?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sep. 20th, 2007

This movie was presented as an independent psychological horror film. I got it from Amazon in one of those "recommended for you" thingies; the tagline was "if you liked Ghost and The Sixth Sense, you'll love this movie.

Okay, let me correct some bits of misinformation here.

1.) This movie is not a psychological horror film.
2.) it is not a ghost story.
3.) If you liked Ghost and The Sixth Sense, you still won't like this movie.

The story is like an after-school special on the dangers of alcoholism, but without the charm.

The movie starts out slowly, but quickly reduces its pace to make sure that a retarded chimp could follow the "action", which involves a whole lot of locked down camera shots of people talking, but not really to each other.

The characters are completely one-dimensional. You just don't care about any of them. The acting is low-key, which I don't think is the fault of the actors as much as the direction ("Okay, take that again, but with less expression please, and could you slow it down a little?").

And there are entire scenes with no dialogue. None. The first time I saw it, I thought it was some risky sort of artistic choice that didn't work, but when I saw it the second and third times, I realized that this was actually a technical mistake where somebody forgot to dub the dialogue in to these scenes. It may have been a technical issue, or it may have been an incompetence issue, but really you'd think that somebody would have actually watched the movie through before sending off the master to the duplication house. Those are some pretty huge mistakes to miss.

(Much like shooting a movie with a film camera that jumps the gate periodically-- like this crappy little movie called "The Ressurectionist", except that the director thought it was an "artistic choice".)

Okay, really there was a moment in the movie where they could have taken it in a couple of different directions and redeemed it, turned it into something worth seeing. Unfortunately, it just got worse.

(Pretentious crap warning!)

Tosca shot the movie on film rather than digital video because she wanted the visual texture to match the story's intense psychological tapestry.


I've eaten Jell-O with more intensity than this movie. I've had gas with more intensity than this movie. I've watched laundry with more intensity than this movie.

Pass, baby, pass.

Tags:

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
lio
Sep. 20th, 2007 06:16 pm (UTC)
Seen this?
saveau
Sep. 20th, 2007 08:05 pm (UTC)
I've eaten Jell-O with more intensity than this movie. I've had gas with more intensity than this movie. I've watched laundry with more intensity than this movie.

OMG. Everyone came rushing to my cube to see what I was laughing so hard at.
avindair
Sep. 21st, 2007 01:45 am (UTC)
It really was that bad.

Okay, so, our movie won't win an Oscar, but at least it had some semblance of pacing, and a narrative through-line.

This? This had all the thrills you'd expect to see while watching squirrels mating in a cage. Except without the squirrels. And no cage. And you're drunk. And oh, man, you're depressed because someone ate your dog. (They thought it was a squirrel.)

Man, this movie sucked.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

April 2012
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow