Ho ho ho, man, this one was a waste of time. Who actually thinks this is at all, remotely, even close to worth screening? And the dude that made this is supposed to be a "wunderkind" (some blow-hard bloggers word, not mine). Just because it's so easy to pick up a camera these days, believe me, this does not mean everyone should be making movies. This one is proof of that. Here's the recipe that so many "wunderkind" filmmakers are using these days, because it's just so easy. Anyone can do it. 1. Rent some movies in whatever genre you've got targeted for your splash into film-making. The store will already have them categorized, even sub-categorized (Zombie, Slasher, etc). Rent maybe three or four of them. You don't want to waste too much money at this stage. Watch them. You may still play with your cellphone and surf facebook to be with your fans and stay one with the commoners/hipsters. 2. Write down at least six or seven scenes to crib which will be used to cobble together your work of art. Doesn't matter what movies they're from or if they're at all coherent. Coherence is for old people. 3. Pick either the 1970's or 1980's as the decade because it's funny and campy. This movie doesn't even know what decade it's in. Freeze-frames in the opening, ripped straight from Rob Zombie's brilliantly inspired (you can google that word if you don't know what it means) tribute to 1970's drive-in movies doesn't really fit in a movie you've been flaunting as "Friday 13th-80's-slasher-style." He probably only saw the Friday 13th remake and his mother returned it before he finished watching it, so learn from this! But a music compilation for the decade in which you've set your masterpiece. Randomly pick a couple tunes and pepper them anywhere in your film. Doesn't matter where. People will be in awe at your cleverness and feverishly google your movie to find out what songs they are so they can buy the ringtones. 5. Pepper in zooms, film grain and old movie effects. The old film-burning-up-in-the-projector is especially popular. 6. Grab dad's handycam and GO SHOOT! What are you waiting for? Blow-hard bloggers and festival programmers have no more taste than you, so act like you know more than them and you'll go far! These "wunderkinds" are living proof that any dope can steal ideas, make them worse and market them as homage.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Down to the Dirt
(2008)
Started out okay.
29 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, a Canadian movie that doesn't feel like a Canadian movie! What's ironic is that most crappy Canadian movies try their best to hide the fact they're Canadian. The story will be set New York (shot in Toronto, hardly NYC) or some generic American city, town, suburb, etc.
This movie is proud of the fact it's set in Eastern Canada and doesn't feel the need to give us stupid postcard shots and bagpipes (the bagpipes remark is a joke related to the movie, by the way).
But then we get to the horrible animal murder played for laughs. I don't want to give away too much, but unless you find someone bashing a cat to death with a rock humorous, you might want to avoid this movie. Well, the cat is in pain but that's thanks to the lead character's actions. As he bashes the cats skull in with a rock, he blathers on in voice over about being a fighter, like the cat I guess. Because the cat won't die. Hilarious. Then the murdered cat is forgotten by the next scene (because the lead character is back to feeling sorry for only for himself). It's safe to say the movie pretty much lost its heart by this point and the lead character has lost all sympathy.
One thing I want to mention, though, is the leading lady Mylène Savoie. She's a great actress and a pleasure to watch. Too bad the writer didn't concentrate only on her and write the cat killer out of the script, perhaps by horrible death.
The rest of the movie goes on to explore how self-absorbed the drug and alcohol-addicted main character really is. There's no limit to his self-love and depravity (berating everyone, stealing, pilfering, etc, etc.)
Sounds like a good time, eh?
This movie is proud of the fact it's set in Eastern Canada and doesn't feel the need to give us stupid postcard shots and bagpipes (the bagpipes remark is a joke related to the movie, by the way).
But then we get to the horrible animal murder played for laughs. I don't want to give away too much, but unless you find someone bashing a cat to death with a rock humorous, you might want to avoid this movie. Well, the cat is in pain but that's thanks to the lead character's actions. As he bashes the cats skull in with a rock, he blathers on in voice over about being a fighter, like the cat I guess. Because the cat won't die. Hilarious. Then the murdered cat is forgotten by the next scene (because the lead character is back to feeling sorry for only for himself). It's safe to say the movie pretty much lost its heart by this point and the lead character has lost all sympathy.
One thing I want to mention, though, is the leading lady Mylène Savoie. She's a great actress and a pleasure to watch. Too bad the writer didn't concentrate only on her and write the cat killer out of the script, perhaps by horrible death.
The rest of the movie goes on to explore how self-absorbed the drug and alcohol-addicted main character really is. There's no limit to his self-love and depravity (berating everyone, stealing, pilfering, etc, etc.)
Sounds like a good time, eh?
The Book Lady
(2009)
Poorly made fluff piece
7 April 2009
This is classified on the IMDb as a "documentary" but it's nothing more than a superficial fluff piece and not a very well-made one. It plays a promo piece for Dolly Parton's amazing charity work, the Imagination Library, which gets books to children in low-income communities to promote literacy.
With a character like Dolly Parton, you think this piece would be dynamic and fun, but it's so poorly put together, it's painful to watch. The best bits feature Dolly's sparkling personality and outrageous outfits. Less exciting are the seemingly pasted in moments with families that have benefited from the charity. The problem is you never feel you know who these people are. Where are they from and why is this charity so important to them? The interviews are drab and lifeless.
Worse, though, are the "celebrity" bits that are peppered throughout. Most of the time you're asking yourself, "who is the heck is that???" When Miley Cyrus adds her shallow two cents, it feels out of place, as if the Producer thought, well we managed to score an interview with Miley Cyrus, so we've got to throw it in! Again, the celeb interviews don't seem to tie in with the subject at hand. Just a bunch of comments about how great a person Dolly is.
See it if you're a Dolly fanatic, but don't expect anything entertaining and especially don't expect a documentary. This is fluff at best.
With a character like Dolly Parton, you think this piece would be dynamic and fun, but it's so poorly put together, it's painful to watch. The best bits feature Dolly's sparkling personality and outrageous outfits. Less exciting are the seemingly pasted in moments with families that have benefited from the charity. The problem is you never feel you know who these people are. Where are they from and why is this charity so important to them? The interviews are drab and lifeless.
Worse, though, are the "celebrity" bits that are peppered throughout. Most of the time you're asking yourself, "who is the heck is that???" When Miley Cyrus adds her shallow two cents, it feels out of place, as if the Producer thought, well we managed to score an interview with Miley Cyrus, so we've got to throw it in! Again, the celeb interviews don't seem to tie in with the subject at hand. Just a bunch of comments about how great a person Dolly is.
See it if you're a Dolly fanatic, but don't expect anything entertaining and especially don't expect a documentary. This is fluff at best.
YPF
(2007)
Ally McBeal + Ed Burns Movie = this turd
11 March 2009
What a bloody awful movie and proof that IMDb users are so middle of the road.
I only saw this because it was on Movie Channel and I'm trying to get my money's worth. I was actually expecting something out of the ordinary, but wow it couldn't be anymore Ordinary. I love good comedy, but this isn't even mediocre comedy. I couldn't force myself to laugh once. The Ally McBeal "screwball" acting that has infected the minds of so many unsuspecting conventional people wears thin very fast. There isn't one ounce of anything that feels genuine. It's all so "scripted" and the actors are obviously not capable of saving the whole clichéd affair.
Even worse, the characters are unlikeable in a post-Seinfeld kind of way. Just grating and totally void of wit. I offer the character of Ken as exhibit A, a 2-dimensional "playa" that probably every office cubicle jockey aspires to. All high concept and no character. Yawn.
Even worse again, those pretentious "chapter" inter-titles that divide the movie because the writer doesn't have the attention span or skill to construct a solid whole from the limp parts.
In a nutshell, Young People F---- or whatever it's called, is nothing more than a calculated opportunity for predictable and boring people to pat themselves on their backs for embracing something that's so "controversial" only because Entertainment Tonight tells them it is.
If you thought it all couldn't get any worse, the cinematography is really flat, too, aspiring to that mid-90's "indie" thing that's so popular with artsy hockey moms.
My advice: watch early Seinfeld instead. It's light years ahead of this trash with it's clever storytelling and ability to skewer human social norms.
I only saw this because it was on Movie Channel and I'm trying to get my money's worth. I was actually expecting something out of the ordinary, but wow it couldn't be anymore Ordinary. I love good comedy, but this isn't even mediocre comedy. I couldn't force myself to laugh once. The Ally McBeal "screwball" acting that has infected the minds of so many unsuspecting conventional people wears thin very fast. There isn't one ounce of anything that feels genuine. It's all so "scripted" and the actors are obviously not capable of saving the whole clichéd affair.
Even worse, the characters are unlikeable in a post-Seinfeld kind of way. Just grating and totally void of wit. I offer the character of Ken as exhibit A, a 2-dimensional "playa" that probably every office cubicle jockey aspires to. All high concept and no character. Yawn.
Even worse again, those pretentious "chapter" inter-titles that divide the movie because the writer doesn't have the attention span or skill to construct a solid whole from the limp parts.
In a nutshell, Young People F---- or whatever it's called, is nothing more than a calculated opportunity for predictable and boring people to pat themselves on their backs for embracing something that's so "controversial" only because Entertainment Tonight tells them it is.
If you thought it all couldn't get any worse, the cinematography is really flat, too, aspiring to that mid-90's "indie" thing that's so popular with artsy hockey moms.
My advice: watch early Seinfeld instead. It's light years ahead of this trash with it's clever storytelling and ability to skewer human social norms.
Waitress
(2007)
Old Joe Needs To Go
19 December 2008
I think in "real life," a waitress would slip Old Joe some arsenic or rat poison in his orange juice. Or maybe someone would just squirt ketchup over his head ala Three's Company.
Either way, I can't believe anyone would put up with Old Joe, let alone meet all his demands. Old Joe is obnoxious and needs medical care.
I can't say I laughed too much at all the contrived "quirky" moments. Okay, I admit, I didn't laugh once.
Why did I watch this??? I think I was just waiting for Old Joe to get it in the end. Different movie, I guess.
(this review if for Waitress
It's a movie starring the girl from felicity and
the guy who used to act with don knotts in some show)
Either way, I can't believe anyone would put up with Old Joe, let alone meet all his demands. Old Joe is obnoxious and needs medical care.
I can't say I laughed too much at all the contrived "quirky" moments. Okay, I admit, I didn't laugh once.
Why did I watch this??? I think I was just waiting for Old Joe to get it in the end. Different movie, I guess.
(this review if for Waitress
It's a movie starring the girl from felicity and
the guy who used to act with don knotts in some show)
Happiness
(1965)
More than meets the eye
17 April 2008
How do you rate a film like this? It wasn't really made to be rated. Unfortunately, we live in bonehead times when American idol has made every loser a critic. So, I give it an 7 based only on my purely subjective view, compared to other films that have made a mark.
One moronic reviewer writes this film off as "A perfect little nothing...Agnes Varda's Le Bonheur is a perfect little composition. A nice, sweet portrait...There is no fault in this film, except that it feels a little empty. Varda's hand is light and inspired, and about as dramatic as its cheerful score...a wonderful ode to a summer's day, with barely a hint of winter." Gag.
That person obviously only watched part of the film (or, more than likely, played it in the background while surfing the internet) or he/she suffers from a Jeffrey Dahmer-like view of the world.
Believe me, the light and airy music and cinematography is there to fool you. Look deeper and there's some wicked commentary going on.
Varda's films are more valuable than film school for emerging filmmakers (unless you aspire to be one of those big-mouth "Film Makers" who loves to spout off in the video store or Starbucks).
This is a movie for people who can sit and watch. Not those who need to be spoon-fed their movies and can't sit for five minutes without fondling a cell phone.
One moronic reviewer writes this film off as "A perfect little nothing...Agnes Varda's Le Bonheur is a perfect little composition. A nice, sweet portrait...There is no fault in this film, except that it feels a little empty. Varda's hand is light and inspired, and about as dramatic as its cheerful score...a wonderful ode to a summer's day, with barely a hint of winter." Gag.
That person obviously only watched part of the film (or, more than likely, played it in the background while surfing the internet) or he/she suffers from a Jeffrey Dahmer-like view of the world.
Believe me, the light and airy music and cinematography is there to fool you. Look deeper and there's some wicked commentary going on.
Varda's films are more valuable than film school for emerging filmmakers (unless you aspire to be one of those big-mouth "Film Makers" who loves to spout off in the video store or Starbucks).
This is a movie for people who can sit and watch. Not those who need to be spoon-fed their movies and can't sit for five minutes without fondling a cell phone.
We Own the Night
(2007)
IMDb crowd is EASY to please
15 April 2008
Good lord, this movie stinks.
Terrible pacing, overwrought acting, implausible plot. Departed, this movie ain't, though it's really really trying. It's just, honestly, a terrible movie.
But not according to IMDb users. They rave about it. Standing ovations, comparisons to Classics they don't even know how to spell. Well, that's the last time I spend money on a rental based on their collective opinion, that's for sure! If you want a good crime movie, seek out any number of old noir films (french are the best ones, in my opinion) put out by Criterion. They're lean and expertly-crafted. But they're in black and white and Marky Mark isn't in them, so anyone who considers We Own the Night a great film might as well not bother. Stick to the Hollywood marketing machine to make your decisions. ;O) Man it hurts to see Robert Duvall in this garbage.
Terrible pacing, overwrought acting, implausible plot. Departed, this movie ain't, though it's really really trying. It's just, honestly, a terrible movie.
But not according to IMDb users. They rave about it. Standing ovations, comparisons to Classics they don't even know how to spell. Well, that's the last time I spend money on a rental based on their collective opinion, that's for sure! If you want a good crime movie, seek out any number of old noir films (french are the best ones, in my opinion) put out by Criterion. They're lean and expertly-crafted. But they're in black and white and Marky Mark isn't in them, so anyone who considers We Own the Night a great film might as well not bother. Stick to the Hollywood marketing machine to make your decisions. ;O) Man it hurts to see Robert Duvall in this garbage.
Karla
(2006)
Stupid, Stupid third-rate exploitation
9 April 2008
My only interest in seeing this no-budget, braindead movie was to see how they handled such an awful bit of Canadian history. Needless to say, it treated it as American TV people treat most things: sensationalized, shallow, pointless, tedious, recycling the same old things you've seen a million times to fill the black hole where a story should be (take for instance, the hackneyed structure of stage actor with accent playing the boring doctor that asks dumb questions so we can get to flashbacks).
It's bad enough that anyone would want to make a movie out of this tragedy, but there isn't a single bit of effort to be seen anywhere. The acting, the directing, the photography, the writing: all TERRIBLE.
And what is the terrible-TV (Canadians are guilty of this one, too) fascination with video camera point-of-view? Oh man , who needs to see the fake grainy/shaky camera work when the the "real" camera work is just as bad.
I felt unclean after watching this one, wondering what the families affected by these crimes would think of their tragedy being cheapened by a straight-to-video crapfest, stripped of everything human, and for what?
It's bad enough that anyone would want to make a movie out of this tragedy, but there isn't a single bit of effort to be seen anywhere. The acting, the directing, the photography, the writing: all TERRIBLE.
And what is the terrible-TV (Canadians are guilty of this one, too) fascination with video camera point-of-view? Oh man , who needs to see the fake grainy/shaky camera work when the the "real" camera work is just as bad.
I felt unclean after watching this one, wondering what the families affected by these crimes would think of their tragedy being cheapened by a straight-to-video crapfest, stripped of everything human, and for what?
The Hills Have Eyes 2
(2007)
Like a third-rate 1990's action movie
28 August 2007
This movie is really terrible. How does one go from the beautifully crafted (and shot) intense horror of the prior film to this thing? Give it to a bunch of clueless Hollywood boneheads only interested in making an easy buck. The scary thing is, though, they probably think they did a great job, as if horror has anything to do with the tired out comic-book styling of this c-movie. Never mind the fact that the filmmakers can't even follow through with the gore. This is the kind of PG-rated "horror" that misses the whole point.
But this movie is NOT horror. It's more like a third-rate Baldwin-starring action movie from the 90's. Without the camp value. The most cringe-inducingly bad moments are when stupid last-minute bits of dialogue are badly dubbed in for the mutants. They must learn stuff from satellite TV, I guess.
I honestly can't wait for the next film by Alexandre Aja. Couldn't care less about whatever hack job Martin Weisz goes onto (who?). Probably something with the Olsen twins.
But this movie is NOT horror. It's more like a third-rate Baldwin-starring action movie from the 90's. Without the camp value. The most cringe-inducingly bad moments are when stupid last-minute bits of dialogue are badly dubbed in for the mutants. They must learn stuff from satellite TV, I guess.
I honestly can't wait for the next film by Alexandre Aja. Couldn't care less about whatever hack job Martin Weisz goes onto (who?). Probably something with the Olsen twins.
Hard Candy
(2005)
Warning: this movie is SO BAD!!!
4 October 2006
Here's fair warning for you: this movie is nothing but hype. It's just another limp Sundance wannabe, with absolutely no b#lls (so to speak) that wimps out on itself for 1.5 hours.
And, boy oh boy, is this movie ever padded to make it to 90 minutes. It's a 10-minute short stretched beyond belief by way of talk, talk, talk and then some more talk, talk, talk, like really bad one-liners, lame plays on words, characters speaking obvious things like it's some kind of debate on sexual matters that it's actually afraid to talk about.
It's a PG-rated afterschool special posing as an R-rated "edgy" "indie" masterpiece.
You'll find no gore or anything at all shocking in this movie, so don't bother torturing yourself is that's what you're expecting.
To make matters even more annoying, this movie screams of first-time filmmaker. Maybe it's not a first, I don't really care, but I really hope it's a LAST! Even worse, again, it screams of amateur filmmaker who grew up watching MTV and thinking all that shaking camera and desaturated color is, like, sooo coool dude! On that note, why is the camera shaking all the time, like there's an earthquake? Is it to make up for how dull and lifeless and saggy this thing really is? And why is everything shot like Saving Private Ryan with the fast shutter? Again, to make up for the flaccid goings on.
Here's hoping that Ellen Page doesn't get stuck in crap like this anymore. She's way too good for it. Check out Marion Bridge, or even Trailer Park Boys to see for yourself.
This one will be forgotten in six months, when the hype finally goes limp. If you must see it, wait until it's a dollar-rental and be prepared to fast-forward through the countless stupid moving shots of red walls.
Sundance has really turned filmmakers' minds to mush. These people have no interest in making something with any purity. The goal is "indie cred." We the viewers are the ones that have to suffer for it.
And, boy oh boy, is this movie ever padded to make it to 90 minutes. It's a 10-minute short stretched beyond belief by way of talk, talk, talk and then some more talk, talk, talk, like really bad one-liners, lame plays on words, characters speaking obvious things like it's some kind of debate on sexual matters that it's actually afraid to talk about.
It's a PG-rated afterschool special posing as an R-rated "edgy" "indie" masterpiece.
You'll find no gore or anything at all shocking in this movie, so don't bother torturing yourself is that's what you're expecting.
To make matters even more annoying, this movie screams of first-time filmmaker. Maybe it's not a first, I don't really care, but I really hope it's a LAST! Even worse, again, it screams of amateur filmmaker who grew up watching MTV and thinking all that shaking camera and desaturated color is, like, sooo coool dude! On that note, why is the camera shaking all the time, like there's an earthquake? Is it to make up for how dull and lifeless and saggy this thing really is? And why is everything shot like Saving Private Ryan with the fast shutter? Again, to make up for the flaccid goings on.
Here's hoping that Ellen Page doesn't get stuck in crap like this anymore. She's way too good for it. Check out Marion Bridge, or even Trailer Park Boys to see for yourself.
This one will be forgotten in six months, when the hype finally goes limp. If you must see it, wait until it's a dollar-rental and be prepared to fast-forward through the countless stupid moving shots of red walls.
Sundance has really turned filmmakers' minds to mush. These people have no interest in making something with any purity. The goal is "indie cred." We the viewers are the ones that have to suffer for it.
Flesh for Frankenstein
(1973)
Only for Horror fans (not "Scream" Wussies)
2 May 2004
I have to laugh at the reviews here from people who saw this and expected some forgettable, sanitized piece of Hollywood garbage - and then got this!
Please, only true horror fans seek this out. If you don't know who Herschel Lewis is, pass this by and rent Scream 3 again. Or something else with Matthew Lillard. That way you can tell yourself your a horror fan and move on.
The amazing thing is how fast this (and Blood for Dracula) were made and how amazing both movies are! If you are an independent horror filmmaker in the works, this is must-see stuff.
Don't believe the fluff from the "Ghost Ship" crew. They will forever confuse hollywood action films with horror. Sad. Yet funny to see their reactions! (if you liked Ghost Ship, rent I Spit On Your Grave next. Honest. You'll love it!!) ;O)
Please, only true horror fans seek this out. If you don't know who Herschel Lewis is, pass this by and rent Scream 3 again. Or something else with Matthew Lillard. That way you can tell yourself your a horror fan and move on.
The amazing thing is how fast this (and Blood for Dracula) were made and how amazing both movies are! If you are an independent horror filmmaker in the works, this is must-see stuff.
Don't believe the fluff from the "Ghost Ship" crew. They will forever confuse hollywood action films with horror. Sad. Yet funny to see their reactions! (if you liked Ghost Ship, rent I Spit On Your Grave next. Honest. You'll love it!!) ;O)
Tell Your Friends