2011 ~ The Larsen Film Review

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold (2011)

Morgan Spurlock [Super Size Me] is back with a documentary about brand marketing in movies. Spurlock has made just one feature documentary between this and the 2004 McDonald's documentary that was so popular, mainly because he has had a documentary TV series, 30 Days, that he has been working on.

The documentary starts by giving examples of advertising in movies and television shows, some incredibly blatant. He then decides he wants to make a movie built 100% on advertising money. He gives his pitch to a few companies and receives constant rejection. I'm not sure if this was just editing to make the viewer think that he went from constant rejecting to a lot of acceptance or not. He starts to pick up some major sponsorship from POM Wonderful, JetBlue, and Mini. At this point the film really takes a turn, we see the affect of the sponsorships and what he is allowed to say. The final approval of the film requires that POM Wonderful is happy with the final product. So we aren't even sure what ELSE has been taken out.

The film does not attack any of the issues with advertising in film, it merely talk about how it works. That isn't enough for a good documentary. You won't see this on anyone's "top" lists.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1743720/

Blue Sky Studio's latest animated film, the company that brought you The Ice Age Series, Horton Hears a Who, and Robots, brought out their latest animated film earlier this year. A good year for a weak computer animated film since Pixar's film was a flop and Disney and Dreamworks didn't have much.

The film is about a rare South America bird who's home is Minnesota. Domesticated before he was able to fly out of his nest he has never learned to fly and has never been outdoors. When an ornithologist visits his owner she is convinced to take Blu to Brazil to mate him with the last female of his species.

The film is very cookie cutter from the start. Probably enjoyable for the kids and something my 3-year-old would enjoy some day. As an adult I was bored the whole time. The assisting characters I found irritating and juvenile. Probably the weakest film this company has made to this point [maybe equal to the Ice Age sequels]. It is a very weak Oscar Animated year if this one gets nominated.

KSF: 2/5
Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1436562/

Like Flash of Genius I struggled to commit my time to watching this one because I felt I already knew the entire story. It only takes reading the imdb synopsis to get the whole story, but this is one of those films that knowing what happens really doesn't ruin the story itself. I remember this being on the Oscar radar but I don't get what kept it out of the running. Sam Rockwell seems to be constantly ignored by the academy and Hilary Swank already has two wins in the leading lady role, so getting overlooked for this one isn't that big of a deal.

The film is about a brother and sister who grow up in a small town with a dysfunctional family. They like to sneak into other people's homes and pretend they have a normal home with a normal family. After several run in's with the police Kenny [Rockwell] is labelled as a suspicious character and is hauled in for questioning every time their is a crime in town. After a brutal murder he is brought in for questioning and almost a year later is determined to be the killer. With no physical evidence he is given a life sentence thanks to an ex-wife and ex-girlfriend on the stand that lied about this whereabouts. His sister Betty [Swank] decides to pursue a law degree to free her brother.

I also relate this film to Flash of Genius because the main character gives up a normal life and family in pursuit of what they feel is right through legal means. Based on a true story this one, overlooked last year, is well worth your time.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1244754/

Director Will Gluck, who brought us Easy A, last year. Brings us a movie that at one point was going to be called "Fuck Buddies." Good luck marketing that. It was actually in production around the same time as No Strings Attached which features Natalie Portman who was paired up with Mila Kunis in Black Swan. Just a little interesting that co-stars of a film with 5 Oscar nominations was in the process of an ad campaign for a film where the stars were working on two separate and similar films.

So the film is about a young hot shot website designer [Justin Timberlake] who is contacted by a headhunter [Mila Kunis] to take a job in New York. Dylan seems happy in LA, but with some convincing from Jamie he takes the job. He works for GQ where Woody Harrelson plays a pretty funny sports writer that questions Dylan's sexual preference. Jamie is Dylan's only friend in the city and their "work" relationship turns into a friendship with "benefits." Trying to avoid a romantic relationship their emotions start to play a factor and we learn that Dylan has commitment issues.

Pretty typical to have a guy with commitment issues, which is why I liked No Strings Attached a little more. In retrospect I'm not exactly sure when No Strings didn't get an 8/10. Either way, the flash mob scenes are pretty cute, there are some good running jokes, and Timberlake proves once again he can handle the shift from singer to actor. Probably worth your time if you like Rom-Com's.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632708/

Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor star in an interesting comedy based on a true story. The film which was produced in 2009 and released in three other countries before the production company decided not to bring it to the US. The rights were purchased by two other companies and release at the end of 2010.

The film is based on Steven Russell, an American con artist & prison escape artist. Russell seemed to be living a normal life with a wife and daughter, until one day he decided he no longer wanted to hide being gay. He moves to Florida, gets a boyfriend, and lives an extravagant lifestyle... all on credit card fraud. Eventually caught, he serves him times before getting out, running his con, and going back.

The story is silly, almost unbelievable, and definitely a little over done for Hollywood. Overall I liked it. Not one to watch with the kids and probably not for people that don't like Jim Carrey since he reverts to some of his old comedic shticks.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045772/

A little late for horror month, this one came out on blu-ray earlier in the year and was the last horror movie in my possession, yay! Folder complete now.

This 70's horror film has taken a little bit of flack for actually killing a lizard on screen. I can't say that screams animal cruelty to me, but it seems to bother some people so I can respect that. The film starts out a lot like a modern day horror film. A creepy mysterious killer in a leather jacket murders a famous psychic, we do not see who it is but we immediately know there is not a twist involving our main character.

The film gets really slow and basically turns onto a murder mystery at this point. I personally had trouble connecting with the film, partially because I was a little sick of horror films at the time, and also because I watched it with the goal of being done, and not to enjoy it. My fault. Overall I did like it, but the almost constantly out of sync [due to poor dubbing... it is mono audio], and blu ray doesn't help this. It is distracting and keeps me from wanting to watch it again.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073582/

The full title of the film makes it pretty self explanatory. The film is a look inside The New York Times newspaper at a time when newspapers are a dying breed. Considered a front runner for an Oscar nomination I felt that the film had the perfect scope on an interesting subject matter. That being said, I'm writing this review after finding out that it did not even make the 15 film short list for the Oscar.

The film starts with us meeting some of the staff and they explain the process behind determining what will make it on the cover of the newspaper. We look at some of the important moments in the paper's history and how they have been a national if not world leader in news. The film isn't like some of these "band" documentaries where they ignore the negatives, there is actually discussion on the WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] fiasco and how the Times reporter pushed false information. They also defend her, in that, the information to was given by a government source was wrong.

The most interesting and scary thing about the documentary is that the newsroom venue of collective minds deciding was is important news is dying. It looks at internet sites that take Times articles and plug in search engine keywords to retool the titles to get more internet hits. It looks at the fact that without newspapers credible field reports are going to be hard to come by.

Oscar or not, this is a documentary you should watch. Informative, interesting, and important.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1787777/

After watching documentaries on Foo Fighters and Pearl Jam this year I thought it would be interesting to watch a documentary on a musical group that I DIDN'T group up liking. I know of this hip-hop group and heard a few of there song in CMJ [College Music Journal] back in 1993 when Midnight Marauders came out.

The documentary looks at who influenced the group, how they came to stardom their their connections to DJ Red Alert and their formation of the Native Tongues. A pretty cool concept of collaborating with fellow artists like, De La Soul, Queen Latifah, and Jungle Brothers. The thing I think the documentary hinted at but did not discuss very much was hip-hop being "killed" by rap. At least this is my opinion. The unofficial death was really about the time I started listening to a range of music ironically and was in 1993 when Midnight Marauders came out the same week as Wu-Tang Clan's "Enter Wu-Tang." That same year Snoop Dogg, 2-Pac, and Easy E all came out with albums. Soon enough the fun loving hip-hop artists were overshadowed by gangster rap.

A look at the history of hip-hop and the rise of rap would have been much more entertaining to me, but that isn't what they were going for here. The end of the film goes into the bickering that broke the group up and was not exciting at all. I think Pearl Jam and Foo Fighters documentaries were both better, maybe because both bands are still creating music and getting along.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1613023/

A dangerous formula of combining Werner Herzog and documentary leads to the first film I've fallen asleep in this year. Considered a potential Oscar documentary contender I thought I'd get a jump on the eligible films knowing that some won't get shortlisted. Of all the ones I watched early, this is the only one I regret watching. Originally shot in 3D, it had a pretty decent box office run, and the non-3D is not great.

The film is about a cave that was found in the south of France in 1994 by a couple of explorers. They found that it contains wall paintings that date back 20,000 years. The oldest preserved wall writings and the film is an exclusive look at a very contained site. Honestly it was pretty cool for about 15 minutes, and I think this would have made an excellent documentary short film. The content just seems to run out after 30 minutes and we get interviews with scientists who talk about how the cave "might" have smelled, what dreams the people "might" have had.

The problem was that the scope of the documentary was so limited that scenes of a toy plane flying around the valley [pandering to the 3D I'm sure] seemed out of place. The valley probably looked completely different 20,000 years ago so what are you showing me. This wasn't for me, to each his own, but I'm glad this one wasn't shortlisted.

Vote: 3/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1664894/

In a pretty weak year for animated films look for this average film to get an Oscar nomination. A sequel to the 2008 Oscar nominated film with the same director, writer, and star put it in line for another nomination. In 2009 they lost to the far superior Wall-E, but with no Pixar front runner this year you never know.

I can't say that I remember all of the detail from the first film, but they came back to me pretty quick in the first ten minutes. Po [Jack Black] is the "chosen one" and leader of the kung fu masters now. Tigress [Angelina Jolie] has warmed up to Po and the team of animals protects the city. We get a story of a crane who has harnessed gun powder for weapons instead of fireworks and is starting to conquering cities. Kung Fu is thought to be dead and the Kung Fu Masters have to prove that it is not.

On a scare factor rating I'd say that the violence alone gets a 3. If your kids are old enough for that, this film is very kid friendly. We'll see how it does against a slew of animated sequels in awards season. I liked it a lot more than I thought, but it wasn't something I'll buy for my kids.

KSF: 3/5
Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302011/

Directed by Cameron Crowe, this film documents the twenty years that the band Pearl Jam has been together. Lead singer Eddie Vedder was greatly influenced by The Who, and Crowe who is fan of The Who and their documentary The Kids Are Alright (1979) constructed this film partially as an homage to them.

The band, who started in the Seattle grunge scene after the death of Andrew Wood broke up Mother Love Bone. They came onto the scene with the album Ten, and in many respects rivaled Nirvana for air time and publicity. The film touches on Cobain's dislike of Vedder and his band, then goes into their feud with Ticketmaster.

I have been a Pearl Jam fan for a very long time. The hard part for me is that I really like their angry and passionate music from Ten, Vs., and Vitalogy. When the band took a step back and "reinvented" themselves... sometime that bands have to do to stay interested and interesting I lost some interest. No Code was not my favorite and I felt I made myself like it. Yield was just ok, and I had lost interest by Riot Act, Self-Titled (2006), and Backspacer. I listened to them all at least once, and I bought the b-sides "Lost Dogs" a couple of years ago and felt that was a mistake.

I have a lot of respect for how the band handles themselves. They are very unified in their stances on Tibet, Choice, government, and how to act in public. It is rare for a band to get along so well and probably part of the reason they have managed to stay together so long. I recommend this to anyone who likes the band, but even if you don't know much about them it is still a good documentary.

Vote: 9/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1417592/

The film starts at an American lab where the boss is telling the Japanese assistant to go ahead an dump all of the chemicals down the drain. The water empties into the river and the chemicals create a sea creature that attacks the people. The family in the story run convenience stall next to the river and the creature runs off with their daughter. I'm not sure what to call this movie. Labeled at a horror or a comedy... I don't really see either. More along the lines of a bad science fiction than anything.

The film is not well known, and one that I saved for horror month because of the mislabeling as horror. It is one of the films that the 1001 movie book added on a revision, then removed a year later. It is kinda frustrating that a list of 1001 movies changes so much, but I'll digress from that argument.

Not worth you time, and hard to find.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468492/

Michael Bay is back with his third installment of the surprisingly successful [box office-wise] series. The first one made Megan Fox a star, the 2nd one showed she isn't a very nice person, the 3rd one drops her completely.

I have to say that I did like the first film, it was really good, especially since there were no expectations. The 2nd one was just awful and Bay's camera rotations made it almost unwatchable at times. This one however was quite a bit better. Shia LaBeouf's character is now trying to have a normal life after his adventures in the first two films. He has a model for a girlfriend [Rosie Huntington-Whiteley] who replaced Fox, and when the Decepticons attack he works his way back to work with the government to help out.

This film was much better than the last but still lacked a lot of editing. They do realize that scenes can be cut completely right? All of the interactions with LaBeouf's parents were unnecessary. They added a lot of unnecessary runtime to the film, and none of it was funny or relevant to the plot. That lack of editing keeps these films at an unnecessary 2 and a half hours.

Overall, a big improvement from the last, I'm glad I gave it a shot but 6/10 is about right.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399103/

Another new Alfred Hitchcock for me, as some of you know I really like Hitchcock and have been trying to force myself to ration out his films for years so I always have some new ones. This one is actually in the 1001 Movies book, and gets the horror label simply because I haven't taken the time to make a separate "thriller" label yet.

The film is about a serial killer they call the necktie murderer. We learn early in the film who this person is, then we see how the wrong person gets framed. Hitchcock is interesting and different enough that you can never be sure how it will all play out and keeps the amount of information I shared from being too much.

I had to ask myself when it was over, if it wasn't Hitchcock would you have really liked it? The answer is, maybe not. It was good but he does have a lot better ones out there.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068611/

Considered in some regards to be a sequel to The Island of Dr. Moreau, in more regards to the storyline than to the actual character or a film. Also, one of those Criterion films that is held in higher regards years after being made than on initial release. This is the type of film I expect in the 101 Horror Films book.

The film is about a brilliant surgeon going to any lengths to repair his daughters face. Her face was burned off in a car fire as a result of his careless driving, and he cares more about fixing "the face" than helping the girl. His assistant scours the city of girls of similar complexion then kidnap them to steal their faces.

It isn't the most exciting horror film, especially since I think the genre has come a long way in the last 30 years. It was a good story and interesting ending, pretty good, not great.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053459/

David Cronenberg is famous for making creative science fiction films on small budgets. Known as the Baron of Blood he has made films like Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone, The Fly, and one I need to see Naked Lunch. Lately he has made the switch to dramatic films, and he is strange to hear his name around awards season with films like A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, and this years A Dangerous Method [all films starring Viggo Mortensen].

With many of Cronenberg's early films all of the stars are only known for this film, that's how you keep your budget low, right? There are definitely a few scenes that are pretty creepy in this film, honestly I didn't find it to be thrilling at all and preferred Scanners over this one. I would say the two had a lot of similarities so you should see Scanners instead.

Better than the last few horror films I've seen so I'll give it a just average rating.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078908/

A modern retelling of the classic film Nosferatu (1922), in Werner Herzog fashion. Herzog writes very slow panning scenes that just don't fit well in the horror genre, and this film ends up being more creepy and odd than scary.

It stars Bruno Ganz [Hitler in Downfall] as Jonathan, the man sent to find Dracula a home. Klaus Kinski plays Dracula, he was also Aguirre in Aguirre: The Wrath of God also directed by Herzog. I could almost swear that Herzog recycled the music from Aguirre for this film. I can't think of a movie character that has been done more different ways than Dracula. We have had versions where garlic or stakes or sun have killed him. We have had version were Dr. Van Helsing is the hero, where Jonathan is the hero, where Lucy is the hero, version where Dracula wins. You really can't assume you know how any one of them will finish.

Herzog just makes this film too slow. It is kind of a pity because Kinski was fantastic as Dracula. The sets and storyline are pretty good also, I liked this re-telling, but it was painfully boring. I'm not a big fan of Herzog and this film strengthened that opinion.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079641/

Catherine Deneuve [Repulsion], David Bowie, and Susan Sarandon star in this 80's film that made it into the 101 Horror Films book. The first major film that Tony Scott directed; he went on to direct films like Top Gun, True Romance, and now his fourth Denzel Washington movie Unstoppable.

It might be a stretch to say this "starred" Bowie. The musician wasn't in the film more than 15-20 minutes, and one could make an argument that Sarandon was a more predominant character than Deneuve. The film, based on a book, is about an Egyptian vampire [Deneuve] who takes a "mate" until she is tired of them. When she is bored they are basically left to die and their eternal youth is lost. So we get to see Bowie wither away into nothing to start the movie. She then moves on and peruses Sarandon's character.

The film is like a trendy goth film. Not really scary, not really suspenseful. Most of the scenes take place in rooms that aren't well lit and we get some interesting night club scenes. I'm not going to say I dislike Sarandon, just that she isn't my favorite.

Not a great film, not scary, not really worth your time.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085701/

Slowly but surely I've been working through Ingmar Bergman's catalog of films. Considering he directed more than 60 and wrote more than 80 I have a long way to go. He made this one right after Persona, a surprisingly good film, and is probably the closest he has been to the horror genre, which is why it isn't surprising that Schneider would find a reason to include him on this list.

The film is a horror, but I would it a drama if you didn't fully "get" it. Having to "get" a film to be scared doesn't make it all that scary. Bergman is usually a pretty confusing director to follow and has many subtle nuances you have to keep up with. This film is about an artist who lives alone with his wife on a small island away from society. He goes to the mainland to work on his painting and is harassed by women who's faces come off when they take of their wigs. Boys on the beach that attack and bite him. A number of strange encounters.

The first half of the film is very slow, and it really isn't building up on anything suspenseful, it is just laying the groundwork for the suspense to follow. The 2nd half is strange, confusing, and scary at times. Bergman is a great director, and he gets this from fantastic descriptive dialogue. The problem is that a picture is worth a thousand words, and in a horror the pictures are the scary part and most of the film fails in this regard. I'll stick to his other films.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063759/

At the end of horror month reviews, I'm starting to get writers block. An older film in the 101 Horror Movies book, this is by anyone's standards a B Horror Film.You can actually watch this for free here: archive.org.

So the film starts with a car full of girls next to a car full of boys in a little American town. They are sitting at a stop light and start revving their engines, the boys win, but the girls aren't going to give up and chase them down. They go across a small wooden bridge and the girls try and overtake the boys.. but end up breaking through the barrier and falling into the river. One girl, Mary [Candace Hilligoss] survives, and the film follows the events that follow.

Mary plays the organ in church, she is a quiet girl who keeps to herself and one might call boring. She decides to take a job playing the organ in a different town to get away from the accident and the undying gossip. In the new town she starts seeing a ghost. A creepy man who appears just about everywhere she turns. Something about him makes her feel that he is linked to the abandoned carnival on the edge of town and she must work up the courage to explore herself.

I found the film to be quite dull, nothing about it was very scary. There is a twist that is someone interesting, but not by today's standards. I could have done without seeing this one.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055830/

Easily one of the most bizarre films I've seen. A lot about this one just makes no sense at all. Those that like this film call it a "Fun" B-Horror film. The film is in Italian... and German and French... but all of the German and French actors have been dubbed into Italian. So the film is the worst of both worlds, bad sync on bad dubbing, and subtitles.

The film centers around Francesco, Rupert Everett, the graveyard head groundsman who has a half wit helper who lives downstairs, Gnaghi. Francesco has found out that the dead come back to life between 3 and 10 days after they originally die. The timeline changes person to person but seems to be linked to their age. He spends most days killing these people for a 2nd time, always by damaging the brain, either through a gunshot or removing the head.

He falls in love with a woman's who's husband just died. She becomes fascinated with the cemetery and becomes his lover. She meets her demise early thanks to the "undead." Then the plot gets really bizarre, biker zombies riding around, a severed head that becomes Gnaghi's girlfriend. Strange movie.

The one redeeming factor, the beautiful Anna Falchi, but she isn't even around long... then we have to suffer though Gnaghi and his disgusting eating habits. I thought this was going to go somewhere when Francesco and "She" [Anna's credit name] became a couple... but I was quite wrong. Forget this one.

Vote: 2/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109592/

Hard to believe that it has been two years. In some ways I feel like I've been writing for much, much longer. Maybe that is because I've written 700 reviews now. I can definitely say that I watch movies differently now that I'm a blogger. Maybe this is good, maybe not. It forces me to pay attention more, it motivates me to plow through the bad films, and it makes me think about what I did and didn't like about the films while watching them. The downside is that I feel that all movies start at a 10/10, and that I have to criticize them all negatively. It is hard to say, "Hey, this movie is a 6/10 and nothing was really wrong with it." So feeling like I'm bashing films all the time is hard, especially since I like a lot of films, and definitely enjoyed everything I gave an 8 or more.

So what was the best of the year? Well these are the best NEW films I've seen in the last year. New meaning that they are less than two years old and I watched them in the last 365 days. Don't be too concerned with the order, I hate saying a film was 5th or 6th best when they were both excellent and completely different.

Last year's Top 20: http://thelarsenfilmreview.blogspot.com/2010/10/one-year-anniversary-best-of-year.html
All links will take you to my reviews of these films.

1. Inception
2. The Social Network
3. Harry Potter 8
4. Inside Job
5. The King's Speech
6. GasLand
7. Waiting for 'Superman'
8. You Don't Know Jack
9. Fish Tank
10. Bridesmaids
11. Animal Kingdom
12. In a Better World
13. X-Men: First Class
14. Coco Before Chanel
15. Black Swan
16. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
17. Toy Story 3
18. The Next Three Days
19. 127 Hours
20. Country Strong

Honorable Mention [Worth watching if you are a fan of the Foo Fighters]:
Foo Fighters: Back and Forth

Worst 10 of the Year:
1. A Christmas Carol
2. The Expendables
3. Hobo with a Shotgun
4. Il Divo
5. The Tempest
6. Babies
7. Synecdoche, New York
8. Jonah Hex
9. Uncle Boonme
10. I am Love

Look for my Top 100 Action films sometime in the next month!

This marks the first film that I watched with my older daughter. Pretty cool. It is also the first film to get a 1/5 on the Kids Scare Factor scale... as I was hoping.

This is "almost" a remake of 1977's The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, I say this because they treat the audience as if this is the first Winnie the Pooh film and play with the theme of being inside a book in Christopher Robin's room. I really like how this is done in the original and they did an excellent job with the characters and voices. It was interesting to have a more British Christopher Robin, and it worked.

This isn't the 2nd Pooh movie ever though, and I'm not talking about straight-to-video cartoons. We had The Tigger Movie in 2000, Piglet's Big Movie in 2003, and Pooh's Heffalump Movie in 2005. This film seemed to have a better story and production values than all of those and was a real treat.

I'm sure I'll be watching this one a few more times.

KSF: 1/5
Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1449283/

I won't lie about it, I really didn't completely pay attention to this one. I had something else going on and it was playing in the background. Maybe if I would have focused it would have had a higher rating... then again my wife was paying attention and agrees it was this bad.

This film actually was in post-production for a very long time. I think it was Viggo Mortensen's follow-up to 2007's Eastern Promises which he was nominated for an Oscar from. It was originally scheduled for a Nov. 2008 release but I think the market was saturated with similar themed films. By the time it came out I had lost interest. Now 3 years later I finally got around to watching it after hearing mixed reviews [mostly bad].

The film is based on a novel, and I'm guessing that the novel explained who the apocalypse happened. Either way some sort of event has left the earth in ruins with a very limited food supply and rampant cannibalism. Maybe this is supposed to be a realistic take on what it would be like after nuclear war... I'm not sure. Kodi Smit-McPhee is quite young in this film, you'd know him if you watched Let Me In. Charlize Theron plays the wife of Mortensen in his flashbacks and we have some small roles by Robert Duvall and Guy Pearce, nothing special.

I was quite disappointed by the pace of this film and lack of information, it should have been much better.

Vote: 3/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

One of the #1 films at the box office this past summer, this comedy stars a number of well known actors and a director [Seth Gordon] with a pretty decent track record.

The film is about three people with completely different bosses, all awful in their own way. Nick's [Jason Bateman] boss is a mean corporate manipulator [Kevin Spacey], Kenny's [P.J. Byrne] boss constantly sexually harasses him [Jennifer Aniston], and Kurt's [Jason Sudeikis] boss is a recently promoted junkie [Colin Farrell].

I can see how playing these characters was probably a lot of fun. Spacey's character is pretty unrealistic... well they all are, his more so than the others. Aniston was probably the most crude, but also pretty funny. I found Byrne to be pretty funny, just slightly annoying at times. Sudeikis was REALLY annoying though, and reminded me of what I didn't like about Hall Pass.

So back to the plot. All three feel cornered in their jobs. Bateman's character realistically more so than the other two. They hatch a plot to kill their bosses, in the process they hire Jamie Foxx, but end up deciding to kill each others bosses... like in Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train.

Over the top silly, some funny parts, a good drinking movie but definitely not one for kids.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1499658/

Funny that I just spoke in my last post about leaning toward originals [review] over remakes. Well this is a good example. My goodness, I really should have liked this huh? Directed by Martin Scorsese, starring Robert De Niro, Nick Nolte, Jessica Lange, and Juliette Lewis. The original stars are even in the remake, Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck.

The Oscars half way got it right with their nominations. I loved Robert De Niro's performance, but I hated Juliette Lewis' performance. Sure I was supposed to be annoyed by her, but I really just can't stand her acting and it makes her films frustrating to watch.

The film was very "90's," the music, the clothing, I'm not sure why all this annoyed me but I just couldn't love this film.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101540/

With High Tension [review] out of the way, this was my newest film from my 101 horror movies book to watch. Since the names aren't close at all I didn't catch that there has actually been an American remake of this film. The remake was called The Uninvited, it came out in 2009 and starred Emily Browning and Elizabeth Banks. It wasn't until I read this that I even realized the two followed the same script. I actually watched The Uninvited about two weeks before starting this blog and gave it a 7/10.

Fans of this film seem to hate the remake, and those that liked the remake tend to hate this film. Interesting how that can work; how a specific director can draw different fans with the same script. I'd have to put myself in the camp of the US remake. I tend to lean towards originals, but in this case I just didn't get the original.

There is a "main" twist, sorry if this spoils it for you, but it has to be discussed. The issue I have is that it gets very confusing and reality and fantasy are never really clarified. Maybe some people like this, but I'm the kind of person that likes that "gotcha" moment of clarity when a director makes everything clear. Hitchcock was a master at this.

This movie really was an 8 or 9 in the first hour, but I couldn't get it and really don't care to figure it out.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365376/

Directed by Luke Greenfield, who has been making tv movies and is responsible for The Animal. Starring Ginnifer Goodwin & Kate Hudson then Colin Egglesfield & John Krasinski as the boyfriend/friend relationships.

Rachel [Goodwin] is the main character of the film, her best friend Darcy [Hudson] is engaged to Dex [Egglesfield]. We learn that Rachel and Dex were student partners in med school and both never acted on these feelings, meanwhile Darcy is introduced and doesn't hesitate to act. Ethan [Krasinski] plays Rachel's childhood friend who supports her in winning Dex back who clearly only cares for Rachel.

The problem with the film is actually not Hudson, surprising enough because most of the films she is in... she is the bad part. The problem is the horrible script, Krasinski's lines are just awful in the first 45 minutes... he gets better at the end. It is clear that this is written, directed, and produced by a team used to doing sitcoms and the issues play out like a couple episodes strung together. I can't fathom how this is adapted from a book and what that book must be like. The last time I can remember Goodwin in a lead was for Mona Lisa Smile 8 years ago, and this doesn't come close.

It wasn't unwatchable, but it wasn't very good either.

Vote: 3/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491152/

Many people are probably familiar with Deborah Kerr from films like From Here to Eternity and The King and I, but when asked what she felt was her finest performance she chose this film. A film that is listed in the 101 Horror Films, and considered one of the most chilling and shocking films of its time.

Based on a book, the movie is about a young Governess, Miss Giddens [Kerr], who is hired to take care of two orphaned children. Their uncle hires Miss Giddens to raise them on his country estate with complete freedom so that he may go about his city life without them as a burden. We learn from a maid that the former governess died and that she was having an affair with the valet, who is also dead. Miss Giddens becomes convinced that the souls of the dead lovers have possessed the two children and she intends to do her own exorcism.

The scary part of the film is that you are never entirely sure if she is nuts or if they are really possessed. We see the same ghosts that she does and the kids to act pretty bizarre, but we never get the comforting feeling that we understand what is really going on. Honestly a black and white Victorian era film is boring to me to begin with, so the ghost story wasn't enough for me to really like this film. It was just ok.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055018/

Directed by Erle C. Kenton, who was known more for his two reel comedies, but branched out into horror on a few occasions. This will probably be his only lasting film. Recently released in high definition, sadly I didn't know this until I had already watched a very grainy version.

The film stars Charles Laughton [who won an Oscar the following year for The Private Life of Henry VIII.] and Richard Arlen [who was in the silent film Wings... the first Oscar Best Picture]. Bela Lugosi is on the credit pretty high, but his role is very minor, and he is in costume so you wouldn't know unless told. The film is in my 101 horror movies book, but I didn't find it scary in the least. If this was a modern film you would consider it an adventure/fantasy.

The story is about a man, Edward [Arlen], who is found adrift at sea. The boat that finds him is on their way, with an assortment of animals, to an island not on any map. When Edward sticks up for a servant against the drunken captain he boots him off the ship at the mysterious island. The island belongs to Dr. Moreau [a character with about five films to his credit now, the rest much more recent], a mad scientist who does Frankenstein-like operations on animals making them more human.

Horror movies must have soundtracks, suspenseful music sets the mood, awkward silence unsettles us, but a complete lack of background effects or score make the film dull. This isn't the only reason this film was boring, but it just wasn't that interesting and just a little too fake for me. Sure it is very old, but that isn't exactly why. I'm not sure why this needs to be on any lists, and a 6/10 is very generous.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024188/

Director Roman Polanski is originally from Poland. He directed his first film Knife in the Water in Poland before moving to France where he directed this film for a company in Britain. A film that proceeds Rosemary's Baby and a few other thriller films. I guess I didn't see Polanski as a thriller film director.

This film stars Catherine Deneuve as Carole, a ditzy girl who seems to be disconnected from just about everything in life, with the exception of her sister. She lives in a two bedroom apartment with her sister, who has a new boyfriend that Carole doesn't approve of, and she works at a beauty salon. When her sister goes on vacation she loses it. She stays in the apartment for days, and her mental state collapses.

I don't understand why this film is so greatly liked. It even has a 7.9 on imdb, a very high average for what I felt was a simple film of someone going nuts. There were no twists and the conclusion was very ho-hum. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I was very bored.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059646/

Another documentary that doesn't fit into horror month. Why? Well because my wife and I are done with our horror films for the month, and I'll be watching the rest of the horror movies on my own this month. We jumped to see this one as soon as it went to dvd because we are Conan fans. Not big fans, but we prefer him over the other late night hosts, and hate what Leno did to the man.

So a little background [and the film does explain this], Conan was awarded the Tonight Show when Leno retired. After a few months NBC decided to give Leno a primetime slot in a bad economy because talk shows are cheap. The ratings were awful... as expected and they told Conan they would push his show back to midnight to make room for Leno. He opted out of this deal and was awarded a large severance package, part of the package gauranteed a non-compete where Conan was not allowed to go in television or internet for 3-4 months. During this time he decided to go on tour.

This documentary follows Conan while he sets up his show, and through a portion of his performances. We learn how annoying he can be, and mean/funny he comes across as, because let's face it comedy usually comes at someone's expense. As a Conan fan I liked this because I felt I learned something about him, but it really isn't much of a documentary and wouldn't be worth your time if you didn't know the man already. It reminded me a little of the Joan Rivers documentary because both people can't stop being in front of people and just eat up attention.

Good if you like Conan.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1864288/

So I didn't remember the "stars" of the original film enough to realize that they are also in the sequel. And that this isn't a sequel but a prequel to the first film. The film is about the month or so leading up to the original film and centers around Katie's sister who is dealing with a demonic presence in their house much like Katie eventually sees.

The film starts with events that make you think the house is possessed, but since the activities start as soon as they bring their first son home we get the feeling these two things are linked. The family is well off, and the stepdaughter seems to do the majority of the investigation in the film. We end with the sense that we really don't know what is going still [you can see part 3 this year].

I loved how this film wrapped around the original, and am excited to see how the next prequel goes. Watching the first film is necessary even through this is a prequel.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1536044/

Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe star in a vampire film that is more science fiction that suspense or horror. I've been saving this for horror month viewing for a couple years, and it isn't the first time I've saved a film I didn't need to. It doesn't help that the film is now both dated and bad...

The film gives little background into how vampires took over the world, and explains everything through background media [televisions playing in the background, etc.] and through passing comments. It isn't that I didn't "get it," just more that I thought the screenplay didn't try very hard. The plot is basically that there are so many vampires that they are running out of blood. They have been trying to make substitutes and they actually harvest human blood, but all substitutes end up killing the vampires that try them. Hawke was turned into a vampire by his brother and does not want to be one. He is a doctor that is looking for the cure, Dafoe has a solution and Hawke goes underground [figuratively] to help his cure get tested.

The conflict comes from the vampires that don't really want a cure to exist because a limited supply plus their reserves equals power. Overall the film was kinda stupid and definitely not worth your time.

Vote: 4/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433362/

The most recent film in Schneider's 101 Horror Films that I had left to see, this French film stars Cécile De France [seen recently in Hereafter]. I can't think or a French film that is more gory, and it is the kind of film I expected more of in the 101 book.

The film starts with the Marie [Cécile De France] being chased through the woods by a killer. She comes out of the dream and finds herself in a car next to her friend Alexia, on the way to Alexia's parents house. The girls are on some sort of school break and heading to Alexia's home late at night. We get the sense that Marie might have a thing for Alexia, Marie is a virgin and from the jesting between the two that Alexia is experienced in love. Late at night a man in a beat up van shows up at the house, he immediately murders Alexia's father then starts to make his way through the house, hunting down the rest of the family.

At only 90 minutes this film is worth watching. Hate foreign film? Look for a dubbed version, I think it's out there. You will find that this isn't as simple a story as you think. The long chase scenes are pretty intense, and it is very very bloody.

This was what I was hoping I would get from this 101 horror book, check it out.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338095/

Watched just in time to make my 10 worst films of the year [with my two year anniversary a week away]. This documentary was actually pushed pretty hard, I saw ads online, it was in theaters, and was pushed as an Oscar contender.

The documentary short list came out and there wasn't any mention of it being snubbed.... now wait a minute, it wasn't even in the top 15 of the year and no one cared? What happened?

So I'm writing this review with a two week old baby at home, and I also have a three year old... so I've seen the first year recently. The film follows four children across the world showing the last weeks of pregnancy to the children being a year old. We see a kid in Africa, Japan, Mongolia, and San Francisco. I wouldn't say that the San Francisco kid is treated anything like how I do with my kids, e.g. you won't see them with me naked in a hot tub. So don't get my wrong, its cute, but calling this a documentary is complete rubbish.

We see dangerous conditions in Mongolia, the kid is left in the field with animals all around walking over it. The kid in Africa really is never bathed with water. The Mongolian kid is taken home on the back of a motorcycle! So what do I know? How dangerous are all of these things we see really? Who know! There is absolutely no narration, no story, no explanation of why the culture does things the way they do. It is natural to think that something different is wrong, and this film does nothing to teach me about how kids are raised in other countries. Some of these countries have better life expectancies than we do in the U.S.

I absolutely hated watching this from the prospective of one of the babies... because that is what the film is. We don't understand the parents talking, we don't know why we are forced to do the things asked of us, etc. Forget you heard of this one... I learned nothing.

Vote: 1/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020938/

I really didn't know much about this independent thriller film that came out last year. It was made on a $10 million budget, and grossed more than three times that, but was it worth my time? Directed by John Erick Dowdle and written by M. Night Shyamalan.

The film stars a group of recognizable stars, but none really that big. You've probably seen Logan Marshall-Green, Chris Messina, Geoffrey Arend, Bokeem Woodbine, or Jenny O'Hara in something. The film is about the devil's presence amongst a group of strangers on an elevator. The five strangers get stuck between two floor and all attempts to move the elevator result in someone getting hurt.

The lights go out and one of the passangers is killed.They come back on and the security guard calls the police who do everything they can to get in. One by one the people start to die...

It was kinda cool, but I see myself forgetting all about it in a year or two. The direction was ok, the story was a little hooky, and none of the stars had breakthrough performances. Take it or leave it.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1314655/

Insidious might be the most popular horror movie from the 1st half of 2011. Hitting the theaters around Valentine's Day the critics ratings were good, and it did well at the box office. The film stars Rose Byrne [also in Bridesmaids], Patrick Wilson [you'd recognize him], and the boy is played by Ty Simpkins.

The film is about a family that movies into a new home to find that is it haunted. The mother [Rose] starts seeing things, then the oldest of the three kids falls in the attic from a ladder and goes into a coma. I liked that the film is not straight forward, without spoiling how it all plays out... I'll say that the haunting isn't tied to the house, and the coma isn't related to the fall. The father becomes reclusive and we learn that his character has this running from fear because of a repressed childhood memory.

The best part of horror films is the science fiction behind them. A scary movie that is just trying to spook you, won't stick with you. This film has an idea and explains it fully, the "further" is fully explained. Sure it might not be realistic, but the fantasy/sci-fi of it isn't held back. The screenplay writer and director took great risk by "putting it all out there." This tends to get mixed reviews from realists and skeptics that want to dissect everything around it.

So I ask you... do you like horror films that stay vague, in rely on the viewers imagination? Or do you like horror films that explain an alternate universe in depth, potentially making you realize it isn't a real threat? I liked it, and I can see how some people wouldn't.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591095/

It seems like the number of exorcism films has been on the rise lately. Both sequels to the original and knock offs. I have to say this is the best one I seen in a while, and it even had me fooled for a while.

The film is shot as if it is a documentary. We follow around Cotton Marcus [Patrick Fabian], a preacher that tells the camera about how his father was a preacher and got him riling up the congregation as a kid. Now as an adult he isn't sure how much he really believes in what he says, and he has made a living of performing staged exorcists. He allows the documentary crew to follow him around on his "last" exorcism. So I'm not thrilled with the title of this film. It implies that this is either the last exorcism film in a series or that this is the final exorcism ever performed. Either way it pigeonholed it for me as another "last" horror film that isn't even close to a "last."

So you can guess how well this will go, right? Any time in a horror film someone says, this is the last time I'm going to do this, you know there will be trouble. So we see Cotton set up the room with speakers, props and other tricks to fool the girl, her brother, and her father. After the exorcism this don't improve, through some impressive lighting techniques it is much like The Blair Witch Project. We are constantly reassured that this is just a hoax, then have to second guess that conclusion.

Although I didn't get this a "worth watching" rating, for a horror flick it was pretty good.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320244/

So this isn't a horror film. I never though it was, and I'm not sure how it got misplaced in my horror/thriller directory. If anything it should have been watched back in action movie month this last June. If you have seen Grindhouse then you might remember the fake movie trailers before the feature. They were Machete and Hobo with a Shotgun [review here], both which have now been made into feature films. Robert Rodriguez made Planet Terror [1/2 of Grindhouse], and he is also responsible for this film.

You have to understand that this is an homage to a genre that doesn't need this many homages, but whatever. I do like the star of this film Danny Trejo, and I thought he brought some subtle humor to the role. I even liked Steven Seagal as the bad guy. As a matter of fact after the opening sequence I thought the movie was going to be really cool. Then came the rest of the cast, Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez, and Lindsay Lohan. Alba brings a seriousness to her role that doesn't fit, Rodriguez has a pretty typical performance... I just don't like her, and Lohan can't act.

I never expected I would be suggesting this one, and I'm not. If only the rest of the film could have been like the intro.... then it would have been worthy of the 101 Action Movies. Oh well.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985694/

I was reluctant to watch this film. The 4th film in a series that should have never been a series. The more of these I see the more I forget just how much I liked the original. The original, which came out in 2000, was a pretty neat concept. Boy has premonition that plane will crash, keeps his friends from getting on, death is "after" them.

The 2nd film was not good and featured a different director. The 3rd in the series was horrendous, and actually brought back the original director James Wong. This film bounces back to the guy who directed the 2nd film, David R. Ellis, who is better known as a stunt man.

Made completely as a 3D gimmick two years ago, the plot is weak and the acting is bad. Then again, it wasn't THAT bad. This cheesy horror film will probably end up defining the genre at its time. When we look back in 20 years we well remember films like this, sadly. Considering how bad the last two have been, it wasn't unwatchable. You have to enjoy the random ways these kids get killed as random objects start moving around them. Imagine an invisible Carrie taking out high schoolers.

I could have done without seeing it, but I actually don't regret the hour and 15 minutes it took to watch it.

Vote: 4/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1144884/

As the movie poster suggests, this is the most controversial film ever made. This one of the less gory posters I could find, and I still had to edit it. The film, made by Italian Ruggero Deodato was rumored to actually be a snuff film [meaning that someone died on film], and he was actually arrested on obscenity charges. The actors defended him on trial, and he was let go, but the film remains banned in many countries today.

The plot of the film is that four documentary film makers go into the Amazon to film cannibalistic tribes. When they don't return, a NYU professor goes into the jungle to recover the footage. The two tribes he visits are both very hostile, he is able to win them over and recover the footage, and the footage shows who the real primitives are.

There are scenes of rape, murder, seven animals are killed on film. Some for food, some for sport. The film is pretty sick on all levels and I highly discourage anyone watching it. I'm just going to leave it at that...

Vote: 2/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078935/

The newest film in the 101 Horror Movies book, and one that I have been putting off for years. For some reason I really thought this was a Guillermo del Toro [Pan's Labyrinth and The Devil's Backbone] film. Now I feel ignorant because Del Toro is Mexican and the actual director Juan Antonio Bayona is from Spain.

I'm not familiar at all with the cast, which isn't a bad thing, especially in this genre where stars make outcomes predictable. The film is about a mother, who was once an orphan, that convinces her husband to but the home that was once her orphanage years later. She has aspirations of having a large family, and they have already adopted their first son when they first move in.

The boy immediately makes an imaginary friend, and we [as an audience] get flashbacks that lead us to believe their are ghosts. I think that I thought this was Del Toro mainly because it reminds me so much of The Devil's Backbone, but I liked it even more.

For a movie I put off because I wasn't expecting much I really liked the storyline, conclusion, and some jumpy moments in the film. If you are looking for a good ghost story check this one out.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464141/

I really didn't think this was a "horror" but I was expecting it to be a thriller. I was under the assumption that this was some sort of combination of The Abyss and The Descent. I was quite wrong.

James Cameron was an executive producer on this film, again I was under the assumption that he directed this. I'm sure others were also since his name is at the top of the movie poster with this last film, Avatar, mentioned. Don't be fooled. This was directed bu Alister Grierson, and he hasn't done anything you've seen.

The film is about a group if scientists that are exploring a cave system that has never been accessed in the history of mankind. While deep in the cave a tropical storm hits. At their depth they have no sign of the storm, and the radio communication to the ground level are out. With no warning water starts to fill up the cave. They are forced to continue to the other side [e.g. - we know the water in the cave feeds a river].

The problem with the film is the horrendous acting. Father [Richard Roxburgh] and son [Rhys Wakefield] were not good, and bad guy Ioan Gruffudd wasn't any better. Wakefield reminds me of the Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars films.

Don't get suckered into watching this because they put Cameron's name on it.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0881320/

It has been a tradition of mine to start horror month off with the latest Saw film. Partially because I'm sure it will the gore, bad acting, and runtime of typical movies for the rest of the month. I'm always a year behind, but I'm not going to the theater for films of this quality... so that's fine with me. Looks like next year I'll have to switch to the Paranormal Activity series to kick the month off.

So I have to admit that there have been too many twists over too many years for me to have a clue what is going on. That makes it hard to follow the underlying storyline to this pathetic gore series which gets worse with every film.

The film starts with three people being killed by Jigsaw's invention in a public area, of course this scene is only to show off some 3D killings and has nothing to do with the rest of the film. We've jumped two a new Jigsaw, then to his wife, then back to him not being dead, hell I don't even know. All I know is that the acting is worse that "Days of Our Lives".

The thing that really bothers me about this series is that no one survives Jigsaw's inventions any more. Of course Jigsaw has changed from the old guy dying of cancer wanting people to re-evaluate their lives, to a serial killer using the jigsaw name. The allure of a contraption that only those with the guts to make a sacrifice can escape has turned into everyone dying regardless of how hard they try and get out. If this spoils the movie for you then you haven't seen the last 5 in the series.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Watch the first Saw film and STOP at that.

Vote: 2/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1477076/

A straight-to-video release in the US, this film was actually in the theaters in Japan. It is very loosely based on a true story of a Japanese professor in the 1930's (maybe 40's I forget), who's dog waited every day for him at the train station even after he died.

Entertainment Weekly made a big deal about this being one of Richard Gere's best performances in years. Boy o'boy that sure is setting the bar low. The film start with Gere getting home from the college in a train and walking home, since I live in Texas with a 45 minute commute I'm not sure how realistic walking to and from a train station and never using a car really is in the current setting that they make this film. He finds this abandoned puppy with no identification, after putting up signs to find the owner he eventually keeps him... which you can tell his wife isn't thrilled about. Joan Allen plays his wife, Jason Alexander plays the train attendant, and Sarah Roemer [Disturbia] plays his daughter.

The film is quite sad, definitely to a cheesy and sappy point. It is hard to not let a tear escape at least once. It is almost cruel that the rest of the family didn't give this dog any love, but the film is trying to make a point, and also following the amazing true story they are bending a bit. Anyways, it was able to sneak onto the modern top 250 and there are worse films.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028532/

Have you ever heard the scientific study that says that humans actually only use 10% of their brain? Well this movie... that I'll go ahead and call a science fiction... plays to the idea that a drug can allow you to use all 100% and achieve your full potential. Great concept... what can they do with it, especially with Bradley Cooper in the lead who can't seem to do anything better than The Hangover films.

Bradley Cooper plays Eddie, a loser who has been unemployed for some time. He lives in a mess of an apartment and aspires to be a writer, but ends up just hanging out at bars telling people how great his writing is going. His girlfriend has given him some time to work things out but just hit the breaking point and breaks up with him. He runs into his ex-brother-in-law who gives him this experimental drug and it is at this point that the movie can clearly make a turn for the worse. We get this cartoon CGI look into what it is like on this drug and able to use your entire brain, I was thinking at this point... more if this and I'll hate this film.

However, the film settles and we get a pretty interesting storyline as we see the side effects of taking this experimental drug. The film becomes a thriller as it becomes clear that others are using it, and what the supply that Eddie has. I was actually quite impressed with this film, it could have been pretty silly but it was done nicely.

A good one to pick up at the video store.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/

Rip blogspot

Nổi Bật

Labels

Blog Archive