Reviews

23 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
A fine afternoon movie to not take to seriously.
8 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Let me lead in by saying the value of The Island of Dr. Moreau jumps exponentially if viewed in conjunction with the documentary Lost Souls, which explores the ordeal of realizing this film from concept to fruition.

That said, this movie is perfectly good afternoon monster movie fare, almost quint in its feel. While it embarks on a modern telling of the classic novel, so many elements remain timeless due to the nature of its construction that the timeframe can be oblique.

As the movie was in the infancy of CGI, special effects are practical and rather impressive. The story itself it a bit mucked, and the acting of the three leads are practically phoned in, but it's still unique stuff.

This is a fun, throw back movie that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not bad as a horror film, just generic.
31 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Texas Chainsaw. The sixth sequel in a series where the only universally acclaimed film is the first. Each proceeding is by one measure or the next a dearth of quality, but is generally contemporary to the aesthetics of horror to when each sequel was made. So why would this movie be any different? Its not.

The movie, to its most resounding credit, has one hell of an opening. The entire flashback sequence is stellar. But immediately the tone reverted to the current decade. The cast are all perfect pretty and perky, their logic is thin but moves things forward quickly, and there's a fratty, sorority vibe to the small group. The hitchhiker is hunky. The dialog is boring and there is plenty of skin to be shown (both men and women) but never anything beyond PG- 13. And as it was released as Texas Chainsaw 3D, there are a couple scenes that are intended to take advantage of this original intent.

Texas Chainsaw gets a lot of flack for being an extremely bad movie, but it's not. It is not a good movie, but it has some iconic imagery hidden in its cleanly constructed horror tropes. There is nothing special about this movie outside Dan Yeagers portrayal of Leatherface. Director Johm Luessenhop has nothing to his credit that a horror fan would recognize, but he's competent. You feel that it was Lionsgate and producers that strap this movie down to its clichés.

Of course, some glaring issues appear immediately. While the narrative uses the exact date of the house burning in 1973 as a plot device, it goes to great lengths to conceal visual references to the actual year. Perhaps budgetary constraints dictated, but our main character is barely into her twenties, so logically this film wild take place in latter half of the nineties. They choose to skirt retro, making it clear by gravestone of a deceased character that the events are in 2013. But then, cell phones are ignored. No "we have no service" bullshit, just a complete ignoring until a cop uses one to live stream his investigation of the house late in the movie. And Heathers moral reversal and family awakening is both jarring and confusing. It's a necessary evil to get the result the writers intended of having Leatherface turn anti-hero, but it also results in that third act fans find so appalling.

For each moment that reveals a unique or insightful slight of filmmaking, there is a movement of tedium. And in the end it weights this film down into a generic, Netflix and Chill variety background horror movie. It's sad, as even as it manages to keep a tight wrap on cheap jump scares, it fails to build real atmosphere or tension. It's predictable, practiced horror.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I film so poorly made its a wonder it's included as a companion piece on a Friday the 13th movie
12 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
In making this film, there must have been a specific goal to be campy. But if campy was the goal, it's a miss. And if campy wasn't the goal, then this is just bad. The writer/director manages to use the worst of the stalking serial killer troupes. Nothing is less rewarding or cliché than the vanishing-in-the-middle-of-a-clearing, did I see him/did I not see him camera tricks. Nothing is more absurd than vanishing and reappearing in frame without the victim noticing. Even the death gore is unimaginative. It's like an intern was given $500 dollars and a handy cam and was told to "Go make a horror movie".

The only strength is the use of the Mancini soundtrack, but that's hardly to the credit of the writer/director.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The finest of the Friday the 13th movies,
12 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The second Friday the 13th is formulaic and simplistic in execution, but it was also one of the first to establish that formula. The entire cast is fresh, and the pace is near perfect. Despite MPAA requiring nearly a minute of footage to be cut, and the re-cut of the final scene which can lead to some fan confusion (Paul is dead, dying to save Ginny. No, she did not dream this sequence) the film still manages to overcome its flaws to solidify the blueprint of an '80's slasher flick.

This film is often thought of as the first first appearance of Jason, or the movie without the Hockey mask, but more than anything it illustrates how those conventions define the Villain in pop culture and yet proved not necessary to embody the spirit of what a "Friday the 13th" film is.

Not one to miss.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A perfectly acceptable teen action movie for teens.
10 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
In the current climate of tween/teen action sci-fi franchises releasing sequel after sequel, the Maze Runner series seems to be at the bottom of the barrel. Does that make it a waste of time? No. But it does mean its a little to forgiving of implausible scenarios, oh-so- last-minute saves and lots of running around to nowhere quick action while breaking through your suspension of disbelief. Yes.

Of course, if you're in the target audience of teenager or younger, this is pure heavenly fantasy. It should be noted that if your child scares easily, the ghouls throughout the second act can be a bit graphic, but nothing that would shake the constitution of the average 12 year old.

If you're a parent, this is going to be a difficult sit thru. Unlike most newer tween focused films that lace sophisticated adult humor in between the lines, this is all bland stuff. Thankfully, what's happening in the grand narrative is explained pretty clearly, so no leaning over to your kid to ask whats so important about these folks on screen. All will be revealed. Unfortunately, you will be asking a "Who's that?", as a couple characters get picked up for no clear reason (fodder for the threequel?), or why the group is going here or there, but is likely there's no reason you kid would know either. It's just to fill out plot.

There is a remarkably good (in relative blockbuster terms) production feel to this movie. I still imagine that once this franchise is complete it will, along with all of its actors, fade into obscurity. But for now, it's great matinée fare, and shouldn't be analyzed to deeply. Just enjoy the cool post-apocalyptic feel, great damaged cityscapes, all to familiar mall/zombie combination and absurd "final" shoot out. Then forget about it until part 3.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A movie that is entirely not necessary
10 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Walking with the Enemy is a well conceived melodrama that sheds light on issues that Hungary and its Jewish population faced coming into the final year of World War II. But it is not a movie I would recommend. At its heart, it is a movie about a man who loses everything during the Nazi invasion, and goes to incredible risk after stealing a Nazi SS officers' uniform to save many of the Jew's in Budepest. Jonas Armstrong plays Elek Cohan, a fictionalized version Pinchas Tibor Rosenbaum, in a well woven narrative that allows Cohan, and thus the viewer, to experience many of the atrocities the Hungarian Jews experienced. It never delves deep into the politics, but when it briefly does, it employs Ben Kingsley to navigate those issues. But all aspects of this movie are wrought with sentimentality and pierced with careful consideration on how war atrocities are portrayed on screen, leaving a relatively lackluster final product.

As a war movie, there is a sense of nostalgia the creeps into every corner of Walking with the Enemy. This is a double edged sword as it makes the movie a somewhat pleasant watch, but it applies cliché after cliché to tug at our emotions. First, a pet-peeve of mine; This movie relies on a wide variety of poor to non-existent accents instead of just subtitling Hungarian. Perhaps this is because the selection of actors that can both act and speak Hungarian is slim, but it's lazy. Next, the love interest Hannah Schoen (played by Hannah Tointon with no dynamic, just a constant pouty prettiness) is introduced in opening scene and carried to final frame. The courtship manages to be rigidly structured, she is always played off Cohans concerns. I admit I even found it offensive that how the SS uniforms are acquired results from Schoens attempted rape. It's a sexual assault that is both projected and eye-rollingly constructed to allow Cohan to save the girl.

The knavery of the Germans are clear (with the redemption of one, of course), as is the presentment of the home grown Hungarian fascist Arrow Cross party. They all look very stern and act accordingly. Townsfolk take to stealing the houses of relocated Jews as well as take to chasing survivors with fire pokers. The love interest drapes over the hero when a friend dies, reminding him gently He is a hero. Cohan forges on in the face of other survivors defiance, to almost always wins. The orphan plays his part in the end. The final confrontation between Cohan, the Arrow Cross and the SS feels shocking only for a moment, then it loses all its weight.

The cinematography is also less than stellar, as the movie feels small. Locations are filmed tightly, on street level. Its riddled with television production values. The only sweeping scene comes from the allied engagement at the bridge, which is nicely done but still suffers from a level of claustrophobia that stifles the entire film. When the Russians invade in the third act, they feel tunneled, pressing in waves through one single building to the next.

Jonas Armstrong does an excellent job with the material. The script offers him a lot of range and he covers the ground solidly. At times he channels the intensity of Christoph Waltz yet can just as quickly tun heals and invoke the vulnerability of Haley Joel Osment. Its a wonderful performance, and holds the center of this film. Around him, Simon Kunz as Jozsef Greenberg brings a true sense of moral obligation and second-guessed heroism to his character. As the love interest's uncle, Simon Dutton's Miklos Schoen manages to steal every scene despite his one dimensional character. He is also center to two of the more interesting directoral decisions. Schmits chooses to fade out during a discussion on how to handle the orphaned child, as it seems he is at a loss to add another emotion level to this Schoen. The second is how Schmidt choose to resolve Miklos Schoen's arc. It feels more frustrating and out of step than any other death in the movie.

