Reroute 2010 Poster Art

It’s odd when life becomes a wheel, where you tread on ground already worn by your forging footsteps years before. Six years ago while working for a relatively young publication I reviewed this small film from then Edmonton based IDIOM Films entitled Reroute. I had been familiar with the company, having seen Lyrics To Dying, their first film as a company, a year before. As with Lyrics, Reroute stood out to me then as something quite unique among the other independent films I had been reviewing. There was a measure of care to each film, and moreover a far-reaching edict muted only by the lack of budget.

Writer, producer, director, everyman Kenneth Barr had fashioned a distinct, and for lack of a better term, lyrical style that he has continued to evolve to this day. Using the film noir, or urban crime genre, the company as a whole explored themes and characterizations a little more advanced than most independently marketed films of the time. Where other indies were content exploring Tarantinoisms and other such “hip” pyrotechnics, IDIOM was harkening back to pulp writings of Jim Thomson and the 70’s revenge film long before fashionable. The latter was never more apparent in their overtures as it was with Reroute, and after many long years of being discontinued, it’s good to see the film once again available to the public.

Reroute is a classic revenge plot akin to John Boorman’s Point Blank (1967) (itself an adaption of the novel The Hunter by Richard Stark). Both movie and novel hold much that is evident throughout Reroute, from its quiet moments of surreal reflection to the use of flashback as a necessary narrative device.  Reroute begins in a long, and at times baffling, flashback verses real time setup as antihero Teague (Shane Carr) retraces his steps back to the scene of an apartment building massacre. Though tricky, the sense of disorientation in these opening minutes is something unavoidable due to Barr setting the action in the same place with characters wearing the same costumes. Later in the film the flashbacks are woven more effortlessly into the narrative, yet these opening minutes of the film become an acid test of sorts. It’s engaging to be sure, but even Barr later remarked about the production gaff in a 2004 radio interview;

“It’s a sort of flaw-in-the-slaw that we didn’t see coming until it was already done. On paper some things work wonderfully, then you get them onto the screen and it doesn’t come out the way it should have. When you realize what you have and it’s not what you wanted, and you’re working on a budget the size of what we had, there are no reshoots and it’s make or break time. You do what you can and hope the audience gets it.”

Teague (Shane Carr) stands amid his carnage.

The rest of the film follows Teague as he tracks down villain mastermind Miguel (Johnny Bede) who set him up, killed his friend Kerwin (Alykhan Gulamani), and stolen away with his girl Minette (Kailin See). His journey takes him through the underbelly of the city, and through more than one life-and-death conflict that culminates in a ton of people dying. You never know the whole story, not even at the end is everything explained in full. Barr doles out just enough information throughout the film to answer some questions while posing new ones. It’s a brilliant ploy that leads to a satisfying twist ending and indelible climax. Barr explained on his website it was always part of his design for the film;

“We went through a very strict regiment from the start with what was shown. From the first draft of the screenplay to the final cut of the film we held firm that what the character of Teague remembers is what is shown to the audience, and also what Teague acknowledges consciously. There are things that he stuffs into the back of his mind that the audience never gets to see, and about 50% of it is revealed at the end. It was very much designed to be an almost organic stream-of-consciousness narrative.”

Teague (Shane Carr) confronts Miguel (Johnny Bede) as Minette (Kailin See) looks on.

The film has aged reasonably well. There are small things throughout the film that are definitely flawed, and show the budgetary constraints more now than upon its release. Yet the one thing that hasn’t lost its potency is Reroute’s story. Some of the best moments in the film aren’t the myriad of bodies that erupt in geysers of blood and gore but small quiet moments of reflection and interaction. These both set up and perpetuate Teague’s journey through an almost nightmarish urban landscape littered with criminals and people out to kill him. It gives weight and much needed reasoning behind the violence and carnage, of which there is plenty. Some ninety characters are killed off in the 106 minute running time, most of them erupting rivers of gushing blood as they die, Schwarzenegger would be proud. The violence though is never turned into a cartoon and Teague begins wearing each of his kills like an Atlas weight around his neck.

Director Kenneth Barr applies a head wound to actor Brian Copping.

What I loved about the film then is what I still admire. Barr created a story with weight, characters that breathe and a narrative that openly challenged its intended audience. It presents itself like the myriad of direct-to-DVD indie shoot-em-ups that litter the marketplace, but be assured it is not. As if pealing back the layers of an onion, Reroute finds its strength in repeated viewing. Everything in the film is of dual nature, from the characters to what they say. You will hear things differently the second time, pick up on the subtle nuances that Barr sprinkles with abandon like an assured literary mad scientist. Though at the time most of the cast were inexperienced they handle the material wonderfully, injecting the right amount of rage and pathos into their actions.

From L-R: Tara Pratt, Alykhan Gulamani, Shane Carr and Kailin See.

The image of the film still crackles vibrantly though originally shot in 480p. Its widescreen presentation in the release has obviously had some mastering to it as it is a vast improvement over the already crystal image of the original DVD-5 release. The sound is also impeccable, a feat Barr accomplished by redoing the entire soundtrack from the ground up through the latter part of 2003 and into 2004. The importance of sound is something I cannot overstate, it makes up so much of the visceral cinematic experience that without it films just fall flat. Here you can hear every pang of pain, eruption of rage and muted whisper. A needed element for a story so focused on evolving itself subtly amid a maelstrom of gunfire.

The film is not without its detractions, and though I agree Reroute should be widely available, I think Barr has missed an opportunity to do some much needed pruning. The music score in places has definitely not aged as well as the rest of the film, and unfortunately the moments scored by these tracks are marred by leaving them unaltered. Additionally there is definitely some cinematic fat that could be trimmed from a couple scenes, and normally Barr is the first to make these drastic and necessary cuts. It may just be Barr wants to release the original version of the film, which hasn’t been available since mid 2005, back onto the market before releasing a “director’s cut”. Who knows, but it may be something to consider if not already in the works.

Ultimately the film still stands as an accomplished work of revenge cinema. It was Grindhouse before that film thrust the sub-genre back to the forefront of the filmic lexicon. Today what works with the film far outweighs what hasn’t aged as well. Stripping the violent pyrotechnics away, the story and performances are still incredibly strong. The film was also the launching pad for a number of its actors who have since gone onto established careers in the industry both in front of, or behind, the camera. It is a cinematic time capsule that should be opened and viewed by the uninitiated. Though I have never been in the position to do this before, I will quote my original review from 2004 which holds as true today as it did then. “Reroute is special because it’s a film that shows what an independent film can be, thoughtful exploitation; and that dear readers is a rare thing indeed.”

-Vance Garrett

Reroute Official Site

Reroute now available on Amazon Video On Demand

It’s never an enjoyable thing to cut into a film, like natal surgery, it is heart wrenching for all involved. The Gangster does have a lot going for it. The cinematography is top notch as is the sound (the importance of which can never be understated) yet the story is very predictable and by the end credits I was struck with the odd feeling I had just watched a film based on a one note joke. The story centers on three friends, Baden (Justin Scriver), Michelle (Kyra Weisman) and Adam (Lukas Pallotta) who witness a “gangster car” leaving an abandoned house. The children are so enticed by the concept that the house may be a dumping site for dead bodies that they break in to have a look around.

Baden (Justin Scriver), Michelle (Kyra Weisman) and Adam (Lukas Pallotta) watch the Gangster at work.

Whereas the concept of childhood projection can be used in wonderful cinematic ways, here it is only hinted at and ultimately discarded for convention. The three child leads handle themselves competently, though at times the pace of their dialogue as well as their performances are stilted and disjointed. Still there is a clever exchange in the opening when Baden and Michelle discuss the presence of the gangster Caddy as being proof of dead bodies. It’s wonderful child logic and the exchange is witty, well paced and hits a high note with Baden exclaiming “Dead bodies. That’s what those cars are for. You pretty much got to kill someone before they’ll sell you one.” When Wilson allows himself to explore these element of child perception, the film shines. The short-lived moments inside the house, when Michelle goes in through a broken window to open the door for the others, are brilliant and expertly handled. They showcase Wilson’s undeniable filmmaking ability which makes his ultimate discarding of them so disappointing. His use of sound, muffled dialogue, lighting, set design and camera are so top notch here it feels like another film entirely. If these elements had been carried further, or explored in more detail, the culmination of the story would have been more satisfying. Yet Wilson tips his hand just a little too soon and gives the punch line of the story away before reveling it on screen.

Michelle (Kyra Weisman) hides from Gangsters inside the house.

Wilson definitely has some talent behind the camera, and there is no denying he’s a brave soul. Making a film centered on children is something certain filmmakers will never even attempt. For the most part he nails the logic and heart of a child, and his moments inside the house exploring perception verses reality is a stroke of genius. Yet he also makes the misstep of falling to convention and ultimately pandering to his perceived youth audience. There are ingredients in The Gangster that could make for a truly amazing film, and Wilson most definitely has the chops to do it. Evolving the concept and carrying it through, or even allowing the film to go over the top as in Jacob Two-Two Meets The Hooded Fang (1978), would add immeasurably. Ultimately Wilson has offered us a competent first film rife with potential and possibilities.

The goal of any reviewer is never to stifle creativity like Wilson’s, but to say “Don’t hold back or second guess yourself.” The moments with Michelle inside the house alone harkens to a unique and burgeoning filmmaking talent if allowed to roam free. The Gangster has its flaws as does most first films, but it also has its moments of sly brilliance. Given time and focusing on what really works Wilson will most certainly come into his own. For now though The Gangster stands as an admirable first step.

-Vance Garrett.

The Gangster (Gary Fisher) arrives in his Caddy.

Visit the official site: The Gangster on IMDb

Bolivar (Paul Hubbard) calms Sam (Torrance Coombs) down.

In a market oversaturated with films about vampires and their ilk, Zimmermann wisely eschews convention by centering his narrative on the oft neglected character of the vampire’s familiar. These important, but relegated-to-the-background characters tend to the vampires during the day and protect them while they sleep; and on the whole that is about as much as you get to know about them. Though there have been a few films that have slightly evolved the familiar, truth is movie fans of my age still think of a hunched over Dwight Frye or a ravenous Tom Waits, (both portraying the epochal Renfield from Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Frye in 1931 and Waits in Coppola’s 1992 film of the same name). In the folklore of the vampire, the character of the familiar is rife with possibilities, something the filmmaker obviously understood.

Sam (Torrance Coombs) reflects on his choice in careers.

Zimmermann effectively weaves together his intent in the first few minutes by utilizing the internal monologue of our lead, Sam Matheson (Torrance Coombs), to set up both the story and the gallows humor.  He is the quintessential modern youth, a desperate and directionless dreamer trapped by the confining walls of his life. At the beginning of the film Sam is a disheartened shell that dryly reflects on turning the discarded human bodies of his master into compost with the same inflection of an accountant filing their ten thousandth tax form. When Sam is presented in his pre-familiar days we are shown how, with the promise of immortality and power, he has ironically traded one stifling unfulfilling life for another. The casting of Coombs is key to the empathy and connection of the audience to the piece, as is the casting of Paul Hubbard as the vampire Simon Bolivar. Hubbard cuts the same imposing figure as Christopher Lee’s vampire incarnations, but Zimmermann then deftly deconstructs the man and the mythos into an all too flawed and common day farce akin to Dracula written by Monty Python. Hubbard and Zimmermann seem to have been birds of a feather and the vampire Bolivar never once swings too wide becoming an exaggerated lampoon. The role is a clever tight-rope act that delivers just the right amount of danger, contrast and dark humor to the entire piece.

Sam's (Torrance Coombs) disposal work.

There are a few missteps, as is with most first-time filmmakers, but these are far and few between. Most skew towards the aforementioned Hammer kitsch than playing as mistakes, and most viewers won’t even notice unless looking for them. Cinematography, lighting and sound are all top notch, essential ingredients some filmmakers skim over in lieu of pyrotechnics and extreme effects. The team behind The Familiar doles out blood and computer effects with restraint for the majority of the running time, and instead wisely center their film on Sam and his very human plight.

With every beautifully composed frame Zimmermann shows his respect for the horror of his material, something filmmakers tend to forget when forging a “horror/comedy”. More oft we are presented a comedy with horror elements, it is the rare exception that defies the convention (Cemetery Man (1994) and Shaun of the Dead (2004) come to mind). Here everybody takes great care to craft well developed characters, a sense of dread and ultimate doom all with tongue firmly planted in cheek. These diverse elements have been woven together with such meticulous care it belies it and the filmmaker’s origins.

Sam (Torrance Coombs) meets Bolivar (Paul Hubbard) for the first time.

From beginning to end Zimmermann has crafted a well composed and thoughtful piece of truly entertaining cinema. It delivers on all the right beats, pays off in all the right moments, and its rhythm is perfected to a razor sharp note that rings in the viewers ears long after the film is done. The Familiar is a great horror comedy on its own merits, but as the first film from Zimmermann I would not be surprised at all that within the next few years his name is spoken in the same breath as Edger Wright (Shaun of the Dead) and genre mogul Joss Whedon (Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Firefly). Like Wright, Zimmermann intrinsically knows the language of film and is primed to create a modern classic; all the ingredients for his success are already there in his film The Familiar.

-Vance Garrett.

Visit the official site: The Familiar Movie

Offical movie poster

You can blame Rob Reiner. True the idea of mock documentaries (mockumentaries) had been around since the 60’s with the seminal A Hard Day’s Night but it wasn’t until 1984 and This Is Spinal Tap that the genre as we know it today was defined. That film lay the blueprint for the rhythm of the genre, the buildup and payoff of jokes and the dry, ironic humor associated with the story’s “reality”. Since then we have bore witness to some equally impressive films (Rusty Cundieff’s seminal Fear Of A Black Hat (1994), Man Bites Dog (1992), Bruce McDonald’s Hard Core Logo (1996)) and some that could be politely considered utter failures. It has ever-been the plight of the mockumentary to ride the oft treacherous and ever shifting high wire of social satire, and like the brilliance of the Marx Brothers, few of them last beyond their historical zeitgeist. It is the rare mockumentary, like those listed above, that transcend the time in which they were made, communicate something more human, and seemingly without effort become a nostalgic classic outlasting the society it was designed to satire. Kayfabe is at its heart, one of those rare films.

Steve Justice (Michael Roselli) and Beautiful Bruce in flashback still.

The film presents the last few dates in a struggling independent wrestling organization TCICWF (Tri-Cities International Championship Wrestling Federation) and the lives of the wrestlers within. Unlike the televised high-profile wrestling companies, the stars of these independent shows hold regular day jobs and play to crowds of 50 people. The first few minutes of the film smartly present this world at its height, backstage during a show. Through a conversation between the promoter Al Thomson (Travis Watters who also plays Marco Pain the promotion’s color commentator) and “Rocket” Randy Tyler (Pete Smith who was also shared writing, producing and directing duties on the film) they set up the lingo, the feel and the construct of this world. Within moments the audience is caught up in the flow, and though some of the dialogue is stilted it comes off more like people being filmed backstage for the first time out of character rather than anything else (though Travis Watters’ “Al Thomson” comes off larger than life, it’s actually an accurate depiction and instantly reminded me of legendary Canadian promoter Tony Condello from the first grumbling sentence of profanity). This opening sequence had me at odds the first time through, it is a little slow and feels slightly disjointed, but it never once lost me. By the time the opening credits began presenting the various matches the rhythm of the film had found its footing and right to the last frame never once lost pace. Each character is well drawn, as is the in-ring work (most of the performers are working independent wrestlers) and the humor is cleverly interlaced throughout the film creating some truly memorable moments. The entire cast handles their characters with grace, (most having no previous film credits to their name), and breathe a sense of life into these people’s desires to be larger than life. Pete Smith’s Rocket Randy Tyler and Travis Watters in either of his roles are the stand outs of the film. Smith imbues his Randy Tyler (his real-world wrestling alter-ego) with the sort of endearing self deprecation that made Michael Palin so damn lovable and handles the lead role with subtle ease. Watters plays his roles to the hilt, lampooning every opportunity he gets in similar fashion, still there is a singular moment in the film given to him alone that shines; it’s an impassioned speech about wrestlers laying down to do a job verses getting over and ultimately their ego. This moment in the film is so elegantly handled by the filmmakers that you hang on Watters’ every word because you know what is being said isn’t acting, it’s not a joke and it comes from the singular heart of the people making this picture. In short it’s extraordinary.

TCICWF crowd

It should be noted that at the time Kayfabe was released it was competing with Darren Aronofsky’s 2008 film The Wrestler starring Mickey Rourke. It’s unfortunate that so many comparisons have been drawn in the press between the two films just because they’re both set in the independent wrestling world, because in a lot of ways Kayfabe speaks to a more general audience than Aronofsky’s film. Where The Wrestler presented a solemn look at one man’s self-destructive journey Kayfabe is its antithesis in theme. It is a love letter to the life of the independent wrestler, but moreover it is an affirmation of the dreamer. On an entertainment level alone Kayfabe is vastly superior to The Wrestler and transcends the audience limitations of its subject matter.

Kayfabe advance poster art

When sitting down to write this review I thought long and hard about how it should be presented. Kayfabe isn’t just a mockumentary, it isn’t just a movie about wrestling, and it isn’t just a tongue-in-cheek comedy. Kayfabe is one of those special little films that reached and succeed at achieving so much more working its budgetary limitations mostly to its benefit throughout. It is an entertaining and uplifting film, with characters and tons of heart. It deftly illustrates the passion and lunacy of a business that lives and dies by the desire of its workers to perform each week for nothing more than the adulation of their friends. There is no fame here for them, just the satisfaction of delivering a great show. The film endears each character to the audience the way they would at a live wrestling show. The actors and filmmakers alike skillfully “work their gimmick” making Kayfabe a truly wonderful and memorable film. Not to mention one hell of a great show.

-Vance Garrett

Visit the official site: Kayfabe The Movie

The film’s writer-director Kenneth Barr wears his Asian cinema inspirations proudly throughout the film yet crafts them into something uniquely his own. This isn’t just indicated from the myriad of striking visuals, such as characters facing off against each other samurai sword to samurai sword backed by a yellow morning sky, it is all over the picture. The story of disenfranchised youth being co-opted and trained as assassins holds similarities to Ryuhei Kitamura’s 2003 film Azumi; that these “students” must battle each other across an urban backdrop until only one is left alive echoes themes in Kinji Fukasaku’s seminal Battle Royal; the characters are fully developed archetypes that at times mirror the contemporary Hong Kong film masters Johnnie To and the aforementioned John Woo. It is surprising amid all these apparent influences that Barr has still managed to craft something singularly his own. He opts away from flashy camera moves for a more grounded and by-in-turn more intense, handheld visual style (again echoing the seminal 70’s work of cinematic master Fukasaku). It is a tour de force of cinematic carnage that shocks even more when you learn it is intended as a pilot episode to a three year television series.

The Cast Of The Academy.

This is as pure an ensemble piece as I’ve seen since The Dirty Dozen (1967). Almost all the characters are given time to develop on the screen, which is amazing given there are more than twenty speaking roles. Those that are underdeveloped come off as tragic rather than clichés or two dimensional. It is a testament to Barr’s growing prowess as a writer and the breadth of talent in front of the camera. Each character is designed to attract a certain personality type, and because of the care given it will ensure a broader audience for the picture. Ryan K. Burke and Brittany Trogen were stand outs for me; their roles of Stoker and Rochelle respectively were delightfully textured. Burke as Stoker, the “villain” of the piece, delighted in evil glee from the first frame and was purely fun to watch. Burke fit so well into the skin of Stoker he never once came off cartoonish, though he well could have. Trogen’s turn as the near mute Rochelle was the most emotionally complex of the characters. Though she barely says a word in the entire film she is at the centre of some of the best gallows-humor moments and was my personal favorite character.

Why so serious? Fyfe (Neil Chase), Bishop (Amanda Bladon), Maxwell (Christian Garon) and Tomi (Sindy Lau) prepare themselves for war in The Academy.

Make no mistake, despite the complex characters, this is an action film. The myriad of action set pieces scattered through the film come fast and furious and belie the budgetary limitations. There are gunfights galore, sword battles at dawn, wrestling inspired beat downs, executions by cast iron frying pans and a 9 minute climax with so much chaos I sat with my jaw in my lap the entire time. To catalogue everything that happens in this film would do a disservice to the texture the film creates, it is a visceral cinematic experience that cannot be missed. Barr and his production team have packed so much into the running time that it’s hard to believe this was an independent film. The Academy plays like a thrown gauntlet, a “see what we can do with nothing” battle cry to Hollywood, and it would behoove that cinematic juggernaut to take notice. I cannot help but think if this is what Barr and his team can do with nothing just imagine what they could do with a studio backing them. I for one hope The Academy finds its intended home on television. If it does not Barr has still given us an amazing truly singular cinematic experience we can appreciate.

Rochelle (Brittany Trogen) opens fire during the 9 minute action climax.

A limited edition DVD release is now available on the company website and an online rental version through Amazon Video On Demand is scheduled for April 2010. For more information or to order a copy of the DVD you can visit the IDIOM Films site at  www.idiomfilms.ca.

- Vance Garrett

Visit the official site: IDIOM Films

Watch a the preview: The Academy Preview 01

So – I was feeling sorry for my love life one night, and decided to make it worse and watch a romantic comedy (or, “romcom”, as the hip name-compressing media who brought us gems like “Bennifer” and “Brangelina” has repackaged it). “He’s Just Not That Into You” happened to be recently released on Xbox Live, so I thought, what the hey – they’re all the sip-sappy same, right? Au Contraire! Although HJNTIY was predictable, it wasn’t “traditionally” predictable. That is, not everybody has a traditionally happy ending. As an insighful, amusing romcom, I give it 3.75/5 stars.

