I love it when I find a movie I have never heard of, and it turns out to be good.

Video X: The Dwayne and Darla-Jean Story would have you believe that you are watching actual events from a video shot by a couple from Kentucky. You aren’t, but the film does a damn good job making you think you are. Dwayne and Darla-Jean are starting a new life and heading to Little River, and are video taping the escapade.  While at a campground, they are robbed and all of their money is stolen. They are nowhere near their destination, and Dwayne refuses to go back home, and be ridiculed for failing on day 1 of their journey. They resort to stealing from a convenience store, and the plan goes horribly awry, and their vacation becomes a completely different kind of road trip. I will summarize no further, so as not to ruin the pleasant progression that occurs.

I have yet to see a film shot in this hand held video style, ala Blair Witch Project, that successfully has me believe that the character(s) filming would not at some point stop filming as the events that are transpiring become bigger than them, and they should perhaps focus more on surviving than taping. This film is no exception. However it is the most realistic film of that style I have seen. There are no credits. At all. It just starts right in with the video until the tape runs out and then cuts to black. Not even a title card. The camera goes back and forth between Dwayne and Darla-Jean and even Billy, someone they pick up at a diner. The video is quite random in that it will just cut to another shot, sometimes in rapid succession. There are even a few shots of a birthday party that the couple were taping over.

I don’t know if Joey Gibson (Dwayne) and Michelle Moretti (Darla-Jean) improvised their parts at all, but they were both fascinating to watch. At no point did I think I was watching them “act.” It was literally like watching their home video. Unfortunately, no one in smaller roles could really act so it sort of ruined that effect, but overall, it did not detract that much from the film. Most of the smaller roles were confined to the beginning of the film so as it progresses, you forget about those performances. Dwayne’s transformation was absolutely believable and almost hypnotic. You see a complete journey from care free, to timid and frightened but somewhat in control, then losing all sense of hesitation and crossing that line that we wonder how ever gets crossed. Gibson plays him perfectly; panicked and making poor decisions under pressure. Just trying to accomplish one goal, and doing what he needs to do to make it happen. It was a great inside look at how someone gets to the point of doing things they never thought they would do. There are also genuinely funny moments between Dwayne and Darla-Jean that let you know how much like us they are. They even get engaged to be engaged, which makes you want things to turn out well for them.

I think what impressed me most about this film, is that there is nothing in it that would make it great. There are no special effects. There is no soundtrack. I mean, comparatively, these aren’t Oscar worthy performances (or are they?).  It came out after Blair Witch, so the idea isn’t new. It just exists. And yet I was quite impressed and pleased with it. This is a perfect example of how to make a decent film on a slim budget. I mean, it makes sense, doesn’t it? You want to make a film about a southern couple who end up as killers, but you don’t have a lot of money? Give the camera to the actors. Have someone stand in front of their victim so you don’t have to show that much blood. Have something happen a little off camera if you can’t realistically show something happen.

Again, at some point, as I usually do, I said out loud, “Why are they still filming?” I don’t think you can really successfully make a film like this that would not have you ask that, but Video X came damn close, and even though I did, I still thoroughly enjoyed it. Very much recommended.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

This movie is shocking! Yes, the fairly intriguing  premise and lackluster delivery is shocking to say the least.

Feed introduces us to Phillip Jackson, an Australian detective as he is on a case in Hamburg. We watch as he discovers a man feeding another man his own penis. We then watch as he and his partner Nigel, move on to another project. They comb the internet in a sloppily paced and sort of confusing 10 minutes or so looking for a cyber crime worth mouthing off to the Captain and putting their badges on the line for. They find a site that has a live web cam of a man feeding a 600 lb woman. Phillip (luckily for the audience) explains to Nigel how this fetish works, and what feeders and gainers are. As Phillip explores and tries to gain access to the site’s restricted areas, he figures out what is really going on. This man is force feeding woman and taking bets on how long they will live and how much weight they will gain. Hooray, a cyber crime to solve! In some pretty questionable tracing techniques (not morally questionable; plausible questionable), he discovers where the site is run, Ohio. Instead of being sent there to investigate, his sanity is questioned by his boss (after he is found crying in the bathroom) and he is put on a suspension. Does this stop him from going to America? Well that would make for a boring film, wouldn’t it? Don’t worry, he goes. Yes he still manages to make a boring film out of it.

