Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews2
sampson1411's rating
EL CARTEL REVIEW by SAMPSON 411 While not perfect, El Cartel makes up for its flaws with ambition and quality. In short, "Cool Movie! Two thumbs up." 8.0/10 stars.
The story follows Jules Land, a mediocre journalist who follows a "once in a lifetime" story into the cartel-infested deserts of Mexico. Once across the border, he meets with Angel Santana, presumably Mexico's most notorious drug lord (and the antithesis of the swaggering, high-rolling, high-profile drug lords the likes of Pablo Escobar) and learns the inner workings of Santana's empire.
The Mexican actors definitely out-shine their gringo counterparts. The Hispanic actors, especially Santana (played by Jose Luis Franco) and Santos (Mauricio Islas), give great performances. The performance from the film's heroes, Jules (Freddy Douglas) and Vern (Howard Gibson), are less than commanding and both seem a bit "outgunned" by their Mexican co-stars. Fortunately, the mismatch in acting lends to the overall arch of the story (that of the bad guys completely being in control as they "school" the gringos about how the cartel does business).
The visual feel of the movie is clear and bright when necessary, but dark and gritty when called for. The locations and scenery are so impressive that, at moments, they seem to be part of the cast. The crew (particularly the location scouts, directors of photography, and lighting) gets accolades for coming through big time with the film's "look." A stellar grade is also awarded to the film's composer for his/her original score. It's not unheard of for a low budget independent to have GOOD original music, but it's rare (hint – please make a soundtrack).
El Cartel has it's own stylistic feel, and does something no other film has done. Each "chapter" of the film has a mini-lesson that is presented to the viewer as being one of Santana's rules of business. These rules are what has led Santana to his success in dominating the Latin American drug trade. The movie is "paced" by a countdown of these 13 business lessons, bringing the film to a head upon its conclusion as the "first" principle is finally understood by our hero, Jules. The idea works and is definitely cool (for example, some of Santana's business rules include, "Follow your passion" or "There's no such thing as a once in a lifetime opportunity").
The story follows Jules Land, a mediocre journalist who follows a "once in a lifetime" story into the cartel-infested deserts of Mexico. Once across the border, he meets with Angel Santana, presumably Mexico's most notorious drug lord (and the antithesis of the swaggering, high-rolling, high-profile drug lords the likes of Pablo Escobar) and learns the inner workings of Santana's empire.
The Mexican actors definitely out-shine their gringo counterparts. The Hispanic actors, especially Santana (played by Jose Luis Franco) and Santos (Mauricio Islas), give great performances. The performance from the film's heroes, Jules (Freddy Douglas) and Vern (Howard Gibson), are less than commanding and both seem a bit "outgunned" by their Mexican co-stars. Fortunately, the mismatch in acting lends to the overall arch of the story (that of the bad guys completely being in control as they "school" the gringos about how the cartel does business).
The visual feel of the movie is clear and bright when necessary, but dark and gritty when called for. The locations and scenery are so impressive that, at moments, they seem to be part of the cast. The crew (particularly the location scouts, directors of photography, and lighting) gets accolades for coming through big time with the film's "look." A stellar grade is also awarded to the film's composer for his/her original score. It's not unheard of for a low budget independent to have GOOD original music, but it's rare (hint – please make a soundtrack).
El Cartel has it's own stylistic feel, and does something no other film has done. Each "chapter" of the film has a mini-lesson that is presented to the viewer as being one of Santana's rules of business. These rules are what has led Santana to his success in dominating the Latin American drug trade. The movie is "paced" by a countdown of these 13 business lessons, bringing the film to a head upon its conclusion as the "first" principle is finally understood by our hero, Jules. The idea works and is definitely cool (for example, some of Santana's business rules include, "Follow your passion" or "There's no such thing as a once in a lifetime opportunity").
THE DEVIL'S TOMB by SAMPSON 411 When you watch an independent film, you at least know what you're getting in for. Here, The Devil's Tomb is low budget, but most of it's success at the rental store is going to come as a result of its "name" actors and its impressive DVD art work. While it had it's moments (a rare few of them), in general, this was a movie that was destined for the Sci-Fi Channel, but was somehow rescued to the rental store shelves. 5.0/10 stars, at best (anything under 5.0 stars being totally unwatchable for me -- so this is borderline).
The story follows an elite military unit as it goes underground, into an underground laboratory to retrieve a civilian after some unknown biological/radiological/chemical disaster. What the team discovers, is that something ancient and sinister has been unleashed, and it's up to them to make certain the evil can't escape into the world (while figuring out a way to survive said evil at the same time).
To be fair, Cuba Gooding, Jr. is the MAN. His performance rocks, as does his acting. However, the film's dialogue and delivery by his fellow cast members is less than memorable. One couldn't use the "f-bomb" more than the actors do, even if being promised a billion dollars at day's end. Why do writers think that using the f-bomb someone makes for good drama? When have you ever heard two people talking in real life like this? It makes the dialogue feel forced. People don't always say things trying to sound "cool," and those who do sound like idiots (as do actors saying these things as they try to sound "cool").
Although the concept seemed new, it felt old. Actors running around in a "closed" building makes for a cheap film, but a very stale movie. Guns, blood and cheap special effects do not a good movie make (but they apparently make money, considering it was on the Blockbuster shelf as a "best seller" – go figure, eh. Just goes to show that we all have different tastes).
The visual feel of the movie is constant – too light for the actors to need their ever constant flash lights, and too clear to be anything but poorly utilized digital cameras. No grit. No texture. Not very visually compelling.
If you've seen Resident Evil, you've seen a far better version of this film. Rent it if you must, but just watch it with lowered expectations, or you'll want to gouge your eyes out. Watch it looking to just have a good two-hours free of thought or care, then you're set.
The story follows an elite military unit as it goes underground, into an underground laboratory to retrieve a civilian after some unknown biological/radiological/chemical disaster. What the team discovers, is that something ancient and sinister has been unleashed, and it's up to them to make certain the evil can't escape into the world (while figuring out a way to survive said evil at the same time).
To be fair, Cuba Gooding, Jr. is the MAN. His performance rocks, as does his acting. However, the film's dialogue and delivery by his fellow cast members is less than memorable. One couldn't use the "f-bomb" more than the actors do, even if being promised a billion dollars at day's end. Why do writers think that using the f-bomb someone makes for good drama? When have you ever heard two people talking in real life like this? It makes the dialogue feel forced. People don't always say things trying to sound "cool," and those who do sound like idiots (as do actors saying these things as they try to sound "cool").
Although the concept seemed new, it felt old. Actors running around in a "closed" building makes for a cheap film, but a very stale movie. Guns, blood and cheap special effects do not a good movie make (but they apparently make money, considering it was on the Blockbuster shelf as a "best seller" – go figure, eh. Just goes to show that we all have different tastes).
The visual feel of the movie is constant – too light for the actors to need their ever constant flash lights, and too clear to be anything but poorly utilized digital cameras. No grit. No texture. Not very visually compelling.
If you've seen Resident Evil, you've seen a far better version of this film. Rent it if you must, but just watch it with lowered expectations, or you'll want to gouge your eyes out. Watch it looking to just have a good two-hours free of thought or care, then you're set.