Shane Taylor is a surprising scene stealer, playing the son of Kingsleys Regent Horty. As a member of the Hungarian Regency government, he stands shoulder to shoulder with his father to save the country in a what is portrayed as politically impossible situation. Ben Kingsley does do a decent turn in his role, but he is not given lot of screen time, so he never develops a compelling presence. It should be noted that the Regency Government, through father and son, are played quite sympathetically to their situation with the Nazi's. The viewer is given the impression that it is only in the twilight hours of the war that Hungary were forced to deal with the Nazis, as it is hardly beneficial to screenwriter Kenny Golde's narrative that Hungary had been an ally of the Axis and profiteers of Nazi power since the late thirties.

By and large this is a film that hints Mark Schmidt can direct. It certainly shows that Jonas Armstrong can act. Its a shame he displays these chops in a movie that is so pedestrian. Golde's screen writing is riddled with cliché, but he can look forward to a career writing Lifetime movies. I have serious questions as to why it was decided to fictionalize Rosenbaum to such an extent. While it is nice to have a film that explores Hungary's involvement in WWII, changing significance elements (such as, Rosenbaum stole Arrow Cross uniforms to save fellow Jews) wouldn't be necessary to a better writer. And the final scene is a faux tear-jerker of the worst variety. While it is always important to reflect on the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust, this crew decided to rehash too many tropes done better and with more impact in earlier films.
25 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Best to be seen if you have not read/seen the material before...
10 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Attack on Titan caught my attention specifically because I had read so much internet chatter about what a poor and disappointing film it was. Deciding I would risk 90 minutes of my life to witness such a folly was an unregretted decision, as it is clear that only fans devoted to the source material make this film consistently obliterated in review.

That said... This film has a very Make-It-Quick feel, clearly made on a sound stage, with the loads of green screen and matte backgrounds that still exist in abundance in Asian made blockbusters. These techniques have certainly gone the wayside and are not tolerated in the American market. The CGI is minimal, which is actually quite impressive for a film made about 30' to 50' giants eating people, and the special effects that focus the creepiness of the Titans grow noticeably lax in later shots. Still, there is much to be said for creativeness of the set designs and green screen layering. It is difficult for film makers to garner appreciation for these practical effects from the target demographic of kids and young adults, least of all those who could have looked past the story adaptation issues. It's hard for western audiences to accept that the Asian film market may not budget for a film of this nature to the same extremes as an American production company.

I believe at its heart Attack on Titan is best comparable to the 1989 Punisher movie. Perfectly timed at 90 minutes, with a story that is grossly modified, the production under budgeted, and the acting uniquely tolerable... Yet, there is something fun and special to the uninitiated when seeing the film. It's not a difficult narrative to follow. The main characters manage to be likable and oddly fun throughout. Women play central and strong roles ( I'm glossing over the played-for-comic-effect "overweight/overeating" character, as I genuinely feel there is more of a cultural divide than fat-shaming/gender stereotyping when employing this humor ). And there is an amazing, if not unintentional reference to Red Dawn (AVENGE ME!)

While not a great movie, this is fun fare. It has definite moments of hyperviolence/gore, but somehow it can't be taken seriously. Had it not been based on a beloved Manga/Anima series, I feel this would be a future cult classic.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Listen (2014)
6/10
An iimterestly conceived plot, but for me a missed mark.
25 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This piece was the opening film in the Manhattan Short Film Festival. An interesting selection, I found this film to have a muddled plot in what should have been a straight forward story, or a poor execution of concept.

It opens with a series of repetitious recounts of the same story, told by a Muslim woman beaten by her husband, reframing on various people in the interrogation room. This is not done in Rasho-mon style. Nor is anything new revealed with each new framing (beyond allowing others to talk a little longer each take). It is done to illustrate the levels of communication that can break down in this scenario. But it is clear immediately that the interpreter is responsible for breaking down of communication.

This filmmaker wants to create a piece that demands an examination of justice, language barriers and social constructs, but it really only left me asking, "What is this interpreters problem?". It's quite clear that the director has leaned on Islamic extremist behavior. Constructed a situation of frustration, hoping to intrigue the viewer into deducing by their own reason for the interpreters actions. Or hoping these frustrations put the viewer in the Muslim victims perspective. It does neither. It's not clever. It touches on xenophobic. Not impressed.

