviously did not have their sounds balanced.)

Definitely worth a watch if one is a horror fan. This is a great example of how a movie with a low budget, with great atmosphere , and with great writing can a create much better movie than others above its pay grade.

8/10

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rampage (2009)

7/10

A dark movie with some faults,but a thrill ride that tension at max capacity.

26 April 2011

This is the first Uwe Boll experience I have had, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Albeit some bad direction marred this otherwise bleak outlook on the mind psychopathic yet deceptively cunning man.

The plot: Bill Williamson (Brendan Fletcher) a seemingly average young adult builds up an arsenal to attack his apparently materialistic society.

The writing: Is actually quite good, Uwe Boll has created a character that is scarily believable and a scenario that seems plausible. The rampage itself takes up over half of the movie but is done in way that it does not become mundane, this is done by adding new key moments and tension building scenes. The characters themselves are believable with only the main character being a bit overly powerful. This is evident when he takes a full clip from a policeman, even though he is wearing armor bullets should have fractured his body. The scenario Boll sets up for the man is also clever and the machination Williamson creates for his rampage is quite sophisticated. He sets up distractions and plans out his attack perfectly to maximize the damage he can do and the movie illustrates this very well and realistically to a point (where he is able to attain certain materials is a bit far fetched). 3/5

The acting: Is very well done, I am probably guessing Boll had little direction in this as the actors in this movie are relative veterans. Fletcher is a convincing Fletcher being calculative and remorseless to his victims. The side actors are good, but they play very minor rolls albeit Shaun Sipos does a good job at portraying Williamson's advocative friend Evan Drince (the only other character that had a major role in the movie). The victims did well at conveying their fear of Williamson and the rapid cutting made it fast paced enough for them to not become grating. 4/5

The cinematography: Is average, the lighting is done nicely having a cool filter in it to convey the merciless imagery shown. However I believe Mr.Boll should look into investing his budget on a tripod as many of his shots were very shaky and unfocused. One may argue that this is artistic direction but I just found it jarring, and frustrating during some scenes where characters are standing in the same place but the camera is shaking as if the cameraman had a little to much to drink during his break. 3/5

The score: Mostly comprised of ambient noises, there were some rock influenced tracks during the movie and they did well to build up the excitement. During the rampage itself there was very little music, and sometimes the music goes into what Williamson would be hearing inside his helmet (a muted filter that only makes his breathing audible). This works to the movie's favor as it conveys the concentration and vindication that Williamson feels during these events. During the rampage when not in Williamson's helmet we just hear the screams of bystanders with the blaring sirens of a fire alarms and police cars, this does really well to portray the chaos that is transpiring. 4/5

Criticism: The ending is rather shallow and I would have preferred they end the movie about 10 minutes before the actual conclusion. The aforementioned over powered nature of Williamson made it slightly surreal. The shoddy camera work which made some of the scenes just unpleasant.

A dark movie that is worth a viewing. From what I have heard of Bolls other works this maybe his masterpiece as it is both riveting and engrossing to watch. It is not pleasant movie to watch and kind of mean spirited but it will keep you glued on the screen.

7/10

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

4/10

Well.....It was not boring :)

25 April 2011

Warning: Spoilers

To be honest I hate Twilight, I hate its message and I hate how it has butchered works of horror literature, and harlequin romance.Surprisingly I found this movie evocative (all negative emotions though), and that makes it a better movie than "Knight and Day"

The Plot: Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) leaves to confront the Valturi (an elite clan of vampires),leaving Bella Swan (Kirsten Stewart) in a depressed state , to be only comforted by her long time friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner).

The Writing: The plot itself is intriguing, and by itself pretty good. The drama of choice between two different men, and Edwards love toward Bella stems from his inability to read her mind. This obviously means they can actually have passion in their relationship (due to him being unable to read her innermost thoughts). However the characters (or just Bella and Edward) prohibit this reasonable plot to shine through. The symbolism presented in this movie is also so very ham fisted it makes the allegory of homosexuality in X-men seem subtle. I of course refer to the were-wolves (which are more like just wolves, since they are not bipedal), a group of shirtless teenagers who enjoy playing "physical jousting" with each other and have no choice of them having this ability. This is especially prevalent when Bella tells Jacob that "what you are doing is wrong" and "stop it", Jacob retorts "Its not like I have a choice", "I was born this way". This sort of symbolism is so blunt it made teenagers being rejected by society wearing brightly colored leather, with "special powers" seem vague. Bella as character is just pure evil, in lamence term; She is a parasite. She is unable to live without a man, and the actions she commits to keep a man is beyond compulsive. She basically tortures Jacob to be with her, always giving him hope that they may be together, when she obviously loves Edward. The plot itself also seems to support this as every instance that they are able to physically bond (a kiss) a extraneousness circumstance seems to stop them doing so (this happens three times).Edward comes of as un- relatable to me due to the fact I am not a masochist. I do not see why she cannot change Bella into a vampire and forgo all the drama that is this redundant series. Jacob and the father seem to be the only characters that I can support, they are kind, (very)patient , and are flawed, however they are the biggest doormats and have to learn to say no to Bella for this movie to have a remotely good script.The script also completely destroyed vampires allowing them to walk in day light and werewolves being able to change at will. Those are minor complaints that are over used, but still bugged me. The movie was also to long being 130minutes ,making the development between Bella and Jacob become padding rather than character development. 2/5

The acting: Asides Kirsten Stewart and Robert Pattinson everyone turns out a reasonable performance, the extras are able convey their grief, joy and anger with consistence. However the two leads are consistent to the point of ossification, they never convey a single emotion asides non-chalance. I can sort of let Edward go with this since he is a conflicted character due to his masochistic nature,but there is no excuse why Kirsten Stewart cannot show emotions (I mean she did that quite well in Adventureland). 3/5

The cinematography: Is average, the lighting is good showing the crisp natural colours of the forest quite well and giving some beautiful vistas of said forest.However there was an overuse of slow motion (that was just inappropriate and jarring), and I am still baffled about the sparkling vampires. I mean they do not just sparkle, to me it looked like they had a disco ball under their pores shooting out strobe lights. 3/5

The score: Just bad the music did not fit in with the fight scenes, and most of the songs played are songs of lament, that would sounds fitting for the plot but on execution just does not work at all. The lazy and sad voices of the bands playing do not fit with the calm soothing imagery provided by the forests that take up most of the movie. 1/5

I cannot give this movie a recommendation by its own merits, however I did find it entertaining as all these mistakes made me laugh quite a bit. I found this movie much more funnier than the parody "movies" that have been streaming out these days and on that merit it is worth a rental. Serious score : 4.5/10 As a comedy : 7/10

7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Fountain (2006)

7/10

Do I like it?....no,but I can appreciate it, and know it is a work of art.

22 April 2011

This movie has had an infamous reputation amongst my circle of friends, and for good reason.

The plot: Spread between three time lines (past, present and future{I think}) it movie tells a story of a conquistador searching for the fountain of youth. A doctor trying find a cure for his ill wife, and the future: Which is so abstract all I can say is a man trying to save a tree?

The writing: Is good, the story lines I understood made sense and are filled with symbolism about; life, death , and the after life. The characters interactions are well written and the relations between Hugh Jackman's characters and Rachel Weisz's characters are quite compelling (both of them play a "different" character in each timeline. Sadly I did find the three stories as a whole hard to enjoy as I spent most of the movie trying to figure out what is supposed to be happening. This led me to become more bored than intrigued. I thought the most compelling story is the one of the past, as it is both intriguing and understandable. The story line in the present seemed to be overly dramatic as the characters are not given enough development for me to empathize with them. The future story line is enjoyable to watch, but I did not really understand it.I would compare this movie with the novel "One Hundred Years Of Solitude" by Garcia Marquez, not only with its dream atmosphere but because of the time lapses are similar.

The acting: The lead actors in this movie were good, but they seemed to be secondary. Most of the movies strengths lie in its script and atmosphere. This is not to say no emotions are conveyed by the actors as Jackman and Weisz give a full on performance. This performance also demanded a myriad of emotions to be displayed in sequence and the leads do a great job during these scenes.

The cinematography: I thought this was the best part of the movie. The interloping cuts between time lines are done really, and the imaginative environments created are filled with mystique. We are taken to the deep South American jungles, to an tranquil garden reminiscent to that of distant galaxies, and more moderate scene in a gloomy hospital. The lighting ranged from high contrasts to darker softer lights (depending on the timeline). The contrasting atmospheres of the three story lines some how meshed well together and this is definitely credited to Aronofsky's visionary direction.

The score: Mostly filled with strings to convey emotion and emphasize the drama in each scene. It works well with the movie and is not jarring in any way, but is nothing spectacular.

If you are in the mood for something abstract that will take you to places only in our imaginations watch this movie. However if one is unable to appreciate the arts do not watch this movie without someone who does so one may be able to appreciate this masterfully created film.

7.5/10

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Painted Veil (2006)

8/10

A compelling drama with some obvious plot points.

21 April 2011

I am usually not a fan of romantic drama's but the dark twist and setting of this movie made me throughly enjoy it.

The plot: A young doctor (Edward Norton) enters an emotionless marriage with rich, rather spoiled woman(Naomi Watts) and struggles through his relationship, whilst aiding a Chinese village plagued by cholera.

The writing: Is good and contains a lot of symbolism that could be more subtle. The village they are in symbolized their relationship and its condition changes accordingly. This was done very cleverly and allowed the scenario Norton and Watts to coincide with their relationship. The script itself has some schmaltzy moments but it did endear me to the characters. The conversations between to the two main leads felt natural and none of the lines are ham fisted. The final act (though not as powerful as other dramas ala The Pianist)was effective to make me feel sympathetic to the characters in the movie, due to the atrocities they have experienced. The balance between the plague and the emotional turmoil experienced by the main leads is amazing, and allows the movie to have some spectacularly dark and jubilant scenes.

The acting: Norton and Watts do a solid performance that is both believable and enjoyable. I truly felt the happiness, hatred, and love they emoted at the camera. However I thought the Asian side characters where quite weak ,and could have been developed more, being only there to die or provide Asiatic stereotypes. Toby Jones is also to be commended for his great performance as an English ambassador.

The cinematography: The movie used a lot of soft lighting to the audience bringing out the emotive faces of the actors. There was a nice balance between close up shots of the two leads ,and medium shots to illustrate the plagued state of the village.There were also some beautiful and bleak long shots of the Chinese country side and the village.

The soundtrack: Great using oriental music to fit in with the background, and a more string heavy track for the more distressing scenes. There is also some classical piano songs (Watts character plays the piano) that fits in well with the more western areas of the town (the church/orphanage), and scenes shot in a western district.

Criticism: I thought the ending was quite cliché albeit executed perfectly. There were some scenes developing Watts character that were kind of dull (involving the church, and her being bored), and i thought those could have been used to develop Norton's character more (who seemed much more nuance).

This movie definitely deserves a rent and can be quite heart wrenching given the right circumstances.

7.6/10

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hard Candy (2005)

9/10

Best psychological thriller I have ever seen.

21 April 2011

I had no idea what to expect of this movie, but what I got out of it was a feeling of despair and desolation only a talented crew can evoke.

The Plot : A photographer (Patrick Wilson) decides to meet up with an online friend (Ellen Page). During their encounter she suspects him of being a pedophile and proceeds to confirm her theory.

The Writing: This (in my opinion) is the strongest point of the movie. It is fresh original and left me speechless, and in shock with its chilling conclusion. Most of the stark and bleak emotions created by this movie is conveyed through the script. There was only one scene that involved silly writing but it can be justified with due to the emotions of the empire ( it involves a character being able to gain something but does not take it). The movie revolves around Patrick Wilson and Ellen Paige, and only deviates from these two for less than ten minutes of screen time (mostly to a side character played by Sandra Oh). I cannot talk anymore about the script lest I give anything of value the script has to offer , but in the end I believe it is masterfully written and executed.

The Acting: Patrick Wilson and Ellen Paige take over 95% of the screen time and everything they give is pure gold. Wilson is able to believably pull off the seemingly innocent man with flashes of suspicious cunning. However I thought Paige was the star of the show, being able to convey the eccentricities of her character without eating scenery. Her characters antics do become unnatural at times, but only adds to the emotions created by the movie.