The cast is wholesomely good-looking, and Ben Affleck should really be played by Paul Rudd, but the chemistry between he and Jennifer Aniston is pretty funny. Drew Barrymore seems to be playing somebody just because she produced it and not because it’s a good part for her. I do like her but I kinda cringed at this role, to be honest. The outtakes at the end reveal who is good at character improv (cough, Aniston, cough) and who is seriously not (ah-Connelly-choo!). Did I mention Scarlett Johansson gets kinda naked? And plays a yoga instructor (but doesn’t do a single yoga pose in the enitre movie, wtf)?

At the heart of the movie is Gigi, the girl waiting by the phone and utterly hopeless to the ways of men. She is the progeny of the generations of lies women tell themselves (and their girlfriends) about men’s behavior and a genetic defect in reading blatant social cues. Pretty, sweet, and annoyingly desperate, Ginnifer Goodwin is brilliantly convincing as the hopeless friend you simultaneously want to give a good shake and yet somehow keep telling her lies to make her feel better (”I’m sure he just lost your phone number…seriously!”). Her embarrassing trials become the platform for revealing the secrets behind the infamously bad behavior of men and why women put up with it. As we get to know the characters (who, predictably, are all in love with somebody who doesn’t love them back), wise “opposite-sex common sense” is unmasked and gently examined. The movie aims to ask: when we really know WHY somebody is acting the way they are, why do we delude ourselves into believing otherwise, and why do our support networks and culture actually encourage it? The arrived-at answers involve a few pretty good truth nuggets concerning human psychology and people’s secret obsession with their own life-dramas.

Ultimately I thought it was a pretty good reflection of cliched romance woes in today’s western culture, and how cultural norms and societal pressures can make us conform and confuse good behavior, honorable intentions, and what it really means to be happy. Even though the movie appears to embrace the non-threatening route of examining the relationship woes of just women, it actually sneaks in an acurate critique of men’s woes as well, and rounds out with the obligatory comedic-relief nod to gay romance.

Basically – don’t go see this movie on a booty-call date. It will probably make you uncomfortable. Also, do not go see this movie with: somebody you’re about to dump, somebody who’s about to dump you, somebody you’re cheating on or who is cheating on you, an ex, or somebody you really like who’s, well, just not that into you. Everybody else is ok.

User Submitted Review By: Katie McKelley

You know those movies you sit through where nothing happens for the first hour and ten miniutes? well, The Uninvited is one of those movies. It’s only saving grave was Elizabeth Banks, she gave a pretty solid performance dispite it being a  drab, stale and badly acted film.

One thing I couldn’t figure out was the character “Alex” played Arielle Kebbel – I thought it was Mandy Moore, in fact, I was so sure it was her (back from a time machine adventure or something) I placed a small wager with my wife, only to check IMDB after the movie had ended. Oh well, dishes for the next week I suppose…

Apparently this movie is a remake of a classic which I haven’t seen, though after this typical hollywood crime/drama/thriller/horror/snorefest I’m probably not going to bother with it as it will probably drudge up bad memories  of my two hours wasted watching this movie.

Something has been irking me with the last year or so of movies with teen lead actors. The “over acting” you know, when they go way OTT, facial expressions turn into “Cm’mon, you can nail this scene!!” you can just vision the 31 takes it took to get that look. What happened to natural talent and acting ability? Guess we have the Wayans brothers and co to thank for that. (Dance flick anyone?)

This movie was bad. Struggling to find a none offensive adjective so yeah, I’ll stick with “bad.” Don’t rent it, don’t get it On demand, don’t watch it if your sister inlaw loans you the DVD.  She’s giving it to you for a reason.

2/10

Sean william Scott and John C. Reilly star in this comedy. Doug Stauber (Scott) is an assistant manager of a convenience grocery store trying to come up with a way to become noticed and provide for him and his fiancee.

Richard Welhner (Reilly) is an assistant manager brought down from a store in his home of Canada (not sure where). Stauber finds out about a new store about to be built and is told by his boss (played by Fred Armisan) that he is a shoe in for store manager. However, rivalry soon occurs when Welhner states he will be vying for the position as well. The two stay in a constant state of competition and one upness as Welhner tries to learn how to become a better person through audio tapes, and Stauber tries to become a provider and get a house for him and his fiancee (played by Jenna Fischer). Who will win over the corporate execs to get the coveted store manager position? Will Welhner ever truly learn how to better himself through audio tapes? Will there ever be any store resolve for the many issues it has? Only watching the movie will tell you.

Now to scrutinize! First off I was not blown away by any of the acting or the writing. Much like one of my previous reviews Everythings Gone Green I can see what the director wanted to portray but he just doesn’t show it. Often times the jokes are lost to some other action going on in the scene. Scott, who normally goes all out for his roles, really plays himself down and this time he really shouldn’t have. Reilly didn’t have his usual chemistry that I am used to either and the supporting characters just weren’t built strong enough to support this one. I did like the overall theme and I didn’t mind too much the lackluster scenery as it set the feeling of a middleclass struggle. Overall there just wasn’t enough to propel this to even rental status. I give this one a 6 out of 10.

Movie Posters

Vin Diesel has returned to the sci-fi screen as Thoorop, a merc for hire on the outskirts of the free nation. He lives in hiding and by one rule; trust no one. He is hired as a bodyguard for a young girl named Aurora (played by Melanie Thierry) and her convent mother Sister Rebeka (played by Michelle Yeoh) to the Free Nation (how quiant, the U.S. can someone say IRONY). The journey will lead Thoorop into dealing with his trust issues and see what it’s like to have a family to protect as well as get a chance to show off some really neat-o (roll eyes) X-games style action sequences. Will he deliver his transport to the Free Nation and will he deliver her to the right people?

This movie takes so much from others of this genre. You have a bit of Children of Men, with a failed attempt of a futuristic atmosphere of Bladerunner and writing that tries to have the feel of The Fifth Element. It fails at this. It fails miserably. The acting is dry and no feeling of any interest into the characters is given. Any attempt at immersing the viewer into the atmosphere is lost as it’s nothing you don’t see outside of your stereotypical modern day metropolitan area. And if you’ve made it this far into the movie without either gasping at the bad rip off attempts, or the fact that Vin Diesel still can’t act, then wait til the ending. I’ll I’m going to say is if you’ve ever been letdown before, well then this one will be that much worse.

Mathieu Kassovitz fails! His direction is off, his writing is dismal, and from a man who actually showed some promise back in the day with Gothika (not a great movie but I thought it had some really great points and some strong behind the camera work) he has reverted to that of a bad undergrad putting out his first film. He lacked a lot in his action scenes, gave no character depth as well as trying to rush a theme that should not have been there (or picked the wrong actors to portray it).

So in closing, don’t see this unless it is on F/X in the next 3 months and even then question it. A 1/2 out of 5!

Each character has a story of their own that plays out so hysterically throughout the movie you will be entertained; through Speedman’s trying attempts at overcoming his former role as a retarded boy (which Lazarus explains to him he played full- retard and you never go full retard), Lazarus’ issue of becoming too much a part of his character, Portnoy’s need for a heroin fix, Chino’s “issues” and Sandusky’s need to rise up and keep them all together. All of this and that is just the beginning of the film.

As stated early on, Stiller hit a home run and brought three runners in with him with this film. The actors chosen were brilliant with their performance and play together so well. The comedy is top notch, leaving out any political correctness (Robert Downey Jr. character got surgery to brown his skin to play a black man and Speedman’s portrayal of a mentally handicapped character). Even the minor characters had hit all the right cues. Nothing is rushed and everything is well placed together as the story evolves and you’re not left with any open ended questions as to what happened with such and such.

One could say that with a budget as big as what they had it was impossible to fail, but as we’ve seen in the past, the budget doesn’t make the film the director writers, and actors do. I will warn you that this is not for anyone who is conservative or politically correct because no punches are pulled, which makes it all the better because it feels like they really did want to entertain you for your dollar. And don’t worry about not coming out of this one without any one liners because you’ll be quoting it for a few months around the office or school or where ever your social watering hole you quote at is. The only downside of this movie for me is that I actually had to enjoy McConaughey! So for that reason, along with the great break dancing scene of Grossman (you have got to see that it is hilarious) I give this a 8 out of 10.

Tropic Thunder Movie Poster

Tropic Thunder Movie Poster

I love Kal Penn who plays Kumar (if you haven’t seen Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle you may know him from the award winning t.v. series House). John Cho who plays Harold also brings his A game. These two team up to bring you a unique plot line with a series of very strange scenes, including unicorns, whorehouses and Dookie Houser? I spent half the movie jaw dropped thinking “wait wtf” and the other half laughing. One of my favorite bits has to be the cyclops but you’ll have see that for yourself.

The pot smoking duo start out on a mission to Amsterdam in search of Harold’s lady love. Soon into their travels things go astray and they find themselves tangoing with a gun ho U.S Homeland Security officer. Secretary Fox (Rob Corddry) deems them a threat to national security and sentences them to be locked up in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay prison.

The entire film pokes fun at the overbearing discretion utilized by Homeland Security. President bush (no not the real one) even makes an appearance! This movie is great for evening conversation, its not the best ever but its worth watching so I give it a 6.9/10!

Margot’s sister Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is engaged to Malcolm (Jack Black), an unemployed slacker who fancies himself a struggling writer and artist. As a couple, they are intelligent but underachieving fatalists. And having Margot around isn’t going to help at all. She comes in like a whirling dervish, force-feeding her paranoid theories and repeating every nugget of gossip told to her in confidence. What Baumbach really excels at is dialogue and interaction. Without resorting to pithy back-and-forths or bombastic showdowns, the characters deconstruct and analyze of one another almost nonsensically until they are all pushed to brink of madness.

Baumbach has come a long way since his whiny and self conscious debut Kicking and Screaming (1995), and in his maturity has begun to make challenging and entertaining tragicomedies that will stand the test of time. I would put his last two works up there with any film of the last five years. 9 out of 10.

Then there is this British fellow I have never seen before who plays Sarah Marshall’s (Kristen Bell) new rock star boyfriend. His character has the most obnoxious name “Aldos Snow” which only adds to the vast amount of humor he brings to the film, I’d like to see a hell of a lot more of Russell Brand. He has a certain “Johnny Depp” humor about him if you will and he NAILED one of his lines that sent my husband and I into a roar of laughter.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a well acted, well written down right hilarious comedy. There are just enough surprises (brought mostly by Snow in my opinion) to keep this movie cracking along. A few sweet moments toward the end that make you love the characters that little bit more and finally an ending that is not only comical but completely satisfying as a plot wrap. I say go watch it, great date film perhaps even good to watch after a break up (this is NOT a chick flick). I give it an 8/10!

Unfortunately for him his personal life needs fixing as well. To make matters worse, one of his firms long lasting cases just suffered from one of the attorneys (Wilkinson) breakdown. Through the course of this movie, Michael is forced to not only try to keep Wilkinson together, but keep defense attorney Karen Crowder (Swinton) from gaining the upper hand, and saving his own personal life from going down in flames.

At first glance I got the feeling that this is another Grisham rip off with a Clooney spin. Within the first 15 minutes I was (as almost always) proven wrong. Tony Gilroy (Director) does a wonderful job moving us through this story and making sure that there are enough twists and turns to keep the viewer interested. Swinton does a great job holding her own against Clooney and I loved Tom Wilkinson taking on the role of the emotionally distraught attorney. Each character shows what Gilroy wanted to portray; principles, morality, and how far dedication will take you.

If I had something negative to say, it would have to be that George Clooney didn’t seem to give this his usual on screen power and lets a lot of the other actors carry him. Still the moods are done well and the ending is not as predictable as you might think. I wouldn’t say rush to the theaters for this one because it’s the kind of movie that you’re going to want to watch when it comes to video (can’t wait for the director commentary). I’d give this one a 7.5/10

The plot left alot to be desired. Pretty model gets captured. Tortured. Then escapes by killing the killer and a few cops. There is a twist, as there always seems to be, however, it was un-original, definately predictable to fans of the genre…

Elisha Cuthbert features as the boring Jennifer Tree. As with every other role she has ever played she is that pretty-blonde model. Although the acting definately wouldn’t be considered her best, i can safely say fans of hers will be impressed with the inclusion of a sex scene and some gun action. Towards the end of the film her character did stray slightly outside the box, choosing to aim at a mans genitalia. Woo girl power! The spice girls are back!

There were some good points. The cinematography was striking especially at the beginning, although this seemed to fade and within ten minutes the film had reverted to looking like any other Hollywood horror. See the opening scene featuring a torture victim in a plaster-of-paris body cast. A fresh method of killing someone!

In all this what seemed to be quite an exciting different horror film quickly turned into the mainstream boredom. Every aspect of the film was stereotypical. The characters. The plot. The location. Everything that should be needed to make a horror film, it just didn’t work.

Far too mainstream
The girl meets door meets Resident Evil 5/10

Wrong Turn 2 is by no means ground-breaking. Don’t expect some brand-new polished horror concept that no director has ever thought of before. Fraid not. It follows that tried and tested and tried some more, concept of mutant in-breds in woods eating unfortunate passers by. Deep down we all secretly love it!..

Wrong Turn 2 puts a slightly different spin on it, by introducing the idea of a “Big Brother” style TV show called “Ultimate Survivor : Apocalypse” where six survivors of a ‘nuclear apocalypse’ have to live for five days for a shot at $100,000. There are some ground rules that you’re told, but in all honestly I forgot them before the show even begun, as the brutality kicks in from the word go. And boy does it kick in; from the very first death the film had a lot to live up to. I sat there dumb struck for a few seconds, then burst into laughter upon seeing it. More deaths like that please!

There are some eye-gougingly huge plot holes present that if you want to enjoy the film you must look over. Most obviously, who did the research for the show, and didn’t think to ask the family of inbred mutants nearby whether they would interfere? And how did they not notice them whilst putting up the 30+ video cameras that are used to record the show. Oh well. Maybe they were on vacation.

If you fancy cheering on a family of mutants, to wipe out a cast of (purposefully?) annoying wannabe celebrities, eagerly awaiting every death, then maybe you will just love this.

A long way from great but saved by Joe Lynch. Can’t wait to see what he comes up with next.

Big Brother meets The Hills Have Eyes 5/10

In true Tarantino style the violence in this film is the most hard hitting i have seen of any film. Even if technically it isn’t a true Tarantino production. Don’t expect the odd spray of blood here and there to let you know where you stand, no chance, the first killing is as cringe-worthy as every other death to follow, and far more outlandish than anything I remember in the original. Naked women bathing in blood, scythes, battle axes, decapitations, a bolt-cutter taken to a man’s genitalia, a women’s face getting angle-grinded, This film does it all with buckets of fake blood.

As far as storyline goes im afraid its almost exactly identical to the original, a complete mirrored image. Substitute, women instead of men into the first film, a spa break instead of a sleazy hostel and you’re left holding the identical script. Cmon, what did you expect? Any sort of originality? I’m afraid not. It did end surprisingly early (possibly because I watched it in two sittings), leaving me feeling like I missed the conclusions to quite a few characters. Perhaps it was left open ended to allow for another sequel, hey who wouldn’t go see it, more money for the fat cats, but personally I felt the ending was a little too abrupt.

American horrors will never hold a particularly fond place in my heart. Ever since there rip-off of every Japanese classic under the sun (multiple times over) I find it difficult to take them too seriously. If you don’t expect too much from Hostel Part 2 i think you will be pleasantly surprised. It is definitely one of the better horror franchises out there. With the imminent release of Saw 4 it will be interesting to compare.

If you fancy a night in with lashings of ultra violence, and not alot else, this is definitely the one to watch
Viddy well little brother, Viddy Wel

The “Saw” movies after the first were a letdown to me, as well as “Touristas” being as dry and unoriginal as a remake of “The Hitcher”. My major issues with the first in the “Hostel” series were that I had no feelings towards any of the characters, the plot line moved way to slow, and the scenery was just not up to par with Eli’s previous film “Cabin Fever”. With all that going wrong I almost wrote off the sequel altogether. Lucky for me I did not.

The film starts off where the last one ends, and we get a conclusion with Jay Hernandez’s character. They move on to Italy, where our main characters, Beth (Lauren German “You are Here”) Lorna (Heather Matarazzo “Welcome to the Dollhouse”) and Whitney (Bijou Phillips “Havoc”) are studying art abroad. they befriend one of the art models (Vera Jordanova) who tells them of her get away spa retreat in the wonderful state of Slovakia. They stay at a Slovakian Hostel that has a very sinister secret (one we all know) and right away we are shown that things are not what they seem to be. We also get to look at the other side, the “evildoers” side if you will. We are shown the intricate workings of the secret organization and a bit more about the customers (played by Roger Bart and Richard Burgi).

The rest of the story plays out in the same fashion that all types in this genre do. However, Roth takes the time to introduce many new themes to the movie. Previously we only got to see the story through one character. This time around we are introduced to both sides of the story, the victim’s, as well as the assailants. He also did a really nice job of giving us some character background with some enjoyable twists that make this film more enjoyable for those of us who did not enjoy the first. The locales are shot with better angles, and the camera work is top notch. Eli also shows us what type of message he was going for, the human psyche and the will of survival, a lot more clearer than his previous work.

My only issues with this movie are that the storyline gives itself away a little too early and in doing so makes some of the film a bit too cliche. Another problem is, though I liked the ending, it was rushed a bit too much as if they were stuck with a time constraint and decided to use this part to cut back on. But over all I loved the way that the scenery was shot, the characters were given a stereotypical view but later on changed, and the message as a whole was portrayed. I am very happy with this sequel and am glad to see that Quentin Tarantino did not fall short on seeing Eli’s talent as a storyteller. A lot of people that I’ve read who gave a review complained about this installment but I have to disagree. I now am wanting to see his third installment of the series to see where he is going to take off from this storyline, as well as looking forward to watching the growth of his visions as I feel Eli Roth’s talents are being molded as he is getting more time with screen writing and directing. In closing I give Hostel: Part II, 6.5/10.

Great setting, good cast of characters, and a well translated from graphic novel onto cinema writing. For those of you who don’t know, this movie is based on the graphic novel created by Steve Niles. Although the setting is different in the comic series, the story translates even better onto screen….

We start off in this movie on the last day of sunlight in a small community in Alaska. We meet our hero of this film Sheriff Evan Oleson (played by Josh Hartnett) and partner Billy Kitka (played by Manu Bennett) investigating strange occurrences that are happening all over the community. Communication is cut, as well as all roadways already having been blocked for the 30 days of total night.

Things further get weird as a stranger somehow manages to make it into the town and cause havoc. Within the next few days, townsfolk end up getting killed off and mysteriously disappear. We are introduced to these creatures when Evan is viciously attacked by one of them. The vampires move about in a clan style way and are very well verse in hunting prey as you will see. They are given a primal hunting instinct with a bit of an immortal like intelligence that makes them deadly and scary at the same time. These are not your Anne Rice novel style vamps.

The rest of the movie moves like a chess game and each side is forced to move pawns, take risky maneuvers, as well as think ahead. The idea of their own humanity is even put to the test at most points (I will try my best not to give to much away because it is a pivotal moment). The vampires are terrifying and discourteous to the bitter end, showing no signs of relenting or letting anyone get out of this. Their sole purpose is to live and move on to do it again with the next town. Evan starts off as your average run of the mill hero, but due to drastic circumstances he becomes anything but. In his own words, “The things you do to save your own”. Stella also takes a more thoughtful heroine, taking care of the moral side of each character and trying to keep everyone sane and in check. As the days go on you really get a sense of desperation and hopelessness from the townsfolk that survive, and believe me they don’t survive for long. It all leads up to the 29th day when you get to see a wonderful ending that is filled with victory, defeat, happiness, and loss. I would highly recommend seeing this in the theaters if you can as the environment that is set in the film really envelops you with its isolation and freezing conditions. The terror scenes are done in great timing and the gore is kept to a fair amount that is just enough to shock you without going overboard or underwhelming. To David Slade I say great job. His efforts have put a smile on my face as well as a reassurance that horror films have not completely lost touch with actually feeding on the fears of the audience which most of today’s films have not been able to accomplish. He also worked with Stone temple Pilots doing the “Sour Girl Video” and is responsible for directing three of the many “Aphex Twin” videos (anyone that has ever seen these videos knows how great his imagination and creativity can go). So please, grab your significant other, pick up the big bag of popcorn, hide away your 20 oz bottles of pop/soda or water, and be prepared to feel the icy cold touch of 30 Days of Night!

I would highly recommend seeing this in the theaters if you can as the environment that is set in the film really envelops you with its isolation and freezing conditions. The terror scenes are done in great timing and the gore is kept to a fair amount that is just enough to shock you without going overboard or underwhelming. To David Slade I say great job. His efforts have put a smile on my face as well as a reassurance that horror films have not completely lost touch with actually feeding on the fears of the audience which most of today’s films have not been able to accomplish. He also worked with Stone temple Pilots doing the “Sour Girl Video” and is responsible for directing three of the many “Aphex Twin” videos (anyone that has ever seen these videos knows how great his imagination and creativity can go). So please, grab your significant other, pick up the big bag of popcorn, hide away your 20 oz bottles of pop/soda or water, and be prepared to feel the icy cold touch of 30 Days of Night! a very good 7/10!