The son offers a real sense of tension here, but he's underused, as if he is an afterthought. His strong words to him mother create the most interesting potential conflict, but the film immediately resolves to avoid having to actually have depth.

****note****

I understand and have a greater appreciation (after a second viewing) of what the film maker was presenting here.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bis Gleich (2014)
8/10
A charming tale of subtle connections
25 September 2015
German short film Bis Gleich was the closing selection for the Manhattan Short Film Festival, as well as (at 20 minutes) their longest selection. The story of an elderly duo, separated by a street but united by a common view, uses nearly every minute of extra time to develop their relationship. And the end, however predictable, is fitting and subtle in its triumph.

The camera work is nothing outside standard fare, but it is never sloppy. The production values suffer from obvious budget constraints, but the story muscles through this. Ultimately, you care not for the not-passable-as-real construction workers, gaggle of young girls or slowly devolving couple who's breakup can be witnessed in their short walk to a cab. What you care about is about are the two actors that play the rear-window gazing leads. And how touching is the writing that manages to find these two meeting?

Very strong piece, if not a tad to long.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Forever (V) (2014)
8/10
While Forever Over is strong in acting and concept, it's fatal with its breakup cliché
25 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Forever Over was presented locally in theaters with nine other selections as part of the Manhattan Short Film Festival. This film had a very high concept to convey in its short 15 minutes, but it does so excellently. A couple, together so long they feel they've grown stagnant, take to writing their desires on small notes and shuffling them in a hat. Together they draw these notes out to enact their fantasies.

Forever Over has a lot going for it. Great cinematography, acting and strong writing are apparent. The actors are both charming, and the set pieces they inhabit are expertly crafted. My only real complain, and it is a large one, is that one of these fantasies is a three-way, as suggested by the boyfriend. It leads to the girlfriends jealous downfall, and the relationship crumbles despite their grand experiment. It is a cliché that I knew would have had to have been written by a man.

It's a shame because while the relationship spiral is written on a poor premise, the final exchanges are quite clever. It leaves the viewer with a sense of hope. This is certainly a concept that could be expanded on, and perhaps with great effect if the moment of folly could be of more note.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Charming film, but i found it uncomfortable
25 September 2015
The tale of two young girls who hear moaning in the night from their parents bedroom, and begin theorizing the events they see when peeking through a keyhole.

I saw this film thanks to a local showing as part of The Manhattan Short Film Festival. Of the ten films, this film was presented as the most comedic entry, and certainly there were some chuckles from the audience. But I found the dialog of children, and there oh-so- adorableness slightly off-putting. The exchanges are cute, that cannot be denied, but it felt somehow too-cutesy. And the ending, a pay off for a laugh, received only an eye-roll from me.

It's important to not take this movie seriously to enjoy it. I feel that if you're entertained by old episodes of Americas Funniest Home Videos, or Kids say the Darnedest Things, you'll love this short. If you find these shows tiring, you may feel the same of Dad in Mum.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bear Story (2014)
9/10
A delightful and intriguing animated film.
25 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was able to see this film thanks to a local showing of The Manhattan Short Film Festival. The sole fully animated feature of the 10 entries (matched with a stop-motion piece), this is a masterfully told story.

In a multi-layered presentation, an anamorphic bear tells the tale of his kidnap from his wife and child, to a circus where he is forced to perform ever more elaborate tricks. He eventually devises a method of escape, returning to his beloved city to tell his tale through a mechanical panorama box.

Though the themes are dense, it is a deftly mature tale that I believe would still manage to delight a child. And yet, this film manages to capture the eclipsing of love through wordless story that reaches emotional height I've only felt previously in the introduction of Pixar's Up. Seek this film out.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An overly charming but ultimately weak short.
25 September 2015
I was able to view this film thanks to the local showing of The Manhattan Short Film Festival, which included 9 other international selections. I would like to say it is because the film is grouped with such stellar competition that it appears flawed, but that would not be true. The reality is, there is some directing issues that distract.

It is apparent from the get-go that Writer/Director Shawn Telfords wants you to understand his lead in El Camino Solo is a jerk. The problem is, we never really believe it. That is the films biggest weakness. But there are some other issues too. Like, you expect us to believe someone's on the other end of that phone? Or that he is in such a state as to throw it? Or that on this long stretch, he would only notice a vehicle as it passes his own, making it nearly impossible to flag for help?

Thanks to the introductions to the director via the MSFF's format, it is easy to see that Telfords seems a very sweet man. I think that sweetness is glaringly imprinted on the final product. A vague Tarantino inspiration also feels present, felt in both the music and framing. The message is very nice, and his child actors are a delight. And, to the credit of his writing, the final gag regarding payment is executed to perfection. It is for these reasons I look forward to seeing more of his work, even if my praise is stifled on this piece.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Patch (I) (2014)
6/10
While not unique in execution, a worthy watch
25 September 2015
Patch is barely the length of an average music video, so it asks very little commitment from the viewer. That's welcome, because it's premise could wear thin quickly. Thankfully, Writer/Director Gerd Gockell knows what he's presenting and does so curtly. The shifting of varying sizes of simply painted squares to create movement and image is quite brilliantly done.

The film does raise question on how it was done. One hopes that it is created by hand, each segment crafted and hung separately. To think it was done digitally (as can so easily manipulated) would take the power away from the piece. Ultimately, it is a fascinating piece of art, but without much soul. Hopefully, this film is made available online at some point in the future.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shok (2015)
8/10
An excellent short.
25 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was able to see this film locally thanks to the Manhattan Short Film Festival.

Simply put, this is an excellent, if not tragic tale. It was directed wonderfully and gives a glimpse into a conflict few American reflect on. The small part of the Kosovo conflict as seen thru eyes of children is very well crafted. The child actors give strong performances. The only criticism I could give the film is that for someone unfamiliar with The Kosovo Conflict (as I was) may be at a loss as to which faction is which. As it is not a war movie, but a slice of life of one family, and a particular family friend, the officials on various levels, are not easy to identify. While it's difficult beyond this to expound upon the plot of a short film, I suggest you take the time to see it.
29 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Grounded (2014)
10/10
A wonderful short that brings a familiar sense of anxiety to anyone who has traveled by flight regularly.
25 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was able to see this short thanks to the Manhattan Short Film Festivals showing locally in Portland, Maine. This short was the highlight of the event for me. I found the film gave a strong sense of anxiety our young mother felt as she attempted to board a flight with baby, to reach her mothers funeral.

The acting is stellar in its understatement, bringing a real charm to the characters. The emotion never feels overwrought. Though an actor for several years, Alexis Michalik is new to both directing and writing. This film displays his incredible promise, as reflected by its nomination in the MSFF, and 5 wins across other international short film festivals.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sundown (2014)
1/10
An absolute rip off!!!
25 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
My girlfriend and I saw this film tonight at the Manhattan Short Film festival showing in Portland Maine. She was quick to notice its similarities to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "The Body". Returning home, we popped in the DVD, and sure enough, it is a nearly line for line, shot for shot remake of the first 15 minutes of the episode.

This is not similar, or coincidental. It is an almost exact recreation. Joss Whedon should have won an Emmy for this episode! Manhattan Short Film Festival needs to address this!

Shame on Sinem Cezayirli for blatant plagiarism! You should be banned from future submissions!
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hive (2014)
7/10
A concept more interesting then the film is allowed to be.
15 September 2015
The Hive is a solid blend of horror norms wrapped around a central theme of loss of identity. Set in a slasher film's summer camp cliché, what the producers of The Hive want you to believe is that you're here to see a zombie film. In reality, this is an interesting take on the Invasion of the Body Snatchers trope, told with a Memento-style narrative of interwoven flashbacks as our protagonists (and "others") memories return. The events leading to the amnesia are an important plot point, and the flashbacks become multi- faceted as the story fleshes out.

The Hive is advertised as shot in "Vine-Style" with no single shot lasting more than ten seconds. The conscious decision to edit the film this way seems inconsequential for the majority of the film, but when combined with the flashbacks, we do slip into short periods of incoherency. More distressing is early on, as Adam (Gabriel Basso) is being introduced. Alone and without memories, the director uses a series of rapid jump cuts to convey his leads anger and frustration, which is simply distracting to the viewer. The editing choices also mean we never linger on a particular image, which is a shame because certain moments have great framing and make perfect use of the high contrast.