The Cinematography: I have never seen a movie use halogen lights and simplistic settings create such a feeling of desolation.The set itself is mostly composed of rooms with primary colours,and I thought these cleverly symbolized the emotions going through the characters in said rooms. The lighting is brilliant giving the movie a cold, and deathly atmosphere. The movie has some gore in it,but it is only used to support the hopelessness conveyed by the writing. The bleak atmosphere is also emphasized by the close up shots of the main characters and how they react to each other, and each other only. David Slade did an amazing job, and only a movie like this would have allowed me to forgive his sub-par performance in Twilight.

The Score: There is no background music in this movie, however there are some ambient noises that add to the tension and suspense the movie has to offer. This was very effective at once again bringing forth emotions of hopelessness and forlorn.

Criticisms: I would have liked it if the movie spent more time developing the characters a bit more. However I understand it would have taken away a lot of the mystery this movie had to offer. And one knows a sign of a good movie is when one is left wanting more.

This movie is a must see. It does contain a lot of mature content and disturbing scenes so it is DEFINITELY not for children. Go rent this movie now!

9.5/10

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Devil (2010)

6/10

Entertaining, but frustrating at the same time.

20 April 2011

Warning: Spoilers

I began watching "Devil" with the worst possible expectations, and came away pleasantly surprised yet my expectations were still affirmed.

The cinematography, for the most part "Devil" has decent camera work, and lighting. The lighting is mostly "cool" going for the clean professional look of the office building, giving the film a cold feel. There are a lot of rapid cuts in the elevator itself giving many opportunity for many obvious jump scares. Sadly the movie main horror comes from these jump scares, and leaves atmospheric dread or emotional fear to be desired.

The writing, is where the film falls very short. First of all I am a Christian and this rendition of the Devil completely profounds me, and even though I tried to alienate myself from this opinion, the movies plot gave it room for some lazy writing. As the Devil is responsible for the events happening in this movie, it allowed the movie to have over 9 deus ex machinas. From a guard walking from into a pool of electrified water to pigeon jump scare killing a mechanic, this movie's plots is just padded with unfortunate circumstances from the victims being rescued in the elevator. The most ridiculous scene (now infamous I am sure) involves a Latino character finding out that the Devil is responsible by flipping a piece of toast, and seeing it fall jelly side up. This scene truly dumbfounded me as he chose the an event that had a 50% chance of happening to prove the existence of the Devil. I mean he could have tried several other random occurrences to strengthen his argument (he believed that when the Devil is around bad occurrences happen) e.g. he could have tried using a vending machine, he could have tried going to the toilet with a blind fold on to strengthen his beliefs. What I am trying to get at is that this movie completely relies on idiotic writing, coincidences and lazy plot holes to work. The ending made no sense as the Devil just leaves one of the victims alive in the elevator, because he confessed his sins , yet it kills everyone else in said elevator with no qualms. (It is also quite obvious who the Devil is)

The acting, for the most part, was good. The actors in the elevator were able to convey their fear and panic to the camera quite well, and even though there were a lot stereotypical characters e.g. ( the religious Latino, the gangster African-American, the snake oils salesmen), they were mostly done in a believable standard.

The score, was decent but had a few jarring scenes. It was mostly composed of heavy bass driven sound, and ghostly strings (to create suspense I assume) similar to that of Hans Zimmer movie's, but I thought the movie should have relied less on the score and have a more solitary feel to it. The bass was used to accentuate the jump scares,but this did nothing to effect me.

Devil is not a bad movie but it is not a good one either.It was not boring and some bits were entertaining albeit annoying. Where it falls very short is the plot. I would not recommend renting this, but if it is on the TV it would not hurt to watch it.

5.8/10

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Jacket (2005)

8/10

A mind bending thriller that some how manages to get by without to many outrageous twists

19 April 2011

Not many thrillers in todays day and age can set a mood,and atmosphere set by this one. I also expected this psychological thriller to contain a fair amount of gimmicky twists, I was pleasantly surprised it did not.

The plot is interesting: Jack Starks (Adrien Brody) is injured during war and has been diagnosed with being psychologically unstable, and sent to a mental hospital where he is experimented upon.One may now see why I thought many twists may have occurred during this movie.

The cinematography was excellent ranging from warm lighting of a house, to a cold and solitary lighting of a mental institution. There also many claustrophobic shots that were done brilliantly displaying panic and fear. During these moments the camera flashes and does rapid cuts that only emphasize the frenetic emotions one can experience in darkness.

The writing is good, and the fact it still manages to build tension without any particularly urgent issues is quite amazing (most of the tension comes from the acting). Some of the characters are quite weak and pointless, but for the most part are able to fit in with the story quite well.

The acting is a mixed bag. I thought Adrien Broody did a spectacular performance almost on par with his staring role in "The Pianist". However I thought this may have been one of Kiera Knightly's weaker movies,she is able to emote her distress but compared to Broody's depiction of a possibly psychotic man it falls quite short. The rest of the characters are good, and while not spectacular, make the mental institution feel cold, desolate, and "professorial".

"The Jacket" is a great movie worth a viewing. It is able to emulate a "Shutter Island"esq atmosphere and tension without the budget, and also manages to get by without any jump scares and limited twists.

7.7/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Black Sheep (2006)

7/10

A "B movie" that does justice to black humor and a refreshing look on zombie movies!

18 April 2011

Coming from Australia I understand that sheep is a major part of life in New Zealand, and know that sheep out number people by a long shot.

With that background knowledge, I thought I caught most of the dry humor movie presented in this movie.

The cinematography is great with many dark in door shots contrasted with the grassy fields of New Zealand. This juxtaposition created great atmospheric contrast and made the darker scenes all the more grim. The movie is visceral not shying away from limbs being torn off, and necks being torn to shreds.The SFX are pretty good for most of the part, but some of the monsters are obviously a man in a suit, and that broke the illusion quite a bit.

The writing is interesting, there are some formula plotting and clichés in this movie,but considering it seems to satirize horror movies they are employed quite well. The characters are very quirky but can be empathized. The humor is very dark using the purity of sheep and turning them into demonic beings from hell itself. However the humor (I thought) was very dry and only people from the oceanic region may understand it.

A good movie that deserves a look if one is bored, and is in a mood for watching over the top gore caused in a very comical manner.

6.6/10

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Slither (2006)

7/10

A good creature feature with decent black comedy

18 April 2011

Slither is fun movie, it does not brake any barriers but what it offers is refined to an enjoyable standard.

The Cinematography in this movie was very good, all the shots are used to clearly highlight the gore and the director clearly has no qualms with visceral imagery. The lighting is good, and one scene juxtaposing violence with jubilation was done really well.

The writing is above average. The characters are great and only one, one note character was found in this movie. The story itself was formulaic reminiscent of "Planet Terror" meets "Alien",but is executed quite well without any idiotic horror clichés (e.g. a character asks his zombie friend if he is alright and proceeded to get infected accordingly).The jokes are quite subtle and mostly visual, with a few one liners that worked well with the scenes.

In the end Slither is a good late night horror movie worth a rental. If you enjoy gratuitous violence with light hearted a tone, you will thoroughly enjoy this movie!

7/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010)

9/10

Great Movie for comedy and slasher lovers alike!

18 April 2011

I watched this movie expecting an temporary escape for 2hrs but it gave me so much more.

The premise is simple, a couple of college kids go camping where a two hill billies moved in and trouble ensues.

The cinematography is great, not shying away from any visceral shots, and the lighting set a creepy yet light hearted atmosphere.

The writing is brilliant, the main leads appear to be one dimensional at first but as the movie progresses I began to really take a shine to their antics. The characters are funny, but not one note, and the comedy goes in naturally with the gore. None of the jokes feel forced and are funny, with only a couple relying on cheap slap stick and toilet humor.

If I were to fault it I would say that some of the action scenes are very outrageous, and one scene just made my palm slap my face with such force my nose nearly cracked (it involves a person trying to work a revolver, derp).

All in all it was a great movie, that not only entertained me but also had endearing characters that are hard to find in this genre today.

8.5/10

8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

yoshi_indo

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed