MAKES NO SENSE
Added 4/2/2009
THIS IS A TERRIBLE MOVIE!ALL THIS MOVIE'S ABOUT IS HER HAVING NIGHTMARES,SHE SEES VISIONS,SHE HEARS THINGS,AND SOMETIMES SHE FEELS A PRESENCE.SHE GETS SCARED,AND PETRIFIED.I CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN THIS MOVIE-IT'S SO RIDICULOUS.WHAT I CAN GET FROM THIS IS THAT SHE'S NUTS.HER SISTER DIED 17 YEARS AGO,AND SHES BEEN NUTS ALL THAT TIME.I WILL SAY THAT GINA PHILIPS DOES A GREAT JOB PLAYING KAREN-THE NUT.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
All fall down
Added 3/4/2009
This is a movie that attempts to unseat Troll 2 as the undisputed worst horror film ever. At least Troll 2 was so bad it was entertaining. There is nothing entertaining in this disaster, unless you are into soft core girl on girl incest. We have wet T-shirts, hugging, cuddling, spooning in bed, and even a pillow fight! Meow. What more could you ask from a whore movie? Oh wait, I meant horror movie, and a few scares would've been nice. The production team couldn't afford 100 monkeys and typewriters, so they opted for 5 alleged "writers" sequestered away in 5 different locations with no interaction between them, and instructed them to write a script and use the phrase "Don't worry, I won't let you fall". Those scripts were then put through a food processor and reassembled by Helen Keller to creat the working script. The director decided to try out as many edgy camera techniques as possible to see what works best in case he ever gets to make a "real" movie. You get to see shaky cam, blurry cam, blurry shaky cam, slo-mo, 45 degree shutter (Tom Sizemore stole that one from Saving Private Ryan, or was it 28 Days Later?) POV cam, and cam & cheese, heavy on the cheese. The acting was as bad as the direction as Gina Phillips over-reacted and hyperventilated through the whole movie. She was afraid of rats, roadkill, chickens, Pierce, reflections, wind, closets, slopes, ponies, swings, and her own shadow, not necessarily in that order. Maybe if Gina had been in the audience istead of on screen, this movie would've scared at least one person. Tom Sizemore alternated between creepily friendly, lecherous, and psycho violent at the flick of a switch. Wendy just stayed horny most of the time. The editing was utterly incoherent. One minute they would be eating dinner, then Karen & Wendy are running up the driveway to Wendy's car which won't start (not in a horror movie!! What are the odds? Oh the humanity.)then a brief flashback to Pierce attacking Karen in the closet, to Karen throwing up in the toilet, punching out the medicine cabinet, then seeing Wendy isn't in the bed (maybe she's trying to jump start the car) then cut to a scene of Wendy dancing with Pierce in the tack barn. All this in the space of about 2 min. All this jumping from location to location for no reason, intercut with flashbacks and hallucinations, makes the "plot" hard to follow. Fear not, for it will all become perfectly clear with the low-rent M. Night Shyamalan wannabe twist ending. Turns out Wendy has been dead for 17 years. Wait...oh crap...don't read that part. **Spoiler alert** Too late now I guess. If you put the clues together you come to the conclusion that Grandpa had molested Karen and was getting an eye for Wendy. When Karen tried to stop him, apparently Wendy was knocked off the balcony and died. The scenes in the movie were Karen exercising her demons and getting some kind of closure. Pierce personified Grandpa and was a figment of her imagination. It is a cheap cop-out to explain away huge plot holes as being the result of a delusional mind. Shame on you filmakers. If you were to rewatch the film with the foreknowledge that Pierce represents Bad Grandpa, then the painfully clumsy, bad dialog becomes a string of disturbing sexual double entendre. Phrases like: "You've gotta show them who's boss and that they ARE going to be ridden." "Climb on, put your right hand here, don't squeeze your legs too tight, grab this, happy endings, wanna come with me, get in the bed, what do you do better than dance"? etc. I've seen a few thrillers like this lately that have resorted to the incest angle to create the antagonist. Giving Grandpas a bad name. This movie looked like a decent production cinematography wise, but was doomed by a lame script, weak premise, and horrible acting. The elements were there: house with red hallway, rats, fake deer that they got for half price because it was missing an antler, fake blood, tub, mirrors, wind and rain machines, guns and knives, axe, creepy music and boobies. What went wrong? I figure that the masochists among you will ignore advice to the contrary and insist on at least renting this mess just to see if it is really all that bad. A used copy is less than a buck, but then you have to pay shipping, and it is not worth it. If you happen to find a copy of this movie taped to a stick being used as a driveway reflector, then "borrow" it and see for yourself, but I don't recommend wasting any time or money on it. Don't worry, I won't let you fall.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
To Grandmother's House We Go...
Added 9/25/2008
I really like Tom Sizemore. I even liked him in THE RELIC, an otherwise putrid affair. I loved Gina Philips in JEEPERS CREEPERS, and yes, she's a hottie. My main problem w/ RING AROUND THE ROSIE is that it takes too long to get going and to get to the point. This would have made a fantastic episode of TWILIGHT ZONE / NIGHT GALLERY / ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS etc., w/ about 40 minutes shaved off. The story is interesting enough- girl plagued by ghostly / psychological / evil hauntings. It just needs a big trim. As it stands, it's not terrible / unwatchable, it's just bloated. After seeing it once, I watched it again, fast-forwarding through the parts I knew to be superfluous, and found it far more enjoyable. I recommend this technique...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
surprisingly entertaining!
Added 9/16/2008
I READ OTHER REVIEWS ON THIS FILM AND EXPECTED THE MOVIE THAT I HAD RENTED TO BE LOUSY. WHAT A SURPRISE! IT HAD GREAT SUSPENSE AND THE SETTING WAS BRILLANT. I ALSO THOUGHT THE ACTING WAS SUPERB. THE MAIN ACTRESS AND THE HAUNTINGS MADE ME BELIEVE WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO HER.I WOULD SAY RENT THIS AND LET YOUR IMAGINATION GO WITH IT!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Tries, fails.
Added 7/18/2008
Ring Around the Rosie (Rubi Zack, 2006)
Here's a movie that really looks like it's going somewhere, then it cops out. It's not as disappointing as Les Revenants, because it never gets anywhere near that good, but it does look like it has at least a little potential-- a decent cast, some great scenery, character interaction that really does have a creepy feel to it, and then all the sudden, bam. You're stuck in the hell that is the Hollywood cliché.
The story: Karen Baldwin (Jeepers Creepers' Gina Philips) inherits her grandparents' summer home, with express deathbed instructions from her grandmother to clean it up and sell it. She and her boyfriend Jeff (Randall Batinkoff, Dead Man's Curve) drive out to do the job, then they realize that it's going to take a lot more time than they thought. Jeff heads back to his job in the city, leaving Karen to do the job, assisted by Pierce (Paparazzi's Tom Sizemore), the caretaker. Karen is surprised by the arrival of her sister Wendy (D.E.B.S.' Jenny Mollen), and before long, the two of them are spending a lot more time reminiscing than actually getting anything done. Karen, however, is quite unhappy with the attention Pierce is paying Wendy, and Wendy's flirtatious attitude towards it.
The biggest problem with the movie is that you can see the ending coming no more than five minutes in. The second-biggest is that the script-- which it seems to have taken four people to write, according to IMDB-- never even attempts to give you any red herrings or the like; it's a mystery/thriller where there's no mystery and very few thrills. I wouldn't call it (as some IMDB pundits have) the worst movie ever-- I'd rather sit through this for a week straight, on infinite repeat, than every have to watch five minutes of Dances with Wolves ever again-- but there's absolutely nothing about it to recommend. The acting is competent, but rarely rises above that (and when it does, it's usually Tom Sizemore's fault); the same can be said of the direction, without anything after the "but". The pacing is awful, the cinematography pedestrian. Even the sound doesn't stand out. It's a perfectly bland film. But at least it achieved perfection in one respect. **
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