Due to the direction, Basso does not convey a strong lead in the weak first act of the film, but he is type-cast well. David Yarovesky recovers from these initial stumbles, showing his strongest instincts lie in the teen romance scenes. Adams chemistry with Katie (Kathryn Prescott) starts to turn things around, and as the film progresses he becomes a more believable character. Jacob Zachar is not given a well conceived character arc, but none the less has an excellent turn as Clark. Prescott remains a charming presence throughout, even in the more tense moments. The secondary cast all put in solid horror movie performances, with only Gabrielle Walsh treading hammy.

The production values, while misguided and heavy handed at times, are strong. The film is heavily filtered, so natural lighting is never neutral and the the majority of the interior cabin shots make full use of exploiting blacklights to give a distinct look to the films present time frame. The general aesthetics will be instantly recognizable to anyone who has spent any time with the famed Call of Duty: Nazi Zombies video game. You might question the speed in which the main cabin deteriorates, as well as the extremes in which the children's cabin has been effected later in the movie. These set choices are seemingly to promote atmosphere but mostly miss.

What does promote the atmosphere is the music, easily the strongest aspect of The Hive and yet still not without flaw. The rather well shot scene of Adam and Katie in the clinic is adversely affected by the soundtrack, but the moments of tension and horror are perfectly scored. The use of Steve Aoki's tracks are fitting and complimenting.

After a summer season that included Unfriended, The Gallows and The Poltergeist remake, as well as sharing theater retail space with The Visit, The Hive is certainly an above-board film to the horror fetishist. It hangs hope on its high concept of loss of identity to stick with you after the credits roll, while limiting the jump scares and turning up the gross out factor with vomiting. The story is intriguing, and the flashbacks of the scientists involved in creating this situation particularly strong. It has weak direction and contrived narrative devices in play, but it is well worth the watch and certainly more deserving of wide release.
21 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not a service to fans of Wallace, but of David Lipskys
10 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The End of the Tour is not a film about David Foster Wallace, so much as it is a carefully crafted love note to him and his complication. And to that end, it openly professes its loyalty to the disenfranchised, over-educated members of the audience. At a Cruz in the film we hear Wallace offer his opinions on depression and addiction, but these are no doubt Lipskys own feelings, and given to Wallace in screen to give them more credibility. Wallace is portrayed as a man looming large with first-world-problems, and Jason Segel's Wallace remains affably antisocial throughout the affair. Still, whatever is compelling about the film exists within the writing, but not necessarily the actual story.

The film is not, in fact, based so much Wallace but on Rolling Stones interviewer David Lipskys memoirs recounting of his five days with Wallace. Our plot is set up simply, with Lipskys credentials established as a newly published author, skeptical and jealous of Wallaces universal acclaim and the sole voice of inquiring literary minds at Rolling Stone magazine. After demanding of his editors to grant him the freedom of an interview (in a scene that included, I s*** you not, the Perry White via Lois lane line delivery of "There better be a Story!"), Lipsky then embarks on cinemas least funny buddy comedy, complete with planes, trains and automobiles.

The screenwriter, Donald Margulies, is an accomplished playwright, a profession suited best to find drama in what is essentially a lot of talking. To this end, he does an adequate job of making us interested, but the character development feels too compressed at times. There are moments even, when the story starts to feel like it wished it was the intellectualized parallel to Cameron Crowes Almost Famous, but never has the decency to be a clearly fictionalized. Wallace is written as the more complex character, but it's clear this is Lipsky's story and he's riding Wallaces back. Eisenberg is unintentional in lacking the dimension to convey this, while Segel's portrayal continually rings true.

As Wallace loosens to Lipsky throughout the movie, he reaches our climax in three notes. First, while our duo is in a moment of confrontation, Wallace spouts the values of remaining grounded against his ever growing fame. The second is his diatribes on addictions and the romance associated with them, and lastly, a confessional late night summery of his neurosis. It's a brilliant inclusion by the screenwriter and director to allow room for melodic musing, broadening the appeal of any given insights.

The Director, James Ponsoldt, does a fine job of framing the travels of the two, creating an intimacy that most likely never existed. The reality is that Ponsoldt doesn't have much to work with that isn't dramatized by Margulies, as those five days produced nothing of interest for Rolling Stone (The intended article was never published) nor did Lipsky feel compelled to expand upon it until Wallaces death 12 years later. I'm sure there's there's some clićhe to spout about why Lipsky sat so long on this story, but it feels ever the notion of timing, and good fortune on Lipskys part.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scream: The TV Series (2015–2019)
2/10
Scream the series is guilty pleasure trash for people who don't like the horror genre
7 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Let's get this out there first and foremost. Scream:The Series is a slave to a scenario that require very talented writers to navigate a ten episode run of twists and turns that can keep you scared, jumping, questioning who-done-it and ultimately caring about it all while tying it together in a cohesive package.

Talented writers are not what we have here. It is apparent as soon as you tune into episode 2 that any thought put into the pilot to get the network green light was immediately abandoned for a "let's just get this filmed" mentality. The two most prominent examples of laziness? The repeated near supernatural abilities of our killer to appear and vanish only for the sake of scare (example; slicing a victims throat in an open field while her boyfriend stands, IN FRAME only an arms length away, only to vanish as the boyfriend turns while never being seen). The second is the lengths of time it takes for "secrets to be revealed" when an obvious five minute conversation between Emma and her mother when the daisy box first arrived could have saved everyone. Is this a horror movie troupe Scream cleverly exploits , or just a unavoidable use of loophole writing because series developer Jill Blotevogel can't figure out any other way to get this ball rolling? The layers of lies and secrets were intended to build drama, but it's done with such an immature sense of sincerity that it's insulting that anyone out of middle school could be compelled by it.

The adolescent actors/actresses are also a distressing mix of typecast pretty faces. The only standout is John Karna, doing the required Jamie Kennedy homáge with a natural Topher Grace charm. The remaining female cast reach no deeper into their thespian toolbox than using lip biting, hair flips and eye rolls throughout every interaction, while the two jocks (who get a majority screen time) offer only the various degrees of "Bro!" shout- outs necessary to convey emotion. Seeing Bex Taylor-Klaus in a recurring series role was also disheartening, as she seems to be revealing her limitations and a series renewal doesn't bode well for us to see her expand that range.

The production values, while uniform throughout the ten episodes, feel absurdly overwrought. It has the out-of-touch gloss that creates a world that feels fake, as if imagined by a preteen as to what teenage years should be like. You get the impression producers insisted on this because they wanted a world that spoke their youthful audience, despite not working for the needs of the narrative. The main characters (with the exception of our token ratty old truck driving farm boy, who is in fact only portrayed this way in the most vapid possible sense) live in relative high fashion. The town has no lack of abandoned real estate for dubious meetings, including the closed down hospital. And the background music, while not a distraction, will no doubt date this show. It's littered so throughout that I could wonder in this is a seven hour commercial for the dozens of forgettable melancholy songs dropped into every post s/he lied-cried- someone died scenes of which there are just way to many.

The most difficult part in all this is that there is so much that could have been mined from the source material, but the producers seemed content on making only overtures to the movie, going so far as create a new mask for narrative reasons. Wasted are the talents of Wes Craven beyond directing the Pilot and the guidance of Kevin Williamson. Williamson is no stranger to the kind of trash this show devolves into, just look at the later half of The Following's first season, but he managed to hold that together as a compelling serial for the first 7 episodes. If he could have brought even a glimmer of The Following's initial magic, Scream: The Series might have had a chance. The original movie trilogy was carefully constructed to be the campy but ultimately self-aware scary movies that turned the genre on its head. This show feels like mockery of those movies, and that the series was renewed for a second season shows how little MTV actually cares about the series, horror genre or its own audience.
23 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A muddled mix of willing celebrities and unwilling comedians
16 August 2015
The Roast of Justin Bieber falls in line with the majority of Comedy Central Roasts; sophomoric, offensive and derivative. But if offensive, thin one liners tend to entertain you, there are more than enough delivered by a handful of the talented roasters to keep you entertained thru the glut of questionable participants.

Kevin Hart as the Roastmaster keeps the energy high, with impeccable delivery and infectious good nature as insults are thrown his way. Pete Davidson opens the show strong, showing strong chops honed on a year of SNL. His strong delivery and even weaving of self degradation dampen the abrasiveness of topics such as 9/11 (to which he prefaced with a personal connection).

Technically difficulties in-show are mostly confined to Shaquille O'Neal, who visibly stumbles through jokes read from a teleprompter. Yet, he still charms his way through delivery and, more importantly, as a repeated target of the evening insults.