The plot revolves around a Charlie, a dentist who was cursed as a child to never find love. Each time he sleeps with a woman she becomes destined to find the man of her dreams and get married. This leads to lots of very interesting sexual encounters….

Everything in this movie is very tounge in cheek. Expect to see:

• Lots of boobs
• Lots of vulgarities
• Lots of childish humor
• Drug use
• Steamy sex scenes
• Jessica Alba trying to act
• Dane Cooks body

Yes, thats right, Dane spends most of his time on camera nude, or semi nude while the most we see of Alba is a brief penguin panty shot! So dissapointing…

A lot of the humor in Good Luck Chuck falls flat on its face, similar to Cook’s stand up performances as of late. The supporting actor playing Charlie’s best friend (Dan Fogler) is quiet possibly the most obnoxious person I have ever seen in a movie. He delivers a great performance and really suits the characters role, I just find him incredibly irritating the entire movie.

I’d like to see more of this style of movie in this genre, preferably with better actors and dialog. Good Luck Chuck did an ok job and hopefully paved the way for some more adult themed romantic comedies. I’ll give it a 6/10. 

As with my earlier review of Spiderman, it goes without saying that the special effects in this are breath-taking. I am positive any film from now on with a marvel name can expect this kind of treatment. So go get yourself a high def TV, a blu-ray player and a copy of this. Who cares if its worth the money, it will physically rattle your senses…

One huge bugbear of mine about this film. Was the portrayel of Galactus and The Silver Surfer. Galactus was such a completely different character to the comic books that he shouldnt of even had the same name. This sounds like something that only elitist comic nerds would complain about (partially true) but what were they thinking, making such a hugely well known character so ridiculously different. Its like handing angry fans a loaded pistol and asking them not to shoot the director. Tempting.

Aside from this, the film works. The storyline is entertaining in a very hollywood way. Johnny Flames firey emotions play off against the silver surfers enigmatic icey persona perfectly. This makes for some great banter, although slightly juvenile, clearly aimed at keeping the pg audience and attending fanboys satisfied.

Worth watching just to hear Reed’s “i got a sexy girlfriend by being a nerd…haha!” speech.
Approxamately 250% better than the original, and 500% more polished. 6/10

Well one thing’s for sure, you can fling on your spidey jammy’s once more kiddies, Spidey is back and he doesn’t suck (he bites)

So how much better is this movie than the last? Considerably. Spiderman 2 was quite simply the original film with a different bad guy. An octopus instead of a goblin. Spiderman 3 however actually begins to introduce new storylines, yes you will still see him hanging off that US flag for hours on end (oh the patriot!) but this film really brings new directions to the movie franchise…

One part definitely worth a mention is the, “Spidey turned black” scenes. Where Mr Maguire dons black eyeliner, a fitted black shirt and walks with his best ‘hey ladies’ swagger. Clearly these scenes were playing on the comic book aspect of Spiderman, and viewed with a certain amount of (enormous) tongue-in-cheek, add to the amusement of the film. Whatever you do, please don’t take these scenes seriously.

At points the storyline can get a tad messy. At the height of the action with three bad-guys on the run. The Goblin, Venom and The Sandman. In my honest opinion, being somewhat of a comic book geek myself, and admiring Venom as one of the greatest bad-guys of all time there is part of me that wants to scream out and tell you all how he died far too easily and not nearly enough screen-time was devoted to him, but as a non-psychotic viewer, it was sufficient.

The computer graphics are absolutely breath-taking; no doubt due to the ridiculous amounts of money thrown at the production by Sony and the pressure to produce a winner by Marvel. But it was worth it. I am annoyed to an extent at how such an average film can make such other-worldly amounts of money but it does make sense.

Spiderman 3 epitomizes the phrase “for all the family”
Need Halloween costume ideas? Look no further! 7/10

Wahlberg did an excellent job in this none stop roller coaster action movie and is truly beginning to shine. I really love movies that portray a government as an evil entity as most of the time, this is completely true. As the story unravels, we’re introduced to the bad guys who we love to hate, but doesn’t Danny Glover look really old?

Almost everything about this movie is perfect. The cast, action sequences, cinematography and editing really emerge you into the twisting plot and the incredible dialog is just the icing on the cake, Another one of those movies you just don’t want to end.

The soundtrack was also magnificent and really fitting with the theme of the film, The drama although a little unrealistic at times, was nail biting stuff. I was very pleasantly surprised with shooter, I think you will be too. Mark Wahlberg is the next Bruce Willis.

I’ll give shooter a very admirable 8/10

Jennifer Connelly is a gem and not at all disappointing in this film herself! She brings compassion and a soft beauty to otherwise sad and hard faced scenes. She plays an action addicted reporter who honestly cares about the tragedy around her and believes herself there to make a difference not just write about the drama.

Blood Diamond is a profoundly meaningful film. It is not often I genuinely learn something from a movie and feel enlightened and altered by watching it…

This film takes place in present day and is about a strife oceans away in Africa where one could easily lack knowledge of the ongoing affairs. Where horrific things take place involving women and children and very bad people. A strife this country and others like it have helped to fund. The most heart wrenching thing about this film is that there are facts to the fiction.

I don’t want to give away important details so here is my most basic plot outline. Blood Diamond is about an entire country becoming homeless and about children being brain washed into warriors. Its not the fly in the eye starving children commercial you can see any day of the week but something even more tragic. Tribes turning against each other and unimaginable hatred and greed as they risk life and limb for the thirst of Diamonds. There is however a silver lining, there are the people who want to change all these things and restore Africa. There are the people willing to risk everything to achieve the smallest justice and they are who you cry with as the story unfolds.

I enjoyed this film in a very realistic way I not only recommend you see it but I urge you to do so. This movie deserves no less than a 8.5/10.

Blood Diamond Movie Poster

Being a bit of a computer game fanatic myself it relished the fact that I could watch geeks playing games for an hour and a half. Within minutes I thought my girlfriend would be fast asleep when infact we were both enjoying it…

This is definitely not a typical Hollywood horror. What I have come to expect from the standard American horror is an appaulingly weak, overdone storyline (one killer, one house, a few lost best friends), with copious amounts of gore in an effort to conceal all the problems.

Stay alive is definitely not the most self-involved horror I have ever seen. It’s light hearted fun at its best. Seeing Malcolm from Malcolm in the Middle, getting chased down by a Lady in Red (Chris de Burgh anyone?) in horse drawn carriage was surprisingly unnerving. Infact, almost every character death managed to strum up some form of emotion in me; even if not the exact emotion always expected.

Stay alive is a fresh fun horror, with a storyline to match. Definitely original in my mind.

The film was cast reasonably well, with Frankie Muniz from Malcolm in the Middle playing the geeky kid Swinkz. As per every other horror out there, there was an excessively annoying Blonde girl, the type that makes you shout “Shut the f**k up!” at the screen and has every romantic plot available draped around her. She needn’t have been kept alive as long as she was. She featured in one particularly annoying scene with the lead man (I forget his name) which was far too drawn out. It really bugged me, nigh on beginning to ruin the film. You’ll know what I mean when you watch it. It’s one of those “Ahhh Ahhh We’re going to die!” moments, followed by “I love you and always had” only seconds later, with the killer looming only closer. Annoying.

Overall Stay Alive is a great little film. It wasn’t helped by some overly harsh reviews, but if you want an enjoyable few hours, with some beers, chocolate and maybe the cat, then this should suit you to a tee.

Think the Goonies meets Resident Evil 7.5/10

Now from my understanding, this isn’t a true Grindhouse movie, Yes, there’s grainy, clunky editing and what not, but it just feels like an ordinary Tarantino movie.

There are many, many scenes in Deathproof that just seemed to last forever with absolutely no bearing on the plot, character development, or anything else for that matter. I was really disappointed – about half of the movie in fact is complete filler, I really expected more. The opening box office weekend was a bit of a disaster, only taking in $4.2m… Thats less than half of the budget for the entire film! The dialog and script were -ok- Again, I think I just had high expectations. The acting was very decent, Tarantino’s cameo was great (as usual) Mary Elizabeth Winstead played a very fine “Ditzy cheerleader” and looked stunning on screen. The majority female cast all had great chemistry and worked well together.

Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t bored with Deathproof, The acting and twisting plot were more than enough to keep me entertained, The scenes were aesthetically pleasing, even the seemingly endless banter scenes worked well and flowed.

Overall, this movie was just not on par with Planet terror. I’d give Deathproof a not as good as expected: 7/10

This movie was a little better than Deathproof (review coming soon!) purely because it was action packed… never a dull moment, unlike Deathproof – Planet terror kept a solid flow and managed to keep me completely entertained. Lots of big names, Bruce Willis, Tarantino, Freddy Rodríguez to name a few – The casting for this film was spot on.

One thing I have to complain about is the editing. I understand grind house and its effect but, I felt it went way over the top on many occasions. Slightly nauseating even at one point. A basic plot outline: Chemical / biological weapons being traded on the black market. The chemical is released causing zombie like mutations – worldwide. The lead actress, Rose McGowan (known mostly for her role in Charmed, the popular TV series) does a great job of playing Go-Go dancer turned bad ass action hero and Freddy Rodríguez really brings home the kung-fu-gun-expertiese, Ex military bad boy persona.

The direction was excellent, some of the cinematography was incredibly believable and awe inspiring. The humor was off the wall. I absolutely loved the intro “Machete” sequence, pure genius. If your a fan of grindhouse or zombie movies, you have too see this movie, expect plenty of gore, lots of blood splatter on the camera and incredibly erratic action scenes.

There is also an abundance of tantalizing female flesh that should appeal to almost every male on the planet. (wow does Fergie look good in this film!)

A well deserved 8/10.

Paradise Lost markets itself as an “edge-of-the-seat” ultra gorey horror. I swear, i must have blinked and missed the horror. The version of the film i watched was also advertised as the “extreme” edition, featuring only one scene i would classify as “gorey”, oooh a girls insides, i have seen worse on ER. No really, I have…

The story goes(this wont take long) some american tourists meet some british tourists in Brazil, get stranded, taken out into a house in the middle of nowhere, and guess what happens. No, They dont all die, that would of made the film slightly more entertaining, Infact, i dont remember how many die but it clearly wasn’t enough.

As i said Paradise Lost cleverly pretends to be a Horror slasher, when in reality it lets down in this deparment, acting more of an advertisment for holidays in Brazil (Lots of drink, lots of very “free” women). Even after the film turns its “horror mode” on i can only vaguely remember one scene that could be excused as horror.

Another major disappointment was the way the film was edited. Technically the shots were nothing special, but they were comprehendable. This was then coupled by an editor who didn’t think to watch the film through once he had finished. Characters vanished mid-scene, then turned up again later on. It made viewing a joke.

I fail to see how it managed to pick-up as many rave reviews as it did, it is an abysmal horror and a boring thriller.

Cast-Away meets ER 3/10

The movie tried to grasp the philosophical reason as to why this all was happening. Linda talks to a priest but there is no indication of her religion prior to or after that scene. A lot of this plot just happened for seemingly no reason at all. There were a lot of filler scenes I found to be completely irrelevant to the movie. *Spoilers follow*……

Example: Linda asks “If I let Jim die, is that the same as killing him?” There was no wonderful insight given just some shallow talk of fate and destiny.Undoubtedly the worst scene of the movie was at the funeral when there was a mishap with the coffin causing her husbands severed head to come bouncing out on to the road. What were they thinking? Perhaps they were still pondering the philosophical questions raised above, or maybe they just didn’t realize how ridiculous the scene actually was.

As the movie continues we are faced with more and more twists that seem to do nothing except to drag out the length of the movie. There is an unknown blonde at the funeral. One of the Linda’s daughters suddenly has severe cuts on her face. And lest we forget, the dead bird in the backyard.

Difficult to follow and incredibly confusing and/or pointless at times, I’d give Premonition a 6/10

When asked to check out this new independent film, obviously we jumped at the chance, a free DVD screener, who wouldn’t? We were incredibly anxious for its delivery via fed-ex so, whilst waiting eagerly on the front porch for its arrival, we did a little research. (thank you Wi-Fi!)

So it seems the people behind the new movie “Outsourced” are very ballsey. If you didn’t already know, they opted to distribute the movie themselves, via there website and select theaters. I love this attitude and fighting spirit, future Indy film producers, take note.

Now, onto the review.

From the opening sequence you can tell that this movie means business. Some stunning cinematography and gorgeous shots of downtown Seattle accompanied by a pretty stellar soundtrack, This movie takes no time at all getting started. We’re introduced to Josh Hamilton playing Todd Anderson. A customer service/sales manager. This guy is great, I don’t know why we haven’t seen a lot more of him. He’s done some notable TV but I think once his performance in this movie gets picked up, he will be in a lot more demand.

The plot quickly unfolds and leads Todd on a trip half way around the world to train at a new Indian call center. Pretty basic stuff, right to the point, no time wasted. Just how I like my movies.

The lead actress, Ayesha Dharker playing Asha, an Indian call center employee, looks absolutely stunning on camera, there is something about her smile, it just lights up the screen. The casting for this movie, in a nutshell, is perfect. The characters being played are so believable, charismatic and charming, there chemistry is intoxicating. This is one of those films where it just all comes together perfectly and is a real pleasure to watch.

Now, the topic of this movie is one I feel very strongly about – Outsourcing work overseas. You can read and discuss more on this over in the forums. I think the movie did a amazing job in bringing these two completely different cultures together, without potentially angering people due to the nature of the subject and the history between the two. To me, it was an honest, humorous look at what is actually happening in the world, completely balanced in its opinions, never going to far. Two very big thumbs up, nicely done.

The romance is just simply adorable. It’s very rare I seen a movie where the characters just look and feel so good together. The Humor, although a little over the top at times, was of the laugh out loud caliber.

Something else I really enjoyed was the subtle lessons in middle eastern religion and beliefs. Not often a movie teaches you new things, especially when presented in a humorous way. Looking back, I now know more about India than I think I ever did, some of its heritage, religion and its customs. Genius!

I don’t think I will say this again in the next six months, but – go and buy this movie. If your lucky enough to have it show in your city – go and see this movie. If you cannot get out, nor afford a copy for yourself, spread the word. digg/stumble this review, visit there website, tell your friends… The more we support our independent film producers, the more of these quality films they can give us.

Such a charming, delightful – will watch again soon – 9/10.

Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.