Film Filter: Off Again, I reviewed one of my favorite movies, partially due to the fact that this falls into my made-up genre of "Theological Thrillers". This film is also great because it is so much more than it seems on the surface; it's the definition of a diamond in the rough.
Pros- Having Denzel as the leading man really enhances just about any film. He does a fantastic job, as Denzel always does, and it doesn't hurt that the story line is very good.
To go off of that, the plot (and evolution of said plot) plays a very important part in several aspects of the film. There are MANY small roles, for example, that play big parts in the evolution of this story, and the directors did a good job of making that happen smoothly. The narration is also a very important part of the story, and if you've watched the movie more than once you truly appreciate it that much more.
In terms of characters, there were a few big actors featured in this film. I'd have to say, with the exception of some, the smaller characters are what really push this film out of the great and into excellent category. In order for the film to work properly, seemingly innocent people need to sporadically take on a drastic, malevolent personality change. They selected those individuals quite well, and they all executed their role with a creepy believability, along with a smooth transition back to normalcy.
The entire situation involving Denzel's character, Detective John Hobbes, is expertly unfolded. As he is antagonized, it little by little becomes harassment, then further unveils to threats and being set-up. While this interesting plot is happening on the surface, there is also a much darker, ancient story happening that intertwines with it. Pairing that with sprinklings of past circumstances in the precinct, and specific details regarding the murders, this story becomes a tri-level tale of good vs. evil.
Last, but never least, is the fantastic ending. I don't really want to give it away, but it is definitely unexpected, and makes the whole movie that much deeper.
Cons- I don't really have any, other than one thing that is a slight annoyance more than a con. Is John Hobbes' brother slow? I can't really tell. At some points, I think it's obvious that he is, and at other times I wonder if he's just supposed to be a quirky character.
Wrap up- This film is a must see for the Theological Thriller fan. It really is a one-of-a-kind film.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Primal Fear
Film Filter: Off- I remember stumbling across this film when I was about 14 or 15 years old while my mom was watching it. I caught it about half way through, and it has since been one of my all time favorite movies, along with being the film that brought Edward Norton's acting prowess to my attention.
Pros- The cast in this film did a spectacular job delivering the roles they were given, particularly Norton. I'm a firm believer that, being his first big film, this is the movie that jump-started his career. Others may argue that it was Fight Club, but I counter that he never would have gotten that role if he had not first played Aaron Stampler in this film.
The story is interesting, interwoven, and impeccably played out. Although the movie can't take credit for that, since it was a book first, I would argue that this movie does the book justice. After I read it, I'll let you know.
By far and away the best part of this film is the way it ends. I can't say anything more or I'll spoil it, but it's what makes this film my favorite.
Cons- Keeping in mind that this movie is from the mid nineties, the following are more or less idiosyncrasies of the era rather than actual complaints.
The chase scene music is like the Seinfeld theme song meets a faulty electronic drum machine. Ick.
Some of the dialogue is a little cheesy, it probably worked within the confines of the book, but the movie didn't allow it to transition smoothly.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie needs to be seen if you haven't already done so. I mean, even the idiots on Netflix rated it 5 stars. If you like crime thrillers, and if you like Edward Norton, this is a must-see.
Pros- The cast in this film did a spectacular job delivering the roles they were given, particularly Norton. I'm a firm believer that, being his first big film, this is the movie that jump-started his career. Others may argue that it was Fight Club, but I counter that he never would have gotten that role if he had not first played Aaron Stampler in this film.
The story is interesting, interwoven, and impeccably played out. Although the movie can't take credit for that, since it was a book first, I would argue that this movie does the book justice. After I read it, I'll let you know.
By far and away the best part of this film is the way it ends. I can't say anything more or I'll spoil it, but it's what makes this film my favorite.
Cons- Keeping in mind that this movie is from the mid nineties, the following are more or less idiosyncrasies of the era rather than actual complaints.
The chase scene music is like the Seinfeld theme song meets a faulty electronic drum machine. Ick.
Some of the dialogue is a little cheesy, it probably worked within the confines of the book, but the movie didn't allow it to transition smoothly.
Wrap up- Overall, this movie needs to be seen if you haven't already done so. I mean, even the idiots on Netflix rated it 5 stars. If you like crime thrillers, and if you like Edward Norton, this is a must-see.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Film Filter: Off - Horror Movie 101: Lesson Learned
What piece of advice have YOU received from horror films?
I'll start.
So I drive a 2006 PT Cruiser named Pheobe. She's periwinkle, and the inside of her is like a walking advertisement for Waste Management, but we still love each other. A lot of times people ask me why I selected her for my automobile, and I give a lot of reasons. "I like the color." "She was affordable." "I like to drive mini-hearses in bizarre colors." etc. Well, few people know the real reason I selected Pheobe, so feel honored by your now inclusion to this elite group.
 |
| THE PHEOBS |
While, no, I don't care all that much about make, model, color, interior, or other superfluous aspects of vehicles, there is one attribute that is non-negotiable: having four doors.
Is it starting to click, yet?
In the back of my twisted, overly paranoid (yet logical!) mind, my adult self is reverting back to the hundreds of scary movies I have seen that involve some sort of chase between the villain and the victim. Let me paint a worst-case-scenario picture for you:
Three of my friends and I are walking to my car from a long day at the beach. It's a two-door Honda Civic. All of a sudden (gasp!) Swamp-Man appears on the shore, and begins chasing us down! Struggling to sprint in flip flops, two of us make it to the car ahead of the others...and Swamp-Man is right on their tails! The other two finally make it to the car but, in my panic, I've dropped the keys! I have just enough time to open the door, unlock the passenger door, and then there is a split second to make a life or death decision:
 |
| AHHH! |
Option 1: Should I fold back the seats and let the slow pokes in, leaving my other friend and I vulnerable? If we get killed first, then the doors remain open and unlocked for Swamp-Man to reach my other friends. Besides, we all know how long it actually takes for people to get behind the retarded folding seats: too long. Not only will my quick-like-a-fox friend and I surely perish, but there's a more than good chance we all will. No bueno.
Option 2: Should I hop in with the shotgun passenger and leave the other two stranded? If I hop in with my (not slow) friend and immediately lock the doors, my other two friends may have a chance to escape if they can run. Plus, I now have the opportunity to try to run Swamp-Man over with my car, provided he doesn't have absurd Jeepers Creepers like jumping abilities.
As you can see, option 2 is the winner here. Will my friends maybe die? Yes, and that would suck, but the survival rate overall would improve, and we have to think globally in these times of distress.
Here's the beautiful thing, though. With Pheobe, I don't have to choose between my friends living or dying! Provided I never travel with more than four people, my sufficiently-doored PT Cruiser has enough room for everyone to survive and that, my friends, is my Horror Movie 101: Lesson Learned-
ALWAYS HAVE A FOUR DOOR VEHICLE!
(Unless you're a selfish prick and want your friends to die.)
So...it's your turn! Now YOU get to tell ME what life lessons you've taken out of horror flicks. Comment on my post, or e-mail me at chiapet_45@hotmail.com to let me know! I'll take the top ones and post them on my blog for all to read, but in order for that to happen, you've got to get in touch with me. I'm dying to hear from you. :)
-Corri
Film Filter: Off - The Others
The Others PG-13 (2001)
Film Filter: Off- This film appears to be dark, mysterious, and has all the right ingredients to the recipe to be scary. After ingredients are prepared according to directions, however, it disappoints.
Pros- Nicole Kidman and the two children deliver very believable and hearty performances. Overall, the entire cast does an excellent job portraying their characters and administering to the dialogue, which is good since speaking envelops most of the film.
The setup for the setting is quite clever as well. Similar to The Woman in Black, this story is successful in its ability to be true to an unfamiliar time period to most of the viewers of the film. When done properly, this concept can prove to enhance the level of fear by the audience, due to the idiosyncrasies of the time period i.e. no electricity, no phones, no neighbors, etc. It was also an interesting, and useful, twist that the children were allergic to light. This required most of the scenes to take place during the dark, which (voila!) is a naturally occurring, perfect set up to a scary movie.
I will say that for the few shortcomings the film offers, the ending makes up for it. A very good twist ending that I didn't see coming.
Cons- For a scary movie...this film is pretty damn un-scary. With the exception of one part, that you could argue is more freakish than actually frightening, there really is a lot to be desired in this film. A lot of the suspenseful portions were just things going bump in the night, doors closing unexpectedly, and unexplained seeings from the daughter's perspective. While these components are all well and good for a scary movie build up, they are left to dangle while there is no follow through on actually seeing or experiencing these things first hand. Unless you want to do the Paranormal Activity route and use the "found footage" genre that is catching like wildfire, it is very difficult to make a movie that is "scary" without SHOWING the audience something.
Wrap up- This is not a bad movie, if you're looking for a suspenseful drama with a slow moving plot and lots of dialogue. Definitely not for the average thrill seeking, scary movie veteran, though.
Film Filter: Off- This film appears to be dark, mysterious, and has all the right ingredients to the recipe to be scary. After ingredients are prepared according to directions, however, it disappoints.
Pros- Nicole Kidman and the two children deliver very believable and hearty performances. Overall, the entire cast does an excellent job portraying their characters and administering to the dialogue, which is good since speaking envelops most of the film.
The setup for the setting is quite clever as well. Similar to The Woman in Black, this story is successful in its ability to be true to an unfamiliar time period to most of the viewers of the film. When done properly, this concept can prove to enhance the level of fear by the audience, due to the idiosyncrasies of the time period i.e. no electricity, no phones, no neighbors, etc. It was also an interesting, and useful, twist that the children were allergic to light. This required most of the scenes to take place during the dark, which (voila!) is a naturally occurring, perfect set up to a scary movie.
I will say that for the few shortcomings the film offers, the ending makes up for it. A very good twist ending that I didn't see coming.
Cons- For a scary movie...this film is pretty damn un-scary. With the exception of one part, that you could argue is more freakish than actually frightening, there really is a lot to be desired in this film. A lot of the suspenseful portions were just things going bump in the night, doors closing unexpectedly, and unexplained seeings from the daughter's perspective. While these components are all well and good for a scary movie build up, they are left to dangle while there is no follow through on actually seeing or experiencing these things first hand. Unless you want to do the Paranormal Activity route and use the "found footage" genre that is catching like wildfire, it is very difficult to make a movie that is "scary" without SHOWING the audience something.
Wrap up- This is not a bad movie, if you're looking for a suspenseful drama with a slow moving plot and lots of dialogue. Definitely not for the average thrill seeking, scary movie veteran, though.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Film FIlter: Off - Shutter Island
Film Filter: Off- Unlike the norm, I actually read this book before the movie. I have a theory that, if you read a book AFTER watching the movie, you'll never be disappointed because the book is almost always better. I broke my cardinal rule in this case, though, and it didn't really matter all that much because both were quite good.
Pros- Having Leonardo DiCaprio on board as a leading actor pretty much slates your movie as incapable of doing wrong...unless it's the Beach. But, Leo again does not fail to put forth yet another amazing performance in his Bahston accent as Federal marshall Teddy Daniels. Mark Ruffalo also does a perfect job as his simpleton sidekick, who seems to just be along for the ride.
The story line itself is a good one, but the movie does a good job of bringing it to life. The cinematography is pretty good, and the scenery is believable. The pacing of the story, like any book to movie transition, is a little choppy and leaves parts out. Again, the movie does a good job of seaming together the important parts so that the audience won't even notice the little gaps in the plot.
The music selection for the film is ever so simple, but it WORKS. I liked the low, minor string selections. The job of movie music in my mind, provided it's not thematic like Star Wars or other John Williams scores, is to be such a good fit that you hardly recognize it's there at all. Just like special effects, they should be there to enhance the film, but shouldn't be the forefront of it. Kudos, music team, kudos.
The ending. I can't give the movie credit for that, obviously, but I can give the movie credit for the things they did well to set up for the ending. Much like Inception, you really need to watch this movie twice to fully appreciate what has been done.
Cons- I will say that some of the flashback scenes become awkward at times. I can't really pinpoint why, but there's something about them that doesn't flow smoothly to me. Keeping in mind that they're either dreams or flashbacks, it's a very nitpicky statement because I'm sure the director deliberately affected the scenes to make them stand out as "not reality".
Wrap up- This is a fantastic movie to watch, but it's definitely an intellect's horror film. It's not the knid of movie to just pop in for a quick scare, but one you really have to pull apart and think about. Great cast, good dialogue, awesome carrying out of a well written story, and a great ending.
Pros- Having Leonardo DiCaprio on board as a leading actor pretty much slates your movie as incapable of doing wrong...unless it's the Beach. But, Leo again does not fail to put forth yet another amazing performance in his Bahston accent as Federal marshall Teddy Daniels. Mark Ruffalo also does a perfect job as his simpleton sidekick, who seems to just be along for the ride.
The story line itself is a good one, but the movie does a good job of bringing it to life. The cinematography is pretty good, and the scenery is believable. The pacing of the story, like any book to movie transition, is a little choppy and leaves parts out. Again, the movie does a good job of seaming together the important parts so that the audience won't even notice the little gaps in the plot.
The music selection for the film is ever so simple, but it WORKS. I liked the low, minor string selections. The job of movie music in my mind, provided it's not thematic like Star Wars or other John Williams scores, is to be such a good fit that you hardly recognize it's there at all. Just like special effects, they should be there to enhance the film, but shouldn't be the forefront of it. Kudos, music team, kudos.
The ending. I can't give the movie credit for that, obviously, but I can give the movie credit for the things they did well to set up for the ending. Much like Inception, you really need to watch this movie twice to fully appreciate what has been done.
Cons- I will say that some of the flashback scenes become awkward at times. I can't really pinpoint why, but there's something about them that doesn't flow smoothly to me. Keeping in mind that they're either dreams or flashbacks, it's a very nitpicky statement because I'm sure the director deliberately affected the scenes to make them stand out as "not reality".
Wrap up- This is a fantastic movie to watch, but it's definitely an intellect's horror film. It's not the knid of movie to just pop in for a quick scare, but one you really have to pull apart and think about. Great cast, good dialogue, awesome carrying out of a well written story, and a great ending.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Film Filter: Off - 7 Below
Film Filter: Off- This movie looked very promising. It included Val Kilmer in the cast, who I feel hasn't done a hit movie in eons, and an enticing story line about a century old house where a family was slaughtered. All in all, I feel like you can't go wrong with that plot...but somehow they did.
Pros- My only pro would be that the Latina woman was hot, but the problem was that she facially favored Eva Mendes and let's face it- this girl didn't even come close to that level of gorgeousness. For the first time I can remember, I have zero pros for a film. Cue slow clap.
Cons- Okay, here's the shortened version of the plethora of things wrong with this film. I'll break it down via the interrogative words lesson I learned, circa 3rd grade.
Who?- Val Kilmer. Fat. Enough said. I kid, but really, the former Batman leading man has let himself gooooo. Plus his role in this film is pretty douche-y, and he is only featured in it for a grand total of about 11 minutes. False advertising. Also, Ving Rhames is in a weeeeeeird role that I don't really think anyone could do justice with but thanks for playing, Ving. The rest of the cast is pretty much a collection of no name actors that even IMDB couldn't scrounge up any information on. Tsk tsk.
What?- What the $&#? is more like it. This film is SO poorly done that I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with really bad, unbelievable acting of TERRIBLY constructed characters with zero depth, and lack of believable relationships between characters which, let's face it, can't really happen well if your characters suck to begin with. Throw into the mix poorly done and highly predictable death scenes and pop out moments and you have yourself the most boring, translucent horror film that I've seen in a while. If I hadn't forced myself to blog about it today, I would have forgotten so much of it I wouldn't have been able to write about it at all.
When?- This story takes place 100 years after a family was slaughtered by their possessed son. So, now everyone has to die? Really? That's dumb and makes no sense.
Where?- I don't know. Some mid-western state that starts with an "M". It could have taken place in my living room and I still wouldn't have found it entertaining.
Why?- Good question. I keep asking myself the same thing.
Wrap-up- This has got to be, hands down, arguably one of the most terrible horror movies I have ever seen. At least with other busts they attempt some iota of a story line that works, and you can at least find some humor in the stupidity of the film. This one is just frustrating! The dialogue is awful, the characters are lack luster, the plot is disjointed and the ending is anti-climactic. There is nothing about this film worth watching. End of story.
Pros- My only pro would be that the Latina woman was hot, but the problem was that she facially favored Eva Mendes and let's face it- this girl didn't even come close to that level of gorgeousness. For the first time I can remember, I have zero pros for a film. Cue slow clap.
Cons- Okay, here's the shortened version of the plethora of things wrong with this film. I'll break it down via the interrogative words lesson I learned, circa 3rd grade.
Who?- Val Kilmer. Fat. Enough said. I kid, but really, the former Batman leading man has let himself gooooo. Plus his role in this film is pretty douche-y, and he is only featured in it for a grand total of about 11 minutes. False advertising. Also, Ving Rhames is in a weeeeeeird role that I don't really think anyone could do justice with but thanks for playing, Ving. The rest of the cast is pretty much a collection of no name actors that even IMDB couldn't scrounge up any information on. Tsk tsk.
What?- What the $&#? is more like it. This film is SO poorly done that I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with really bad, unbelievable acting of TERRIBLY constructed characters with zero depth, and lack of believable relationships between characters which, let's face it, can't really happen well if your characters suck to begin with. Throw into the mix poorly done and highly predictable death scenes and pop out moments and you have yourself the most boring, translucent horror film that I've seen in a while. If I hadn't forced myself to blog about it today, I would have forgotten so much of it I wouldn't have been able to write about it at all.
When?- This story takes place 100 years after a family was slaughtered by their possessed son. So, now everyone has to die? Really? That's dumb and makes no sense.
Where?- I don't know. Some mid-western state that starts with an "M". It could have taken place in my living room and I still wouldn't have found it entertaining.
Why?- Good question. I keep asking myself the same thing.
Wrap-up- This has got to be, hands down, arguably one of the most terrible horror movies I have ever seen. At least with other busts they attempt some iota of a story line that works, and you can at least find some humor in the stupidity of the film. This one is just frustrating! The dialogue is awful, the characters are lack luster, the plot is disjointed and the ending is anti-climactic. There is nothing about this film worth watching. End of story.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Film Filter:Off - The Cabin in the Woods
Film Filter: Off- This movie is definitely two things on the surface, pre-viewing: vague, and misleading. This movie is also two things post-viewing: vague and misleading.
Pros- It definitely has the mysterious quality going for it. Nothing in this movie, on the surface, is what it actually is. That being said, they deliver this dual plot in a very up front and humorous way, while still leaving enough information to be discovered to keep the story interesting. Well done.
The cast is fresh enough, with just a dash of familiarity to keep it from being a bust. One of my rules for a successful horror flick? If you consider yourself fairly well versed in actor/actress knowledge, and you haven't heard of ANYONE in the cast, it's probably a bust.
It's pretty refreshing to see a scary movie try to do some things right, despite that it breaks every successful scary movie rule. It's nice to see this one attempt realism by having their cast react the way normal people would when faced with a terrifying situation- run away from the problem. No one really TRIES to run toward danger, and if they do they're hopefully equipped with something to combat it. This movie makes the characters look like they value their lives enough to think intelligibly, which is nice to see.
Think of the funniest person you know...what makes them so funny? Probably some ability to make fun of people, his or herself included. It's healthy to laugh at yourself every once in awhile, mainly for the fact that hopefully you can beat other people to it so it's not so awkward. Anyway, this movie does a good job of healthily making fun of itself and the genre, kudos.
Cons- I would argue there are almost as many things that make this movie freaking weird as there are that make it interesting to watch, so it's sort of a crap shoot depending on how you look at the film.
First off, it was decided that the most frightening part of the whole film was the opening credits where they slap the title of the movie abruptly on the screen. Other than that, it's almost unfair to classify this film as a horror film. While, yes, there are deaths, elements of horror, and grotesque images, there isn't much more than that that makes this movie scary. Throw into the mix the frequent moments of humor, and it deviates from the horror genre even further.
Secondly, I am slightly irked with the progression of the plot. If we break the flow of the story into percentages, the first 70% runs smoothly with information gained yet questions to remain as well. The last 30% of the film, however, takes a nose dive into an abysmal mess of heavily effected villains, an over abundance of grotesque deaths, and weird plot turns. This movie could have gone in many directions, but the one it went in was a weird one for sure.
Also plaguing me after the film is by far one of my biggest pet peeves with any movie: lack of information/back story. Young people need to be sacrificed for the ancient gods to remain dormant. Okay, but it looks like all they REALLY need is a bunch of blood flowing throw ancient hieroglyphics to make them happy sooo....why not just kill animals? I say this because one of the carved hieroglyphics runs with blood when they THINK someone's dead who's really not...so if they can't tell, why do people need to die in the first place? Along this train of thought is the need for five sacrifices of various qualities: athlete, whore, virgin, fool, academic. Apparently, of all the countries performing this ritual, the one featured in the film is the ONLY one that has had any deaths. So...if many countries participate, how many need to be successful in order for the ritual to work? Only one? Then why not sacrifice only 5 people and get it over with! Quality over quantity, people.
Lastly, keeping in mind my enjoyment of the believability of the actors and their personas, is the UN-believabilty of how they react when injured. Someone gets stabbed in the shoulder blade, bear trapped in the back, thrown around by a hulking beast several times, and half eaten by a werewolf and they aren't in any severe pain? Please.
Wrap-up- Unanswered questions and lack of believability aside, this movie actually isn't bad...if you're looking for a laugh. I actually don't mean that as sarcasm, either. If your looking for a funny, entertaining film (up until the end at least) you could watch it. If you're looking for a scary movie, though, you may want to keep looking.
Pros- It definitely has the mysterious quality going for it. Nothing in this movie, on the surface, is what it actually is. That being said, they deliver this dual plot in a very up front and humorous way, while still leaving enough information to be discovered to keep the story interesting. Well done.
The cast is fresh enough, with just a dash of familiarity to keep it from being a bust. One of my rules for a successful horror flick? If you consider yourself fairly well versed in actor/actress knowledge, and you haven't heard of ANYONE in the cast, it's probably a bust.
It's pretty refreshing to see a scary movie try to do some things right, despite that it breaks every successful scary movie rule. It's nice to see this one attempt realism by having their cast react the way normal people would when faced with a terrifying situation- run away from the problem. No one really TRIES to run toward danger, and if they do they're hopefully equipped with something to combat it. This movie makes the characters look like they value their lives enough to think intelligibly, which is nice to see.
Think of the funniest person you know...what makes them so funny? Probably some ability to make fun of people, his or herself included. It's healthy to laugh at yourself every once in awhile, mainly for the fact that hopefully you can beat other people to it so it's not so awkward. Anyway, this movie does a good job of healthily making fun of itself and the genre, kudos.
Cons- I would argue there are almost as many things that make this movie freaking weird as there are that make it interesting to watch, so it's sort of a crap shoot depending on how you look at the film.
First off, it was decided that the most frightening part of the whole film was the opening credits where they slap the title of the movie abruptly on the screen. Other than that, it's almost unfair to classify this film as a horror film. While, yes, there are deaths, elements of horror, and grotesque images, there isn't much more than that that makes this movie scary. Throw into the mix the frequent moments of humor, and it deviates from the horror genre even further.
Secondly, I am slightly irked with the progression of the plot. If we break the flow of the story into percentages, the first 70% runs smoothly with information gained yet questions to remain as well. The last 30% of the film, however, takes a nose dive into an abysmal mess of heavily effected villains, an over abundance of grotesque deaths, and weird plot turns. This movie could have gone in many directions, but the one it went in was a weird one for sure.
Also plaguing me after the film is by far one of my biggest pet peeves with any movie: lack of information/back story. Young people need to be sacrificed for the ancient gods to remain dormant. Okay, but it looks like all they REALLY need is a bunch of blood flowing throw ancient hieroglyphics to make them happy sooo....why not just kill animals? I say this because one of the carved hieroglyphics runs with blood when they THINK someone's dead who's really not...so if they can't tell, why do people need to die in the first place? Along this train of thought is the need for five sacrifices of various qualities: athlete, whore, virgin, fool, academic. Apparently, of all the countries performing this ritual, the one featured in the film is the ONLY one that has had any deaths. So...if many countries participate, how many need to be successful in order for the ritual to work? Only one? Then why not sacrifice only 5 people and get it over with! Quality over quantity, people.
Lastly, keeping in mind my enjoyment of the believability of the actors and their personas, is the UN-believabilty of how they react when injured. Someone gets stabbed in the shoulder blade, bear trapped in the back, thrown around by a hulking beast several times, and half eaten by a werewolf and they aren't in any severe pain? Please.
Wrap-up- Unanswered questions and lack of believability aside, this movie actually isn't bad...if you're looking for a laugh. I actually don't mean that as sarcasm, either. If your looking for a funny, entertaining film (up until the end at least) you could watch it. If you're looking for a scary movie, though, you may want to keep looking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)