It is Natasha Leggero and Hannibal Buress that are the evenings weakest comedically, pressing to hard at the insult humor. In Buresses case, his indifferent attitude is brazenly on display. Cut from broadcast is perhaps Buresses most incisive comment from the evening: "They say that you roast the ones you love, but I don't like you at all, man. I'm just here because it's a real good opportunity for me. Actually you should thank me for participating in this extremely transparent attempt to be more likable in the public eye. And I hope it doesn't work." This attitude is reflective in his targeting of Bieber, reflecting a critical commentary that is a detriment to the spirit of a roast. It still delivers as cruelly comedic, but one hopes that Comedy Central recognizes that more than a simple evening edit should be enforced, if to keep any credibility to its series of Roasts. The Friers club attained legendary status roasting celebrities from all walks of life, and to dismiss the roastee in such a blatant and unspecified manner is not making a statement, it's simply unprofessional.

While there are surprise appearances by others during the roast, it is no doubt Martha Stewart's turn at the podium that stunned the most. Her presence at introduction is eyebrow-raising enough, but if it is was she who arrived at this event to change public opinion and be the participator, participate she does. To great effect.

If you like your humor brazen, immediate and irreverent, a Conedy Central roast has what you need. Even in its low points, Beibers roast keeps you chuckling, but it probably won't tomorrow and certainly not in a week.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A quiet curiosity that offers little incentive to unearth
16 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
An slow moving, plodding movie that doesn't deliver a punch line. Focusing on the ideas of entrapment in a small town, and the power of lust when a small town man harbors a runaway, the film fails to build any tension. This fault lays not in poor acting, but the by-the- numbers direction and writing of Estep Nagy that tries and fails to create any momentum from the subtle emotions mined in each scene. His vision seems clear to the viewer, and yet fails to translated directly through the film due to a lack of skill.

It is Will Arnett, in a surprise reversal of his now well known comic personas, that manages to display a real commitment to the mood of the film. His performance is pensive and deliberate while never delving into pretentious posturing. Only the underdeveloped (and top-billed, but only due to his greater fame in 1997) John Glover matches Arnett with an understated and stylized performance as the 'villianous' father of character Clio Hale.

The remaining actors never dig deeper than the chops required for weeknight Lifetime movie extra. While never poor, the remaining cast seems to have zero investment in this film, and one wonders if the film maker accepted these performances as adequate to his vision simply because of his excitement to complete the film.

****SPOILER****

Of last note: Famed outsider artist Joe Coleman receives acting credit for this film. It was this credit that initially drew me to the film, but sadly, his part has been cut from the final edit.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Difficult People (2015–2017)
7/10
Difficult People is shaping up to be the highlight of Hulu original programming.
15 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
To enjoy Hulus new original program Difficult People is to appreciate a formula that is one part Seinfelds self-absorbed/self-sabotaging characters and one part Will and Graces' warmly weathering friendship, as written for a post-cable sitcom audience familiar with R-rated material.

Difficult People is, after three episodes, already demonstrating clever writing that both leads comfortably embrace. Both Billy Eichner and Jule Klausner play caricatures of themselves, or perhaps more accurately, play up to their public personas. As they are written to be clearly self-aware and not just aloft buffoons, this can make the two all the more difficult to sympathize with. This will be quite jarring to fans of Executive Producer Amy Poehlers series Parks and Rec, where Billy Eichner arguably received his largest exposure. The majority of fans investigating this series will do so on Poehlers reputation and not Eichner, despite humor that is clearly in sync with his work hosting Fuses gameshow 'Billy on the Street'.

The audience will, most likely, find it easier to sympathize with the supporting cast. These characters, be it the episode specific offended-mother-of-two in the pilot or the recurring; Such as the brilliantly comedic James Ubaniak and surprisingly nuanced Andrea Martin give breadth for the audience to connect with.

It is the combination of the leads shrewd temperament and the series decidedly profane material that audiences will find most inaccessible. It is profane, and the characters are decidedly abusive. And while each fail, the leads have been rewarded for this behavior. Difficult People has already demonstrated that while they will embrace Seinfeds cynicism, they will not be beholden to the No-Hugging-No-Learning rule. It can overshadow the strong pacing of the writing and excellent camera work. Episodes are best appreciated on multiple viewings, and like Netflix 'Bojack Horseman' you must look past the initial "shock" jokes to reveal a layer to the writing where themes are given the entire episode to flourish.

*****SPOILERS BELOW*****

The weakest aspect to the series writing may yet to have revealed itself, but it may well be continuity. Will we find out Billys fate in regards to his hit-and-run accident? Will Marilyn's hypnosis training be a one episode gag? Three episodes in, the viewers are left with no impression a season story arc is present and that we are looking down the barrel of a joke- of-the-week series. Liked or not, these characters are already to well realized to suffer this dole sitcom fate.
9 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed