redeemingtheuneven

This was a difficult one to gage. Let me just start by saying that I don't write many reviews (that will become clear. Gee, I bet you really want to keep reading now, don't you?) and when I do, they're films I'm split down the middle with - that I enjoy to a large degree but also have some problems with. So that's what I'm going to do now; discuss the main flaws as I saw them.

The first 45 minutes or so of 'Into the Abyss' had me rather compelled, guiding us through the crimes themselves, preliminary interviews with those convicted, and really quite touching re-encounters with family members of the victims. A quite traditional introduction into matters of this nature, I thought. But it did take quite a detour and almost made a point to be unbiased. That may sound nonsensical - after all, documentaries are largely there to present us with untampered material and remain objective. However, other than interviews conducted with the deceased's families (namely Lisa Stolter-Balloun and Charles Richardson) and the Lieutenant, I didn't feel like there was really any support for the 'good guys.' You can call it documentation, you can call it rmeoving prejudice, you can call it Herzog doing his job as a filmmaker - but I had a hard time taking what this film gave me: an inherently sympathetic and empathetic viewer.

I would have liked to have seen Herzog push some buttons with the more questionable individuals. I'm talking about Michael Perry and Jason Burkett - two guys who had some quite serious and detrimental cases going against them. Yes, I realise this documentary was not about that; whether they did or didn't do it. Alongside other interviewees, it served more as a platform to discuss capital punishment and how lives can go wayward from poor upbringings and whatnot. But that just didn't make for particularly riveting or insightful conversation, to me. It was intriguing enough, and held that throughout, however had few flashes of real emotional depth that you would expect in a case like this - particularly with Perry and Burkett. Often times, Herzog would strike up what I can only call small talk that felt out of place and actually kind of insulting. I can appreciate the mindset behind that (either it's to ease tension or it's Herzog being Herzog) but am of the opinion that such trivial chatter is unnecessary and even impolite in some instances. Maybe that's all just my warped perception, though.

Herzog ending the film with a nod to the "families of the victims of violent crime" admittedly left a bad taste in my mouth. Not that I think those affected don't deserve the recognition and dedication - they absolutely do - but I would not have thought it to be that simple from this particular project. Apparent as it may have been that Herzog was against the death penalty (he directly addressed this very early on), he made no mention of it in writing at the film's closing? No facts about how many people had been put to death in the most recent year, or anything relating to that? Nothing? Without that, I cannot help but feel the dedication Herzog decided upon was more for show and as a tool of faux-support. Nice of him to put it in there but it just seemed a little forced and loose-ended when he didn't follow it up with or acknowledge the very same capital punishment system that he clearly feels strongly about.

6/10

Having been reasonably impressed with other Raw Feed films, I was keen to check out 'Otis.' It has a promising, quite original storyline that should make for good entertainment in any horror fan's eyes. But I was rather disappointed.

The acting was good for the most part. Ashley Johnson and Bostin Christopher both nailed their leading roles, and Jere Burns as the left-of-field agent was an awesome injection. Illeana Douglas, on the other hand, er. She stood out amongst the pack as a let down, and even though this is a genre that doesn't get by on its acting merits, I had a problem with her performance.

In terms of soundtrack, I thought the licensed music used throughout was great (ie (Don't Fear) the Reaper), and so too were the few softer, touching pieces. Everything else felt out of place or too dramatic, and in a couple instances, music ruined entire scenes for me (much like Douglas' acting).

I can't rate this movie much above average, and that's coming from somebody who isn't a Horror cynic. Masses complain about modern-day horror flicks being unoriginal or just plain stupid and I never see the value in that. I know there are some bad ones out there, but they do get unfairly bashed on for the most part. So yeah, I'm not anti-slasher or anti-psycho material. 'Otis' just wasn't done right in places, whether that blame be laid down on the script or whatnot. It has its share of bright glimpses, don't get me wrong, but it also has its share of dull, cringe-worthy "you idiot" moments, where I just have to put my fist down.

Let me be brutally honest: I watched this film for Yvonne Strahovski. That and I'm a sucker for a thriller/horror peppered with high stakes and survival. 'The Canyon' is one of those movies you go into expecting one thing, and... well, you more or less get it. That isn't to say it's terribly unoriginal or inept. In fact, I feel I'm downplaying how good it is in parts. There are those frustrating scenes that have you talking to the leads as if they were your own half-witted friends ('Why did you do that?', 'You idiot', etc.), but it has some powerful passages as well.

Acting isn't a strong suit for, say, the first half of the film, but it does pick up a hell of a lot. Probably the biggest compliment I can pay is that though it may be generic in ways and feel all too much like just another 'oops!-these-people-are-lost' thriller, the way it arrives to its destination is quite different. At least in my eyes. And the final scene in particular "wowed" me. The closing moments pushed this up an extra rating.

6/10