If I had to pick the thing that bothered me the most about this film, it would be the seemingly over abundance of opportunities to disgust and sicken me, that failed to do anything of the sort. Well, the penis eating thing did, and that was at the beginning of the film so I assumed there would be much more horrible things to follow. Not that the concept isn’t horrible, it is. It’s also not a common plot for a film, which peaked my interest. In fact, so shock-less was it, that it wasn’t even until the film had ended that I realized I sort of witnessed cannibalism. I would rather have had that aspect played up a bit, and the pointless sex scenes between Phillip and his whore girlfriend toned down some. I realize that this was done to give us some idea of Phillip’s own sexual behavior, but it had absolutely no relevance to the rest of the film. Yes there is a morbidly obese woman eating and puking. Yes there is a man masturbating while smearing her with food. Yes, these ideas are quite disturbing, but the execution was not. To be honest with you, I am not sure where it failed. It certainly wasn’t the performance of  Alex O’Loughlin, as Michael, the feeder. He was quite good. I definitely believed his motives and psychosis as we learned about his childhood. Perhaps it was the abysmal dialogue and acting by everyone else. It was rather distracting. Maybe so distracting that it was more outrageous than funnel feeding a fat woman. Maybe because Phillip was the dumbest law enforcement agent I have ever met, aside from Proctor, of Police Academy “fame.” That too, was quite a distraction. Whatever it was, it’s a shame, as this film really could have been quite disturbingly good, but instead, pretty much failed. Another thing that bothered the shit out of me were the awful covers of songs like, “Tainted Love,” “Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini,” and “Lips Like Sugar,” cleverly inserted in the appropriate spots.

Now  I am not suggesting that the only reason why this is a bad film is because it did not disgust me. That is one reason, but not the only. It isn’t really a positive however, that the film had the perfect recipe to do so, and yet did not. Once again, a film that may have been too ambitious for its budget. Perhaps if it had been given a director that didn’t have the least popular Highlander installment on his resume, he or she would have been given sufficient money to hire more than one decent actor (and obviously, it would have been more competently directed). Perhaps a re-imagining is in order.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

***THIS REVIEW MOST ASSUREDLY CONTAINS SPOILERS***

This is the second film where I have seen a zombie involved in a sex act. The first time I saw it was in Dead Alive. I will tell you this: it was far less comical this time.

Deadgirl starts during a fire drill at a  high school. J.T.  and Rickie are entertaining themselves with bad jokes and daydreams about girls. When it’s time to go back to class, J.T. and Rickie decide to ditch school and drink some beer. They go to “the asylum” which is an abandoned insane asylum. After being chased by a dog, they end up in a room with a door that is rusted shut. They force the door open and discover a nude woman wrapped in plastic, and strapped to a gurney. Naturally they assume she is dead, but they notice that she is breathing. Rickie freaks out a bit and wants to leave. J.T. however, has other plans. He wants to to have sex with her. He sends Rickie home and stays behind to have relations with a woman that has been locked in this room for who knows how long. Delightful.

Now, I should tell you that I am assuming that this woman is a zombie. I make this assumption based on several things. The day after they find her, J.T. brings Rickie back to the asylum. He tells Rickie that while he was having sex with her, she struggled, so he killed her. Yet she is still alive. To prove this, J.T.  shoots the girl in front of Ricki and she lives. In addition to this, when she bites someone, they seem to turn to the undead as well. One can argue that she is not a zombie, however, as zombies tend to have superhuman strength and while the girl could rip a metal door off the frame, she could not break free of her restraints. She also spared Rickie’s life when given an opportunity to bite him. Rickie never really approved of the continued rape of the girl, so one could suspect that she spared him as he did not violate her. That is kind of un-zombie like. Zombies generally are mindless. However there are no really established “rules” about the zombie world in the film. She is the only one and we are not told how she became the way she was, so for all we know, zombies might actually have a sense of reciprocity in this film’s universe.

There are a few things that I really like about this film. The biggest one is the fact that we have no idea how this girl became a zombie. Therefore, as I previously mentioned, we don’t know what the “rules” are. Obviously biting turns you, but apparently sex does not. I found that incredibly intriguing. Was she the last of a zombie apocalypse that happened? If so, why was she left alive, and what happened to the people that left her alive? Was she the first of a potential apocalypse, but contained before starting one? I very much liked the choice to leave that not addressed. I also liked Noah Segan, who played J.T. I like it when a psychopath is not played as over the top. He did not do this at all. He also had excellent comedic timing and delivery, as much of his later dialogue is evil funny.

The gripes are many. Until they find the girl, this film is VERY boring. I actually thought an hour passed but when I checked, it had only been twenty minutes. Absolutely no character development. This is especially annoying because Segan was so good. He is immediately a demented psychopath and sociopath.  There should have been a progression to that point. Also, there is no back story for anyone. The closest we get is seeing the drunk boyfriend of Rickie’s mother. This limits your emotional involvement. While the performances are enjoyable, you don’t really care who lives or dies. Also, demented as someone is, really? Sex is your first thought when finding a girl wrapped in plastic? I’m not even going to get in to why that doesn’t make sense. Here’s perhaps the most perplexing part of the film: the girl escapes and we see her running outside. However, the movie continues and life appears to be normal. Would there not be a FUCKING ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE GOING ON? Besides the fact that she escaped, she bit a guy in the dick, and he didn’t die. He went back to school, shit out an intestine and is referenced as being in the hospital or something, but surely he would have bitten some folks as well. There really should have been some more zombies by movie’s end.

This film deals with issues of peer pressure, alienation, love, popularity and control with one of the most bizarre story lines I have ever run across. I found myself liking some of it, but ultimately, its flaws outweigh it’s successes. I recommend a viewing of it, however. It is not a waste of time by any means, and you are sure to find some enjoyment out of it.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***

Way back on Episode #2 (look how young we are!), Puck mentions a movie called Inside (À l’intérieur). At the time of the filming of that episode, I had not seen the movie.  In this episode he claims that the movie is gory. Yes. Yes it is.

Sarah, who is pregnant, and her husband Matthieu are involved in a car accident. Matthieu does not survive. Four months later, on Christmas Eve, an extremely depressed Sarah is at her doctor’s office for an appointment. The doctor tells her to come back the next day and they may induce her. He sends her home, telling her to “enjoy your last night of peace and quiet.” This is quite the opposite of what happens. While alone in her house, there is a knock on Sarah’s door. A woman needs to use the phone. Sarah, not wanting to be bothered, and perhaps just not wanting to let anyone in due to riots going on, tells the woman that her husband is sleeping and does not wish to wake him. The woman then calls Sarah by her name and tells her that she knows that her husband is dead. The woman eventually get in to the house and begins her task of taking Sarah’s unborn child, mainly through use of scissors.

There are a lot of things that should cause great dismay in this picture, yet it is oddly compelling. The very suggestion of a woman who is 9 months pregnant that is in the middle of a violent bloodbath, of which she is the central target, is not necessarily an enchanting sales pitch. However, the movie does keep you quite enthralled. Béatrice Dalle is simply fantastic as the revenge hyper driven woman at the door. She is just as twisted, menacing and psychotic as any man you will run across. The very first image in the film we see of a baby in the womb, and it’s reaction to the car accident. During various point of the film, when Sarah is engaged in combat, we again see these images of the fetus reacting to what’s happening. This is part of what keeps you from turning away even when the gore is at it’s worst. Your desire for Sarah and the child to survive is stronger as we see the helpless child reacting to stimuli. Also, the need to know who this woman is keeps you watching as well.  The deaths are quite brutal and on camera, and though the blood may spew forth like a fountain at times, the gore is rather realistic and not over done at all. There were a few things that did not make sense. At one point the police (who earlier were advised to check on Sarah during the night) stop by and the woman answers the door (Sarah has locked herself in the bathroom) pretending to be Sarah. At first the officers, suspect nothing and start to leave. Out of nowhere, they realize that the woman who answered the door was not pregnant and return. Knowing that something is afoot, at a house where an attempted break in was reported earlier, the choose not to detain the woman right away and let her stand there with one officer. After discovering something is going on, a third officer in the car decides to go in, with their arrestee attached to him by leash.  I found that a little odd, that a cop would take a perp in to a situation with gunfire involved. There is a ton of things that are questionable in here, especially the likelihood of Sarah’s baby surviving the accident and then the events of that night. I am not a physician, but that thought crossed my mind a couple of times.  However, in the end, it isn’t really that bothersome as the general vagueness of the “universe” of the film outside of this Christmas Eve allows for anything to be possible.

A definite must watch for gore fans, as it will not disappoint. You have been warned, however: it is a bit stabby.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

Repulsion is Roman Polanski’s first English language film. It is quite well done. Also, I am in love with Catherine Deneuve. Well, 1965 Catherine Deneuve.

Carole (played by Deneuve) lives with her sister Helen. Helen, has a boyfriend, Micheal, who is married, yet spends a lot of time at Carole and Helen’s apartment, much to Carole’s dismay. It is clear almost immediately, Carole doesn’t like Michael and possibly men in general. Later we find out that this is an understatement. Carole has a boyfriend, or is dating a man named Colin, but tends to shy away from him and sometimes doesn’t even show up for dates.  Carole goes so far as to throw away Michael’s razor and toothbrush because he puts them in her bathroom water glass. She doesn’t seem to have a hatred towards men so much as a dislike and even fear of them. This is indicated by actions such as vigorously wiping her mouth off as if it were dirty after being kissed and not letting Colin hold her arm. Helen and Michael go on vacation to Italy leaving Carole alone, and to unravel. Her phobia quickly becomes an extremely disturbing psychotic couple of weeks, and quite a satisfying movie.

This picture is a fine example of how suspense and even silence, can be just as effectively uncomfortable, if not more so, than violence and blood. The telephone and doorbell that constantly ring, the bells outside, the barking dog and the constantly cracking walls (that perhaps symbolize Carole’s ever deteriorating sanity) are all supremely employed to make the viewer quite agitated and feel somewhat overwhelmed. Contrary to that, there are long periods of silence that are also quite unnerving, especially when used during 3 hallucinatory rape scenes. I found the use of silence in these scenes particularly,  to be a brilliant choice. Yes, this is without a doubt one of the best directed films I have ever seen. Also, Deneuve, is simply superb playing Carole.  As Carole spends time alone in her apartment, she sits in the dark, lets food rot and just generally deconstructs. We can speculate that the reason for her madness is molestation; she constantly is wiping herself off suggesting that she feels unclean. She hallucinates that arms are coming out of the walls and grabbing her, once specifically on her breast. She also appears to have at least a slight desire to be with a man sexually, but at the same time is (cleverly) repulsed by it. Molestation is not directly addressed in the film, however. It is suggested, by a photograph of a clearly unhappy Carole as a child staring at a man (Father?), but nothing further to confirm this or any other reason.  It really is not relevant in my opinion and not knowing for sure just makes the film more eerie (as it may suggest the possibility that the fear is just plain irrational and has no basis in reality). At the very least, not confirming one way or the other is just a brilliant director’s choice to leave something open to interpretation. There is also a bit of violence as well, which I think was well placed to release the tension that was built up prior to those scenes. You would be hard pressed to find things not to like about this film.

I feel like a lot of people hear the name Polanski, and cannot remember a movie that he directed, with the exception of Rosemary’s Baby (or perhaps The Ninth Gate, unfortunately). I suggest starting with this film, and moving up his resume to get to know this filmmaker.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

Jesus, where do these movies come from? Apparently from a producer of The Devil’s Rejects. Thanks, movie poster!

Razortooth, I assume is the eel’s name. No one ever called it that, but it has sharp teeth, so I jumped to that conclusion. We find ourselves in the Everglades, or a reasonable facsimile. There is Delmar, who is with Animal Control, and can make the ladies wet better than a 15 foot long giant eel can (as you might imagine, what with the name Delmar),  and his ex wife Ruth, who is the Sheriff.  Delmar is doing Animal Control type things while Ruth is looking for 2 escaped convicts. There are also some young scouts  (as in boy and girl scouts, but some generic movie scouts) who are paddling around in canoes. Finally we have some college kids who are meeting Dr. Abramson to help him with his eel project. As you have probably deduced without even having to watch the movie, we find out that Dr. Abramson is responsible for the eel. It is a product of genetic engineering and was purposely given a defect in which it can’t metabolize sugar, so it wouldn’t eat the orange groves. Never mind making sure it doesn’t grow to an alarmingly huge size and kill people; let’s give it diabetes. You should also know that the eel can “breathe through its snout,” and therefore can go on land. No portable toilet is safe.

The eel actually did me a great service; it picked off a bunch of terrible actors, one at a time. As you might imagine, the acting in this movie is on the same level as any made for TV Saved By the Bell film.  Equally as bad are the special effects. I highly recommend watching this in HD, so that you can see just how bad they are. For some reason the eel only enjoys eating the bottom half of people and quite frequently we see random intestines sort of floating on the screen below someone’s rib cage. The suspense was rather poor as well. Pretty much anytime there was a large part of the screen that was unoccupied, you could bet your crack money that eel would show up. With all of this worthlessness going on, I was looking forward to pointless angry swearing. But, alas, none. I think the harshest word uttered in the film was “bitch.” Are you fucking kidding me? Not one swear word? These people can’t even make a bad movie right.

Was it as bad as Flesh Freaks? No. But it was bad. I would steer away from this one.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

I have found that the opening crawl of a film saying “Based on True Events” means not only will the story be 90% fiction with a smidgen of reality but it will not be good. You might notice I did not file Wolf Creek under horror. While this is the common genre the film is placed in, I feel it is more of a dramatic thriller ala Breakdown or Vanishing. While there may have been some horrific moments in this film, it is not horror in my estimation.

Set in 1999 Australia, Wolf Creek follows three backpacking kids as they make their way through the heart of desolation. Our trio, played by Nathan Phillips, Kestie Morassi, and Cassandra Magrath, set off to Wolf Creek, the site of a meteor crash. After their hike, they fall victim to the old plot trick, the non-working car. Seemingly a nice stranger comes along with the offer to help them fix the car and get back on the road. Sadly, the kind stranger is not as benevolent as he seems. Needless to say, this is forty minutes in and I have spaced off already.

If there is one good thing to say about the movie, it is shot beautifully. The openness of the Australian landscape is very nicely captured from the sunrises to the roaming wild animals and even a flock (or whatever) of kangaroos. Perhaps there was an attempt to contrast the beauty of the wild to the savageness of man but I could have missed that. My main issue with the movie was that it took so long to get to anything worthwhile. Now, I have no problem with a movie that takes the slow-burn approach to ratchet up to something worthwhile. The problem was, the script was so predictable that anyone could see where it was going (especially as you expect to see a villain somewhere within the back half of the movie).

John Jarratt’s antagonist is one of the better portions of the movie. One minute, he’s spouting off cliched lines* and the next he has a girl chained up to do whatever with her. This is a man who lives in the wild, does what he wants, and never gets caught as he appears on the surface to be just another Aussie with an odd sense of humor. When the shit hits the fan, he is downright nasty in his deeds but remarkably sloppy for someone who from the newspaper clippings appears to have done this a lot. One of the three kids is dispatched quite nicely, one is merely shot to death, and the third escapes and lives to see another day. What kind of intelligent serial killer is this?

If the final forty minutes of this movie were isolated, expanded a bit, and given a different ending, this could have been a fairly decent movie. But as the fifty minutes leading up to that were so bloody boring, even some of the more graphic scenes later were diluted resulting in a movie that feels like a stranded/Saw wannabe with no clear direction. But at least the outback was nice.

*I propose a boycott of the phrase “If I tell you, then I’d have to kill you.”

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

Law Abiding Citizen is cool. I did not expect to enjoy it that much, but I rather did. It’s not necessarily the type of movie I would seek out. Someone suggested that I watch, and so I did.

I will first post this: *****SPOILER ALERT***** I do this because this movie has a certain progression and some events that would be a surprise to you might be ruined by this review. I don’t know that for sure, so I post that alert just in case. Read on if you like, but if you do and get pissed, it is now your own fault.

Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is the victim of a home invasion in which he watches his wife and daughter die. The men are arrested and are prosecuted by ADA Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), who has a 96% conviction rate. Not convinced that he would win by prosecuting based on evidence and Shelton’s testimony, Rice arranges for one of the men to testify against the other, in exchange for a 10 year sentence, while they seek the death penalty for the other. Shelton is quite bothered by this as he wants both of them punished fairly (as he sees it), but as you may have suspected, Rice wants to protect his conviction rate. So that is how things pan out. The man that gets the death penalty is not actually the one that committed the murders. That one got the 10 years. He eventually gets out, and thus begins Shelton’s reign of terror on everyone involved with the case, starting with his family’s murderer.  I should also mention that Rice, also happens to have a wife and daughter.

Let me first say, that Gerard Butler was pretty good. I guess I was expecting some flashy action flick, and therefore sub-par acting, but I was wrong. This is more of a suspense thriller, and Butler did a great job. Everyone else in the cast, Foxx included, were fine, but nothing really outstanding. I would even argue that I did not really connect with anyone in the film other than Butler. I also found myself a little bothered by the pace of the film as I thought it was kind of choppy. I don’t think I completely bought the ending of the film either. But I overall thought this movie was good. I thought the idea was clever, and I liked the notion of us kind of rooting for a good guy that turned bad, and then getting pissed at him. The ride that we are taken on is fun (albeit morbidly) and  keeps you interested the whole time, wondering what may happen next. And even if you think you may know what will happen, there’s no guarantee that you will know how it happens.  I will say that this is not a movie to watch for it’s aesthetic value. It is pure entertainment, but well done in that regard.

This film probably could have been done better, but it is solid enough to just sit down and enjoy with a lot of movie snacks and a couple of people.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email