This film had it going on and simply fizzled out. I liked the idea, I liked the acting and how it was shot and the time sequences. I really loved the idea of having nightmares in a coma and how they could effect his outcome of life or death and related to his fears. However, by the end it really just is not worth watching. I agree with a lot of the negative reviews, although not quite as harsh as most. It has a lot of similarities to Jacobs Ladder only it makes more sense, meaning it has an explainable ending. However, Jacobs Ladder is far superior. The first half of the film really builds up and as you're watching you can't wait for it to unfold but it just whimpers out. Also, Im a big horror film fan, any and all types. The gore in the movie didn't even faze me, it simply was not compelling at all. You didn't empathize enough with the patient or cringe at what was taking place. Overall pretty weak when I thought it could have been great.
112 Reviews
These routine operations cost you an arm and a leg
Coventry3 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Well this is surely one of the most complex new horror movies this year. Complex to follow as well as to analyze and to recommend to others. "Sublime" undoubtedly benefices from a handful of good or even downright great ideas, an ideally petrifying setting and a fair amount of genuine suspense, but at other times (most of the time, regretfully) the film is simply too dull, too derivative and far too implausible. This movie is actually a psychological thriller but it shamelessly got promoted as a hardcore gruesome horror flick (it's from the same label that produced "Rest Stop"), and this probably raised a couple of wrong expectations. "Sublime" is not a wild and savage slasher set inside a hospital, but one person's nightmarish journey into the world of medical blunders, agonizing fear, isolation and comatose hallucinations. Only one day after his fortieth birthday, George Grieves (Thomas Cavanagh, who occasionally appears in the comical hospital show "Scrubs") enrolls into Mt. Abaddon Hospital for a routine colonoscopy procedure, but then of course the unthinkable happens. There's a mix-up between patients, an unnecessary operation with serious physical consequences, an infection with a flesh-eating bacteria and a lot of sinister hinting at what may or may not be going on in the ramshackle and supposedly closed down East Wing section. The script is okay and moderately intelligent, but also a bit too ambitious for its own good and even somewhat pretentious. Director Tony Krantz continuously attempts to mislead you through blending together hallucinations, 'realities' and flashback moments from during George's birthday party with family and friends. Obviously the sequences where George's gets menaced and even tortured by a bow-tie-wearing male black nurse called Mandingo (!), or has sex with the hot tattooed nurse are hallucinatory, but others are just confusing for no real reason. Perhaps the best element about "Sublime" is the painfully realistic portrayal of the hospital staff during a tragic and life-altering medical blunder like this. They are arrogant, defensive, seemingly careless and reluctant to take responsibility. Only the ravishing nurse is sincerely concerned, partly because she made a terrible mistake as well, but mostly because nurses are simply more involved with their patients. Fans of explicit bloodshed beware, as "Sublime" is nothing like the DVD-cover promises. There are only two or three mildly gruesome scenes while the overall emphasis lies on family drama and mysteriousness.
Tries to be too many things
Nooshin_Navidi11 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with this film is that it's not really a true horror flick, nor is it a very convincing drama. And the script beats you over the head with metaphors and symbols to make its too-many points.
If the goal was to bring to light the damage "fear" can do to us, it didn't work for me. All it managed to do was to make a mockery of the film's valid points (and make me hope never to land in a hospital.) A great film about fear of the unfamiliar and distrust of people of other backgrounds/color/race, was 'Crash'. It dealt with fear, racism, sexism, violence, misogyny, love, sex and human alienation, and managed to do so brilliantly and touchingly while maintaining a consistent level of suspense.
By taking the "horror" slant, 'Sublime' caricaturized the message and the characters. The unrealistic "sexy nurse", the sloppy and again unrealistic banter with the Persian doctor about his nationality/credentials, Mandingo's deranged & angry black-vs.-white racial rants and sadistic acts, were all so over-the-top that all they managed to do was annoy me.
But I still gave the film a few stars because I actually liked Tom Cavanaugh in this role, and the rest of the actors were okay though not great, with the exception again of Zoe & Mandingo, who were both just ridiculous stereotypes instead of well-portrayed manifestations of our deepest desires and fears. I blame neither the actors or the director, but the writer.
I did like the soundtrack quite a bit; too bad it had to accompany such a silly script.
~NN
If the goal was to bring to light the damage "fear" can do to us, it didn't work for me. All it managed to do was to make a mockery of the film's valid points (and make me hope never to land in a hospital.) A great film about fear of the unfamiliar and distrust of people of other backgrounds/color/race, was 'Crash'. It dealt with fear, racism, sexism, violence, misogyny, love, sex and human alienation, and managed to do so brilliantly and touchingly while maintaining a consistent level of suspense.
By taking the "horror" slant, 'Sublime' caricaturized the message and the characters. The unrealistic "sexy nurse", the sloppy and again unrealistic banter with the Persian doctor about his nationality/credentials, Mandingo's deranged & angry black-vs.-white racial rants and sadistic acts, were all so over-the-top that all they managed to do was annoy me.
But I still gave the film a few stars because I actually liked Tom Cavanaugh in this role, and the rest of the actors were okay though not great, with the exception again of Zoe & Mandingo, who were both just ridiculous stereotypes instead of well-portrayed manifestations of our deepest desires and fears. I blame neither the actors or the director, but the writer.
I did like the soundtrack quite a bit; too bad it had to accompany such a silly script.
~NN
Lesson: Life is precious... unfortunately you waste 2 hours of yours to find that out..
ptiming4 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I hate this..
I saw this film at it's world premier at the Cinequest Film Festival in San Jose last night..
I come to IMDb, and I find a virgin user's comment section...
And I have to write a negative review, dammit.
I wanted to like this film... and for the first 45 minutes or so, I was moderately captivated.. All the symbolism.. The guessing at what was really happening with the constant flashback.. The weirdness of the hospital setting... The *hot* nurse..
But then they had to do what a film that can possibly be about the internal struggle of a dying man has the opportunity to do: they blatantly ripped off Jacob's Ladder. After somehow convincing his nurse (in the stripper stiletto heels no less) to wheel him into the condemned section of the hospital, he's taken on a Mr. Toad's Wild Ride down hallways past operating rooms with grotesque liposuction surgeries, weird crazy ladies nursing babies..... THE SAME FRICKIN' SCENE AS JACOB'S LADDER... Oh wait, he's on a gurney in JL and in this thing it's a wheelchair....
Anywho... from that point on, I just could not take this film seriously at all.. I found myself laughing at what I suppose (based on the silence in the rest of the theater, with the exception of that one guy snoring) were "inappropriate" times.. It just dragged on and on with this standard "is this happening or not?" motif... Even the gratuitous sex scene with the nurse and the gratuitous violence of Mandingo's scene did not rekindle my interest. Clearly there are about 4 or 5 political messages being bantered about here as well (the state of healthcare in the US, obsequious insurance practices, the Terri Schiavo debacle), but they're just too obvious to be terribly effective. And speaking as a medical professional, there were major liberties taken with some of the healthcare aspects here as well.. No one can talk when they're intubated, dammit! Okay, so at this point, I'm nitpicking I suppose.. Did I mention that the music's pretty terrible as well? Alright... so I hated this movie... And according to IMDb, there's a *152 minute* version of this thing as well??? As if suffering through 111 minutes wasn't bad enough. If only I'd stuck around after A Dog's Breakfast, waded through the line of enthralled female sci-fi fans and gotten to meet David Hewlett.. Then I could have just gone home and watched Jacob's Ladder.
Calgon, take me away! pt
I saw this film at it's world premier at the Cinequest Film Festival in San Jose last night..
I come to IMDb, and I find a virgin user's comment section...
And I have to write a negative review, dammit.
I wanted to like this film... and for the first 45 minutes or so, I was moderately captivated.. All the symbolism.. The guessing at what was really happening with the constant flashback.. The weirdness of the hospital setting... The *hot* nurse..
But then they had to do what a film that can possibly be about the internal struggle of a dying man has the opportunity to do: they blatantly ripped off Jacob's Ladder. After somehow convincing his nurse (in the stripper stiletto heels no less) to wheel him into the condemned section of the hospital, he's taken on a Mr. Toad's Wild Ride down hallways past operating rooms with grotesque liposuction surgeries, weird crazy ladies nursing babies..... THE SAME FRICKIN' SCENE AS JACOB'S LADDER... Oh wait, he's on a gurney in JL and in this thing it's a wheelchair....
Anywho... from that point on, I just could not take this film seriously at all.. I found myself laughing at what I suppose (based on the silence in the rest of the theater, with the exception of that one guy snoring) were "inappropriate" times.. It just dragged on and on with this standard "is this happening or not?" motif... Even the gratuitous sex scene with the nurse and the gratuitous violence of Mandingo's scene did not rekindle my interest. Clearly there are about 4 or 5 political messages being bantered about here as well (the state of healthcare in the US, obsequious insurance practices, the Terri Schiavo debacle), but they're just too obvious to be terribly effective. And speaking as a medical professional, there were major liberties taken with some of the healthcare aspects here as well.. No one can talk when they're intubated, dammit! Okay, so at this point, I'm nitpicking I suppose.. Did I mention that the music's pretty terrible as well? Alright... so I hated this movie... And according to IMDb, there's a *152 minute* version of this thing as well??? As if suffering through 111 minutes wasn't bad enough. If only I'd stuck around after A Dog's Breakfast, waded through the line of enthralled female sci-fi fans and gotten to meet David Hewlett.. Then I could have just gone home and watched Jacob's Ladder.
Calgon, take me away! pt
Too much movie for too little of a premise.
jpmolyneux7 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie's trailer seemed decent. I hadn't heard anything and was willing to take a leap. Turns out that was a mistake.
The movie starts with George Grieves' birthday party. In all actuality this scene is used about 5 times throughout the movie, just further down the road.
This movie's trailer seemed cut for a psychological horror flick, and it did not deliver in that. The horror that George sees is simply shock, not horror. He continues to see disturbing imaging while his body seems to become brutalized by the care he has received by the hospital.
To see what would be a bad movie at first and then hear the interview with director Tony Krantz on how this terrible movie is basically America's foreign policy pushed it over the edge for me.
Endless amounts of symbolism does not make a good movie. If you're trying to convey a statement, especially a political one, it's best not to hide it behind what I would consider a terrible film and one that from what the interview states has no bearing on what the film is actually meant to convey.
The movie starts with George Grieves' birthday party. In all actuality this scene is used about 5 times throughout the movie, just further down the road.
This movie's trailer seemed cut for a psychological horror flick, and it did not deliver in that. The horror that George sees is simply shock, not horror. He continues to see disturbing imaging while his body seems to become brutalized by the care he has received by the hospital.
To see what would be a bad movie at first and then hear the interview with director Tony Krantz on how this terrible movie is basically America's foreign policy pushed it over the edge for me.
Endless amounts of symbolism does not make a good movie. If you're trying to convey a statement, especially a political one, it's best not to hide it behind what I would consider a terrible film and one that from what the interview states has no bearing on what the film is actually meant to convey.
Unbelievable Garbage
dokukaeru-117 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I beg of you not to waste your time with this straight to video release. It plays out like a bad episode of House and Days of our Lives combined. Maybe the guy should have had a clue when they wanted to put him out for a colonoscopy. Who knows, maybe that was still part of the dream state that the protagonist finds himself in. Between the just waking up scenes and the home shopping network channel cameos, they could have cut out a good 30 minutes of this movie. Then I would have only wasted 1 hr 20 minutes. Seriously though, look at the results of this study: A retrospective review of medical records of all patients with colon perforations from endoscopy over a 10-yr period. A total of 10,486 colonoscopies were performed over a 10-yr period. There were 20 (0.19%) perforations and two (0.019%) deaths related to colonoscopy and two perforations with no deaths in 49,501 sigmoidoscopies (0.004%). The majority of perforations (65%) occurred in the sigmoid colon. The mean age of the patients was 72 yr (range, 4887 yr). So tell me how does a 40 year old man get a perforated colon that results in a embolism?
Even less believable than the plot is the acting. If I woke up even once with a stitched up hole in my side. I would be in a wheel chair with a broomstick smacking people left and right on my way down to the lobby. PULL OUT THE FREAKING IV! Steven Seagull did it after waking up from a 4 year coma.
A couple of other noted things:
The soundtrack would put Vangelis to sleep.
This should have been billed as drama NOT HORROR.
Rated R for a few surgical shots, partial side nudity,
brief sexual acts and even briefer violence.
Even less believable than the plot is the acting. If I woke up even once with a stitched up hole in my side. I would be in a wheel chair with a broomstick smacking people left and right on my way down to the lobby. PULL OUT THE FREAKING IV! Steven Seagull did it after waking up from a 4 year coma.
A couple of other noted things:
The soundtrack would put Vangelis to sleep.
This should have been billed as drama NOT HORROR.
Rated R for a few surgical shots, partial side nudity,
brief sexual acts and even briefer violence.
Why all the bad reviews???!!!
notsobob200615 April 2007
Maybe the people giving bad reviews didn't watch the film all the way through. Its true the acting/script seems a little strange in parts, but otherwise this film is seriously intense. The ending had me hanging on the edge of my seat, and there are twists that come completely unexpectedly. Will he live or will he die? The answer is definitely worth the build-up.
Its true its fairly slow moving to start with but the whole way through it begs for a conclusion which makes it all the more rewarding when one finally comes.
If you're interested in human psychology, you will like this film.
Its true its fairly slow moving to start with but the whole way through it begs for a conclusion which makes it all the more rewarding when one finally comes.
If you're interested in human psychology, you will like this film.
Mediocre on many levels
captelephant10 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
As others have said, you can watch this movie on several levels.
If you take it at face value, it's not so bad. The first forty minutes are engaging, the middle is dragged out, and the end, while predictable, is suitably grotesque and unsettling. You'll be left with the impression that you watched a so-so thriller with vague political undertones and a weirdly racist finale.
If you watch it from the "facing your fears" perspective it holds up decently. A successful, white, middle class liberal does indeed fear these things: That his wife will leave him, that a tiny scratch will blossom into a horrible infection, that society is secretly brutalizing minorities or that a minority will directly brutalize him.
Unfortunately, presenting these fears is not the same thing as discussing them, and the viewer is left with the feeling that they were cheated. In the end, this movie has nothing to say about the topics it brings up.
Finally if you watch it from the "George as America" perspective that the director apparently intended, as per the special features on the disc, it's downright terrible.
From that perspective, the film appears to be saying that America is victimized by black people, America is victimized by Iran, but luckily Iran is incompetent, and hot nurses love America... and trees. These are, in fact, the exact opposites of the messages the director intended (except maybe the nurse thing). As is evident in his on-disc interview, what he meant to say amounts to "America sucks and is mean," not "poor America, brutalized by the world," which is what came across. This total lack of control over his own symbolism makes the message unintelligible without a running commentary, and therefore a complete failure.
So we're left with a pseudo-deep movie (read: BS philosophy meets jumbled politics) that fails on every level of viewing except the least ambitious - a hospital thriller - where it manages to be "okay."
Do I even need to say: Not Recommended?
If you take it at face value, it's not so bad. The first forty minutes are engaging, the middle is dragged out, and the end, while predictable, is suitably grotesque and unsettling. You'll be left with the impression that you watched a so-so thriller with vague political undertones and a weirdly racist finale.
If you watch it from the "facing your fears" perspective it holds up decently. A successful, white, middle class liberal does indeed fear these things: That his wife will leave him, that a tiny scratch will blossom into a horrible infection, that society is secretly brutalizing minorities or that a minority will directly brutalize him.
Unfortunately, presenting these fears is not the same thing as discussing them, and the viewer is left with the feeling that they were cheated. In the end, this movie has nothing to say about the topics it brings up.
Finally if you watch it from the "George as America" perspective that the director apparently intended, as per the special features on the disc, it's downright terrible.
From that perspective, the film appears to be saying that America is victimized by black people, America is victimized by Iran, but luckily Iran is incompetent, and hot nurses love America... and trees. These are, in fact, the exact opposites of the messages the director intended (except maybe the nurse thing). As is evident in his on-disc interview, what he meant to say amounts to "America sucks and is mean," not "poor America, brutalized by the world," which is what came across. This total lack of control over his own symbolism makes the message unintelligible without a running commentary, and therefore a complete failure.
So we're left with a pseudo-deep movie (read: BS philosophy meets jumbled politics) that fails on every level of viewing except the least ambitious - a hospital thriller - where it manages to be "okay."
Do I even need to say: Not Recommended?
Well Done. A Surprisingly Very Good Movie....
ConDeuce16 January 2012
Back around 1980, when cable TV started its proliferation, it still had that anything goes feel that happens with something new. HBO was one of the first premium channels and along with the usual movies that filled out its limited on-air hours (it was not on 24 hours back then) the network often programmed what could be described as filler content especially on the weekends when it was on the air for somewhat longer stretches. Most of these films were forgettable movies like Ashanti" (boring and lifeless) and "Voyage of Tanai" (truly a WTF movie if there ever was one). But into this mix would sometimes appear movies that did spark interest and sometimes became hits because of their airing on cable. Two films that come to mind are "Over the Edge" (which made a big impact on the girls in my 8th grade class due to Matt Dillon) and "Homebodies", a truly oddball movie about senior citizens becoming homicidal when confronted with the prospect of being evicted from their homes. Both of these films were true finds and could have found life playing commercial stations as well but their presence on cable made their impacts more pronounced because of the lack of commercials and no editing. "Sublime" falls into this category. Apparently a straight-to-video release, it stars what could only be described as second tier TV actors (Tom Cavanagh, George Newbern) and directed by Tony Krantz who had no directorial credits to his name. Surprisingly, the movie plays extraordinarily well. It's suitably eerie, confusing (intentionally so) and most importantly, it makes you care about the main characters especially Cavanagh's George and Kathleen York's as George's wife, Jenny. I will admit that I did not "get" a lot of what is allegedly the films symbolism and frankly the point of the movie really didn't hit me (I kept rewinding it right before the end to hear what Jenny and George were talking about because it seemed to be related to what he does) but to me, it didn't really matter. "Sublime" is not a film that someone just threw together. It has a great atmosphere, is intelligent and thoughtful and is certainly not your run-in-the-mill enterprise.
Not bad for his first film.
church_hill_419 March 2007
I'm not going to rate this as a bad film, and I can't see why people would. Don't expect a horror when watching this, it clearly reflects psychological thriller. The story will keep you wondering until the end on what exactly is happening in this film, and when the end does come the concept is acceptable but the events that took place during the ending seemed a little odd.
Let's also bear in mind that this is Tony Krantz first film as Director, and if you ask me he pulled it off well, the direction and shots where well laid out, the editing had some creative transitions between flashbacks, and the story was quite original in a day of cheesy slasher flicks. All in all the film was entertaining and filled out a night pleasantly
If your into Psychological thrillers *** Dave Recommends ***
Let's also bear in mind that this is Tony Krantz first film as Director, and if you ask me he pulled it off well, the direction and shots where well laid out, the editing had some creative transitions between flashbacks, and the story was quite original in a day of cheesy slasher flicks. All in all the film was entertaining and filled out a night pleasantly
If your into Psychological thrillers *** Dave Recommends ***
- A Clockwork Orange ~ Stanley Kubrick
Nothing "Sublime" about this cliché-driven snooze fest
ahmednawaz8 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
10 Reasons not to watch "Sublime"
1) The pretentious excuse for a plot. 2) Totally unrealistic-looking and gratuitous violence/sex scenes totally derivative from the pretentious excuse for a plot. 3) Muzak soundtrack. 4) The way it tries to pass itself off as a horror movie. 5) A pace (sort of) much better suited to a short "Twilight Zone" episode than a full movie. 6) Lousy acting. 7) Even lousier editing (annoying flashbacks serving as character background development). 8) Stereotypical characters (the bad doctor is Persian, the good nurse is white, the bad nurse is black and called, get this, "Mandingo", 2.5 kids per couple, etc.). 9) The "it's all a dream" ending. 10) The fact that there's a much better movie on a similar topic called "Jacob's Ladder"- do yourself a favor and stick to that one.
1) The pretentious excuse for a plot. 2) Totally unrealistic-looking and gratuitous violence/sex scenes totally derivative from the pretentious excuse for a plot. 3) Muzak soundtrack. 4) The way it tries to pass itself off as a horror movie. 5) A pace (sort of) much better suited to a short "Twilight Zone" episode than a full movie. 6) Lousy acting. 7) Even lousier editing (annoying flashbacks serving as character background development). 8) Stereotypical characters (the bad doctor is Persian, the good nurse is white, the bad nurse is black and called, get this, "Mandingo", 2.5 kids per couple, etc.). 9) The "it's all a dream" ending. 10) The fact that there's a much better movie on a similar topic called "Jacob's Ladder"- do yourself a favor and stick to that one.
The Filmmakers' POV
PrinceDakkar17 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Due to the the intensity of the discussion - the extreme nature of the comments on this board, I thought I'd throw this in, for what it's worth:
SUBLIME was an experiment on nearly every level. Raw Feed is a Warner Bros. experiment to make "horror" films within the broadest definition of the genre. Films designed to be released directly to DVD.
John Shiban, Tony Krantz and Daniel Myrick would each make a film in 15 days for a budget of roughly 1.5 million dollars. Any one of them essentially could do whatever they waned to do - to play into the genre, to satirize it, to bend it. Mr. Krantz's notion was to take the present atmosphere of fear and doubt that has pervaded our world; the very real statistics about "health care"; and the horror of the Terry Schiavo case, and make a movie. My involvement in the film came out of my close friendship with Tony. Inspired by an Ambrose Bierce short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"...the mystery of coma consciousness...the idea that when you close your eyes, your visual experience is limited to what you can remember...we crafted the script.
*******SPOILERS*******
Trying to capture our version of a fear-and-incident-inspired "coma consciousness" led to the film's intentionally languorous and lurid pace. It was a specific choice. Right or wrong, we were determined to stay true to George's vision: George is stuck in a 10-plus year-long persistent vegetative state within which he is encountering all the things he worries about manifest. His only respite is when he closes his eyes and remembers his "last supper" - and many of his coma-realities are inspired by incidental details experienced that night:
Is Jenny actually unhappy in spite of what he wants to believe by "looking into her eyes"? Is she going to leave him? Will his colonoscopy go wrong? Is his daughter experimenting with her sexual identity? Why is his son so fascinated by fear and evil? Is his partner going to stab him in the back? And what about the Unknown? The utterly unaddressed racism, abuse of minorities, and fundamentalist Islamic-terror that we've all been taught to fear? George is a version of a successful Everyman who worries about a lot without choosing to examine much.
He thinks it's enough to look in someone's eyes to know their truth. Well, clearly, it isn't.
And what happens when you lose complete control of your destiny and are stuck in a world of fear-made manifest? Well, if your guardian angel happens to be a demon manifestation of the "dark unknown" who will guide you through a confrontation with your fears...that journey might just free you to make a tough decision and take control of your destiny again. And that's what George does, tragically, at the end.
As for the symbology of the film, it was governed by the myth-base of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant - it's entirely Judeo-Christian. And we piled it on with a shovel. It's on the nose because it's familiar, learned pretty much during adolescence, and it's all that George knows.
It was extremely satisfying to indulge in the lurid Grand Guignol tradition of this film. Commercially, it was risky, because we were straying from the current tradition of the horror genre.
Shooting the film in 2:35, framing and pacing the story the way we did was utterly intentional.
Could it stand to lose 10-15 minutes for the sake of modern day attention spans? Sure.
Is its subject matter, approach and execution inappropriate for the "horror genre"? Maybe.
Sublime is more in the tradition of psychological thriller/horror. The Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Angel Heart, Jacob's Ladder, Memento, Eyes Wide Shut.
Sublime is not a pleasant movie. If it's an experiment that failed for some and succeeded for others, I'm glad. I'd much rather that the film inspired strong opinions - even dismissive ones - than just lie there like another derivative grade B grindhouse gore-fest.
Everyone involved in Sublime took a chance...and we're all very proud that we did.
SUBLIME was an experiment on nearly every level. Raw Feed is a Warner Bros. experiment to make "horror" films within the broadest definition of the genre. Films designed to be released directly to DVD.
John Shiban, Tony Krantz and Daniel Myrick would each make a film in 15 days for a budget of roughly 1.5 million dollars. Any one of them essentially could do whatever they waned to do - to play into the genre, to satirize it, to bend it. Mr. Krantz's notion was to take the present atmosphere of fear and doubt that has pervaded our world; the very real statistics about "health care"; and the horror of the Terry Schiavo case, and make a movie. My involvement in the film came out of my close friendship with Tony. Inspired by an Ambrose Bierce short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"...the mystery of coma consciousness...the idea that when you close your eyes, your visual experience is limited to what you can remember...we crafted the script.
*******SPOILERS*******
Trying to capture our version of a fear-and-incident-inspired "coma consciousness" led to the film's intentionally languorous and lurid pace. It was a specific choice. Right or wrong, we were determined to stay true to George's vision: George is stuck in a 10-plus year-long persistent vegetative state within which he is encountering all the things he worries about manifest. His only respite is when he closes his eyes and remembers his "last supper" - and many of his coma-realities are inspired by incidental details experienced that night:
Is Jenny actually unhappy in spite of what he wants to believe by "looking into her eyes"? Is she going to leave him? Will his colonoscopy go wrong? Is his daughter experimenting with her sexual identity? Why is his son so fascinated by fear and evil? Is his partner going to stab him in the back? And what about the Unknown? The utterly unaddressed racism, abuse of minorities, and fundamentalist Islamic-terror that we've all been taught to fear? George is a version of a successful Everyman who worries about a lot without choosing to examine much.
He thinks it's enough to look in someone's eyes to know their truth. Well, clearly, it isn't.
And what happens when you lose complete control of your destiny and are stuck in a world of fear-made manifest? Well, if your guardian angel happens to be a demon manifestation of the "dark unknown" who will guide you through a confrontation with your fears...that journey might just free you to make a tough decision and take control of your destiny again. And that's what George does, tragically, at the end.
As for the symbology of the film, it was governed by the myth-base of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant - it's entirely Judeo-Christian. And we piled it on with a shovel. It's on the nose because it's familiar, learned pretty much during adolescence, and it's all that George knows.
It was extremely satisfying to indulge in the lurid Grand Guignol tradition of this film. Commercially, it was risky, because we were straying from the current tradition of the horror genre.
Shooting the film in 2:35, framing and pacing the story the way we did was utterly intentional.
Could it stand to lose 10-15 minutes for the sake of modern day attention spans? Sure.
Is its subject matter, approach and execution inappropriate for the "horror genre"? Maybe.
Sublime is more in the tradition of psychological thriller/horror. The Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Angel Heart, Jacob's Ladder, Memento, Eyes Wide Shut.
Sublime is not a pleasant movie. If it's an experiment that failed for some and succeeded for others, I'm glad. I'd much rather that the film inspired strong opinions - even dismissive ones - than just lie there like another derivative grade B grindhouse gore-fest.
Everyone involved in Sublime took a chance...and we're all very proud that we did.
The Interpretation of Dreams
rbrb16 March 2009
This movie is very watchable,yet provocative and also slightly irritating-all at the same time. The latter because the way it is presented is somewhat obscure and must be highly confusing for some people. Rather like a painter on canvas the work which is created may be obvious to the artist, but others can see it differently or simply not see the same as the artist or indeed not see it at all. Nevertheless I found this film generally good and interesting.
A middle age successful man is shortly to go into hospital for a routine procedure but is troubled by a recurring dream. After he awakes from the procedure he is subjected to a series of horrendous events in the hospital. Are these events really happening or as I interpret it: is he simply going through a nightmare and experiencing his fears etc?
All the performers are excellent, the design of the film is first rate and the music is often brilliant. I myself consider this movie more like a black comedy/horror and overall I conclude it deserves: 7/10.
A middle age successful man is shortly to go into hospital for a routine procedure but is troubled by a recurring dream. After he awakes from the procedure he is subjected to a series of horrendous events in the hospital. Are these events really happening or as I interpret it: is he simply going through a nightmare and experiencing his fears etc?
All the performers are excellent, the design of the film is first rate and the music is often brilliant. I myself consider this movie more like a black comedy/horror and overall I conclude it deserves: 7/10.
Offensive
dean290015 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Contains minor spoilers.
I cannot believe what an idiotic ideology the director has.
First off, let me state any early reviews that gave this a rating higher than a 5 either was in the picture or have some involvement with the studio.
The only reason I gave it a 3 is that any actually had better production values than a standard straight to DVD low budget flick. However, it is unfortunate the characters don't have any depth and there is no way the audience will empathize with the protagonist.
It has been mentioned that this is a rip off of Jacobs Ladder. It actually isn't. It is only similar because the main character in both movies were taken to an abandoned wing in a hospital. Of course, it was done 100 time better in Jacobs Ladder.
Bigger Spoiler Below: The last 10 minutes of the movie is so offensive to the general population that it is unbelievable. This takes place when an African American starts torturing the 40 year old white male. It is basically the director (and you can read his commends) saying that middle aged white males hate blacks, Iranians, and any other ethnic groups. As a 39 year old white male, I cannot believe the director is so narrowed minded. Most people work with and have friends of multiple races, opposite sex, and from different backgrounds. A movie disguised as horror trying to be the Crash of horror movies is innate.
I would like to add just for the sake of argument that if you agreed with the directors point, you are going to go through a lot of boredom to get to the final and predictable end of this movie.
This movie fails at every level as an horror movie. The worst thing a horror movie can be is boring and not the slightest bit scary. IN fact, this movie generate no tension and takes it self seriously as ludicrous as it gets. There is not one laugh, one moment of sympathy, or even a single bit of creepiness in the film.
My advice is watch Jaccob's Ladder again and try to pretend that this movie was never made.
I cannot believe what an idiotic ideology the director has.
First off, let me state any early reviews that gave this a rating higher than a 5 either was in the picture or have some involvement with the studio.
The only reason I gave it a 3 is that any actually had better production values than a standard straight to DVD low budget flick. However, it is unfortunate the characters don't have any depth and there is no way the audience will empathize with the protagonist.
It has been mentioned that this is a rip off of Jacobs Ladder. It actually isn't. It is only similar because the main character in both movies were taken to an abandoned wing in a hospital. Of course, it was done 100 time better in Jacobs Ladder.
Bigger Spoiler Below: The last 10 minutes of the movie is so offensive to the general population that it is unbelievable. This takes place when an African American starts torturing the 40 year old white male. It is basically the director (and you can read his commends) saying that middle aged white males hate blacks, Iranians, and any other ethnic groups. As a 39 year old white male, I cannot believe the director is so narrowed minded. Most people work with and have friends of multiple races, opposite sex, and from different backgrounds. A movie disguised as horror trying to be the Crash of horror movies is innate.
I would like to add just for the sake of argument that if you agreed with the directors point, you are going to go through a lot of boredom to get to the final and predictable end of this movie.
This movie fails at every level as an horror movie. The worst thing a horror movie can be is boring and not the slightest bit scary. IN fact, this movie generate no tension and takes it self seriously as ludicrous as it gets. There is not one laugh, one moment of sympathy, or even a single bit of creepiness in the film.
My advice is watch Jaccob's Ladder again and try to pretend that this movie was never made.
This movie is terrible - be warned, you will never get the 113 minutes of your life back!
pcjmgreene27 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is so terrible. words can't even begin to describe it - but I'll try. The movie was so slow paced that it felt excruciating, and not in the suspense filled way but more the just want to get this dental appointment over with way. The characters were flat, the acting was bland, the plot was nonexistent, the symbolism was so deep as to be not found at times, the conclusion was terrible and the commentary about the movie made a terrible movie even worse. And those are the best things I can say about it!!!! If it was just a crappy horror movie I could just forget about it and move on (those of us who love horror have to deal with quite a few of those crappy ones before finding some good ones) but the fact that this movie was advertised as a horror movie at all is misleading as the only thing horrific about it is the disgusting assumptions made about people and their "fears". This movie is supposedly a deep look at what make us afraid, etc etc. but the interesting thing is all of Tom C.'s fears that plague him through the movie are all founded on the conversation the night before his hospital stay! There are few fears even mentioned that don't directly deal with the party the night before. And the few fears mentioned that aren't from that night (the daughter, son issue, etc.) are mostly confusing because there is no groundwork laid for you to think that he has any of those fears etc. Even the wife leaving/cheating fear is based on one line of dialog that completely contradicts the close and loving relationship shown before hand. Further, the idea that a white, upper-middle class man is terrified of black people, lesbians, and every other stereotype out there is afraid of them simply because of the fact that he is white and upper-middle class is just as ignorant and shallow!!! And the worst is that the movie makes no effort to show that this man in particular is racist, etc (as a matter of fact one of his close friends at the birthday party is black, so where does that leave us??) you are just supposed to know that he is a white male therefore afraid of lesbians and black people. WHAT?? Plus, if that is your point, than don't you kind of undermine your own point by making the ONLY person in the entire hospital that is actually dangerous and terrifying the black man!!?? I mean, Tom C's character is terrified of the black guy not because he is black but because of the other patient that was killed and the pruning shears used on his fingers!!! And the vague indictment of the health care system (no groundwork, explanation or follow through though), the brother Billy who is supposed to be the voice of truth, but actually comes of as a pretentious ass, who decides that, apparently, the only life to live that actually has meaning is to volunteer in third world countries - any other life is a "making a living, not making a life" - what a bunch of pretentious crap! And finally, the idea that the wife is now facing a life without meaning now that her kids are getting ready to leave the nest (although I don't remember quite being out of the house at either 15 or 16 the ages of the kids) is the most insulting crap I have seen in quite awhile. "She can either find a job in a mean, difficult workforce or depend on her husband for the rest of her life." Are you kidding me?? Is that not a perfect example of the a white, middle-class man thinking he can understand what someone else is thinking and yet not really understanding (as the director describes in the interviews in the special features)? And when you find out that they are trying to somehow describe the Tom C's character really is George Bush and that Billy is really Europe - PLEASE! What a bunch of self important crap! As a horror movie it fails miserably, as a film that explores the human psyche of fear it fails miserably, as a movie that is a political commentary (and there you can pick which of many political ideas that it tries to shove in there - critique of American foreign policy, of American ideals and culture, of the American health-care system. are we noticing a theme here???) it even fails at that!! So the only thing that the movie did not fail at was that it was, in fact, 113 minutes long. So if you are looking to waste exactly 113 minutes, you can still find better than this.
Yuck
sobertool69691 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I just watched this movie last night and it was s**t. Don't get me wrong, the premise was really good, and if you ever wanted to see the blistering downward spiral of iatrogenic disease, it will definitely give it to you.
To begin, the movie is headed by Thomas Cavanagh. He carried himself very well in a supporting role as Zach Brath's brother on Scrubs, however as a leading man, he stunk. His confident-yet-sheepish (or sheepish-yet-confident...whatever) wit and personality can only take him so far. His dialog is often cliché and just not interesting.
The whole movie was actually not interesting at all. Half the movie is just contrived jibba-jabba to explain the plot. It gives it an overall feel that the whole movie is a dream but **oh no, spoiler warning** it's not. The main character goes in for a routine colonoscopy and the doctor screws up. At the party the night before, someone mentions Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy and blamo, the doctor screws up and does that procedure instead of a colonoscopy. Then he ends up with a staph infection from a small cut that he some how got when being sat in a wheel chair. He later ends up with gangrene. For some reason, the wound was never wrapped up and just had exposed, pusing lesions. Apparently, no one cared enough to take care of it, so they amputate the leg...without his consent, let alone his knowledge of it. All the while, there is this crazy orderly that is over medicating him with heavy doses of morphine and other things. He then starts mutilating him with something that looks like poultry shears for a reason that I don't know. Either they never explained it, or I stopped paying attention by then.
He eventually gets too medicated and becomes catatonic. He remembers his wife telling him that if you see yourself hit the ground when you're falling in a dream, you'll really die. So, he does that, and he dies. And no one gives a f**k.
The end
To begin, the movie is headed by Thomas Cavanagh. He carried himself very well in a supporting role as Zach Brath's brother on Scrubs, however as a leading man, he stunk. His confident-yet-sheepish (or sheepish-yet-confident...whatever) wit and personality can only take him so far. His dialog is often cliché and just not interesting.
The whole movie was actually not interesting at all. Half the movie is just contrived jibba-jabba to explain the plot. It gives it an overall feel that the whole movie is a dream but **oh no, spoiler warning** it's not. The main character goes in for a routine colonoscopy and the doctor screws up. At the party the night before, someone mentions Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy and blamo, the doctor screws up and does that procedure instead of a colonoscopy. Then he ends up with a staph infection from a small cut that he some how got when being sat in a wheel chair. He later ends up with gangrene. For some reason, the wound was never wrapped up and just had exposed, pusing lesions. Apparently, no one cared enough to take care of it, so they amputate the leg...without his consent, let alone his knowledge of it. All the while, there is this crazy orderly that is over medicating him with heavy doses of morphine and other things. He then starts mutilating him with something that looks like poultry shears for a reason that I don't know. Either they never explained it, or I stopped paying attention by then.
He eventually gets too medicated and becomes catatonic. He remembers his wife telling him that if you see yourself hit the ground when you're falling in a dream, you'll really die. So, he does that, and he dies. And no one gives a f**k.
The end
Epic Fail
inuraku11 August 2007
Gee, I can't imagine why this went straight to video! I wanted a horror movie and instead I got the shaft. And while I can get my money back, my time is gone, forever. Give me something, I donno, scary? If I wanted a commentary on modern times, I would have bought a book by somebody who knows the subject and not watched a wreck by a know-it-all, pretentious Hollywood type. Sorry guys but it's got to be said, it's a joke when modern Hollywood tries to be 'deep'. Which reminds me: don't insult the Twilight Zone by comparing this to that. Study Rod Serling's style, when he wanted to do social commentary, no body did it better. This, however, is an insult to its viewers. It's an Epic Fail.
I wish there was a "0 out of 10" option.
PS: Whenever you see something like, "great for those who understand it," just remember the lesson of the "Emperor's New Clothes."
I wish there was a "0 out of 10" option.
PS: Whenever you see something like, "great for those who understand it," just remember the lesson of the "Emperor's New Clothes."
The garbled, self-contradictory messages suggest that the movie underwent an accidental, partial liberaloctomy.
fedor813 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I wish it had been a total and complete liberaloctomy. Who needs yet another preachy political thriller made by people who snort white powder every five minutes...
Or perhaps the movie received an accidental sublimeioscopy and died only 110 minutes later, after having struggled through various phases of unconsciousness and coma. Nothing sublime here, except the supreme stupidity/clumsiness exhibited by all involved.
Tom Cavanagh, who plays the dull main character George (as in "George Bush", get it??), is a cross between Colin Hanks (Tom's little baby boy) and Tony Blair - and is just as charismatic. His acting range stretches the gamut from "vague smile" to "relatively bored grin". Hence I don't see why he wasn't showered with awards, especially since this movie's laughable message happens to be fanatically/droolingly anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Capitalist. Even Michael Moore doesn't hate the white man this much...
Yep, you heard that right, you're not hallucinating like poor, barely emotional George Grievez Hanks (he is white and middle/upper-class hence uptight, get it??)... Krantz, the creator of this mess, has a message for us all: "America is a place in which minorities and especially blacks are still practically slaves, the health care system doesn't work (except when it successfully butchers Latinos), Capitalism stinks because the U.S. is still a Third World nation, and Iran is a wonderful country from whose gentle democracy we could all learn a lot - if only we would bother to get our stupid white male heads out of our supremely egotistical derrières for just one lousy second".
Yes, I know... Half the time "Subpar" gives the impression of standing for the OPPOSITE of all this, but that's only because Krantz is a schmuck, and schmucks tend to get confused when they give themselves any even half-way pseudo-intellectual assignment - in this case to make yet another (256,783rd) Leftist propaganda crap for the sleepy, brainwashed, comatose, easy-to-fool Western masses. Krantz has no idea how to handle his liberal/Marxist ideas in a symbolic and organized manner (yet he loves his shoddy Eurotrash "arteaux" 50s/60s cinema), hence ends up with a hodge-podge of scenes that can easily lead the average viewer to believe that Krantz is a racist Right-winger who wants to nuke Iran and enslave all black people. Krantz theorizes that George, the "typical" rich, white liberal, is in fact a flaming racist just like all the "others". The implication is that white men are racist no matter what political side they opt for. I.e. you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
Jesus Christ, Krantz, try making a simple action film next time! You were way over your head with this one. But if there is anything to learn from international cinema since its very inception, it's that it attracts society's worst and most neurotic/psychotic elements. Nothing new there... Misfits, misanthropes, and the mentally ill: unite to create garbage in order to change the world!
However, being the experienced film-goer that I am, it's hardly the first time I cringed with deep embarrassment (Fremdenscham) while watching a silly little director stumble over his (bleedin'-heart) political dogma by managing to mix up all the symbols he'd so "meticulously" prepared. I quickly realized that what Krantz had intended was a Leftist mess(age). The problem is that we do not even know when Tom George Bush Blair Hanks Colin Cavanagh is hallucinating and when not. Krantz, who couldn't put together a 25-piece Mickey Mouse puzzle in under 100 hours, tries to mesh three types of sequences: George's recent memories, George's reality-based hospital experiences, and George's hospital-related hallucinations. Quite an ambitious goal for someone who might need a 150-page manual to press "PLAY" on a DVD player.
Sure, the (hopefully intelligent) viewer should essentially always try to figure things out for himself instead of having everything served to him on a Chuck-Norris-like plate, but even the viewer needs a few knowns in the equation in order to deduce the unknowns. Figuring out the MESSage through the thickets of a pretentious, low-IQ filmmaker's piece of trash is one thing, but telepathy is still impossible... If indeed Krantz even possesses a mind one can hypothetically read anything from.
Tom George Bush Blair Hanks plays a white middle-aged liberal, i.e. a very, very nice guy (but only on the surface! deep down he is racist trash) whose mild-mannered semi-apathy is meant to portray the stereotypical successful white guy: dull and bland. But Krantz, being far more Left than your average liberal, has a bone to pick even with white male Democrats! Wow. Why is Krantz so bitter? Because George Hanks Cavanagh voting for Obama and being guilt-ridden over America's past is simply NOT ENOUGH for foaming-at-the-mouth, hateful Krantz. George doesn't do enough to help minorities, to save the spotted owl, to ban all GM foods, and hasn't done anything to befriend noble Syria and Iran while alienating undemocratic Israel. So George has to suffer for this, get a taste of his own medicine: let him experience great mental/physical pain in a shoddy, cold hospital run by greedy white men. Ah, those white doctors... they're so Satanic in every way.
The sad thing is, "Subpar" isn't even remotely original - and God knows it tried so hard to get there. The hospital as a substitute for an "ill society": "Britannia Hospital". George witnessing weird, weird, evil deeds in the depths of the building during his wheelchair bound tour: "Jacob's Ladder". The ending, with George Hanks Bush dying in a coma because he wanted to: ripped off from the last scenes in "Possible Worlds". Etc.
Not to mention the pungent stench of "originality" in producing the 256,790th Left-wing propaganda film. (The figure has in the meantime risen by seven from the time I wrote 256,783, a few minutes ago). Bashing George Bush anno 2007 was so very creative, so unique, so new. How did Krantz come up with that?
Or perhaps the movie received an accidental sublimeioscopy and died only 110 minutes later, after having struggled through various phases of unconsciousness and coma. Nothing sublime here, except the supreme stupidity/clumsiness exhibited by all involved.
Tom Cavanagh, who plays the dull main character George (as in "George Bush", get it??), is a cross between Colin Hanks (Tom's little baby boy) and Tony Blair - and is just as charismatic. His acting range stretches the gamut from "vague smile" to "relatively bored grin". Hence I don't see why he wasn't showered with awards, especially since this movie's laughable message happens to be fanatically/droolingly anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Capitalist. Even Michael Moore doesn't hate the white man this much...
Yep, you heard that right, you're not hallucinating like poor, barely emotional George Grievez Hanks (he is white and middle/upper-class hence uptight, get it??)... Krantz, the creator of this mess, has a message for us all: "America is a place in which minorities and especially blacks are still practically slaves, the health care system doesn't work (except when it successfully butchers Latinos), Capitalism stinks because the U.S. is still a Third World nation, and Iran is a wonderful country from whose gentle democracy we could all learn a lot - if only we would bother to get our stupid white male heads out of our supremely egotistical derrières for just one lousy second".
Yes, I know... Half the time "Subpar" gives the impression of standing for the OPPOSITE of all this, but that's only because Krantz is a schmuck, and schmucks tend to get confused when they give themselves any even half-way pseudo-intellectual assignment - in this case to make yet another (256,783rd) Leftist propaganda crap for the sleepy, brainwashed, comatose, easy-to-fool Western masses. Krantz has no idea how to handle his liberal/Marxist ideas in a symbolic and organized manner (yet he loves his shoddy Eurotrash "arteaux" 50s/60s cinema), hence ends up with a hodge-podge of scenes that can easily lead the average viewer to believe that Krantz is a racist Right-winger who wants to nuke Iran and enslave all black people. Krantz theorizes that George, the "typical" rich, white liberal, is in fact a flaming racist just like all the "others". The implication is that white men are racist no matter what political side they opt for. I.e. you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
Jesus Christ, Krantz, try making a simple action film next time! You were way over your head with this one. But if there is anything to learn from international cinema since its very inception, it's that it attracts society's worst and most neurotic/psychotic elements. Nothing new there... Misfits, misanthropes, and the mentally ill: unite to create garbage in order to change the world!
However, being the experienced film-goer that I am, it's hardly the first time I cringed with deep embarrassment (Fremdenscham) while watching a silly little director stumble over his (bleedin'-heart) political dogma by managing to mix up all the symbols he'd so "meticulously" prepared. I quickly realized that what Krantz had intended was a Leftist mess(age). The problem is that we do not even know when Tom George Bush Blair Hanks Colin Cavanagh is hallucinating and when not. Krantz, who couldn't put together a 25-piece Mickey Mouse puzzle in under 100 hours, tries to mesh three types of sequences: George's recent memories, George's reality-based hospital experiences, and George's hospital-related hallucinations. Quite an ambitious goal for someone who might need a 150-page manual to press "PLAY" on a DVD player.
Sure, the (hopefully intelligent) viewer should essentially always try to figure things out for himself instead of having everything served to him on a Chuck-Norris-like plate, but even the viewer needs a few knowns in the equation in order to deduce the unknowns. Figuring out the MESSage through the thickets of a pretentious, low-IQ filmmaker's piece of trash is one thing, but telepathy is still impossible... If indeed Krantz even possesses a mind one can hypothetically read anything from.
Tom George Bush Blair Hanks plays a white middle-aged liberal, i.e. a very, very nice guy (but only on the surface! deep down he is racist trash) whose mild-mannered semi-apathy is meant to portray the stereotypical successful white guy: dull and bland. But Krantz, being far more Left than your average liberal, has a bone to pick even with white male Democrats! Wow. Why is Krantz so bitter? Because George Hanks Cavanagh voting for Obama and being guilt-ridden over America's past is simply NOT ENOUGH for foaming-at-the-mouth, hateful Krantz. George doesn't do enough to help minorities, to save the spotted owl, to ban all GM foods, and hasn't done anything to befriend noble Syria and Iran while alienating undemocratic Israel. So George has to suffer for this, get a taste of his own medicine: let him experience great mental/physical pain in a shoddy, cold hospital run by greedy white men. Ah, those white doctors... they're so Satanic in every way.
The sad thing is, "Subpar" isn't even remotely original - and God knows it tried so hard to get there. The hospital as a substitute for an "ill society": "Britannia Hospital". George witnessing weird, weird, evil deeds in the depths of the building during his wheelchair bound tour: "Jacob's Ladder". The ending, with George Hanks Bush dying in a coma because he wanted to: ripped off from the last scenes in "Possible Worlds". Etc.
Not to mention the pungent stench of "originality" in producing the 256,790th Left-wing propaganda film. (The figure has in the meantime risen by seven from the time I wrote 256,783, a few minutes ago). Bashing George Bush anno 2007 was so very creative, so unique, so new. How did Krantz come up with that?
Attempts to appeal to more than one audience.
Hey_Sweden7 October 2019
TV veteran Tom Cavanagh ('Ed', 'Scrubs', 'The Flash') stars in this made-for-video horror movie from Warner Bros. and Raw Feed. Tom plays George Grieves, a successful I.T. guy and family man who goes into the hospital for a routine colonoscopy the day after his 40th birthday. But everything goes wrong, in a series of increasingly bizarre, surreal, and graphic encounters, and the viewer is left to wonder how much is reality and how much is a dark fantasy fabricated by the main character. It appears that this hospital is a dangerous place where patients can get brutalized, and an enigmatic, intimidating male nurse (Lawrence-Hilton Jacobs, a long way from Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington) will terrorize George repeatedly.
'Sublime' does work on more than one level. If one is simply looking for horror and gore, they may find this one overlong, pretentious, and ponderous, with occasional rewards of some very disturbing violence. Make no mistake: it DOES go on for quite a bit, but it also is intelligent and ambitious, containing some pointed dialogue and giving viewers some food for thought. It's also obviously very critical of the health care establishment. While what happens to George is clearly an over the top dramatization, mistakes *can* and *do* occur despite the best intentions of health care professionals.
Most important is that 'Sublime' does have a heart, and never loses sight of its characters' emotions. Ultimately, it takes its main character and its audience on an interesting journey. Cavanagh is just the man to lead us through this, with his effortless likability. He's well supported by an engaging cast: Kathleen York, Kat Coiro, David Clayton Rogers, Cas Anvar, Shanna Collins, Kyle Gallner, Dan Gerrity, John Rubinstein, Paget Brewster, Jeffrey Anderson-Gunter, George Newbern, and Michael Gregory. It features character actress Lilyan Chauvin, best known as Mother Superior in "Silent Night, Deadly Night", in one of her final roles.
The film is written by Erik Jendresen, an Emmy winner whose credits include 'Killing Lincoln' and 'Band of Brothers'. (He also appears on screen as Dr. Falk.) It's directed by Tony Krantz, the executive producer of '24'. The two also collaborated on another Warner Bros. / Raw Feed picture, the dark comedy 'Otis'. It features excellent widescreen photography by Dermott Downs and haunting music by Peter Golub and Anthony Marinelli, and is, in general, worth a look for genre fans.
Seven out of 10.
'Sublime' does work on more than one level. If one is simply looking for horror and gore, they may find this one overlong, pretentious, and ponderous, with occasional rewards of some very disturbing violence. Make no mistake: it DOES go on for quite a bit, but it also is intelligent and ambitious, containing some pointed dialogue and giving viewers some food for thought. It's also obviously very critical of the health care establishment. While what happens to George is clearly an over the top dramatization, mistakes *can* and *do* occur despite the best intentions of health care professionals.
Most important is that 'Sublime' does have a heart, and never loses sight of its characters' emotions. Ultimately, it takes its main character and its audience on an interesting journey. Cavanagh is just the man to lead us through this, with his effortless likability. He's well supported by an engaging cast: Kathleen York, Kat Coiro, David Clayton Rogers, Cas Anvar, Shanna Collins, Kyle Gallner, Dan Gerrity, John Rubinstein, Paget Brewster, Jeffrey Anderson-Gunter, George Newbern, and Michael Gregory. It features character actress Lilyan Chauvin, best known as Mother Superior in "Silent Night, Deadly Night", in one of her final roles.
The film is written by Erik Jendresen, an Emmy winner whose credits include 'Killing Lincoln' and 'Band of Brothers'. (He also appears on screen as Dr. Falk.) It's directed by Tony Krantz, the executive producer of '24'. The two also collaborated on another Warner Bros. / Raw Feed picture, the dark comedy 'Otis'. It features excellent widescreen photography by Dermott Downs and haunting music by Peter Golub and Anthony Marinelli, and is, in general, worth a look for genre fans.
Seven out of 10.
This picture is a waste of anyones time
Dissident42018 March 2007
I was disheartened watching this film. It was not a horror film, I didn't get any thrill from it in the least. It was only a downer. I don't know why anyone would want to watch this garbage about a fictional character. OK the message is? Live life? i didn't even get that from it. Complete waste of two hours of my time.
I was turned on to the concept feel of the movie. I didn't see what was going to happen. That is about all this movie has to offer. You don't know and are supposed to be shocked and then aren't. Big surprise. Over all I am sad to say I wrote a review even and if I steer any or you from wasting your time watching this movie it will have been worth the effort.
I was turned on to the concept feel of the movie. I didn't see what was going to happen. That is about all this movie has to offer. You don't know and are supposed to be shocked and then aren't. Big surprise. Over all I am sad to say I wrote a review even and if I steer any or you from wasting your time watching this movie it will have been worth the effort.
Causion: Not for the mindlessly entertained, requires thought....
golf-n-beer27 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not a person that regularly rates movies. I firmly believe that one person's opinion of a movie is just that, their opinion and nothing more. I felt Sublime was a refreshing departure from the usual mindless pictures that are mostly flash and gore with no thought required. Although I am sure that a lot of the symbolism was lost on me, I did recognize that it was there and what it meant. I like movies that are not predictable. Sublime for me definitely did not follow the normal channels of thought. The symbolism of their group posing the picture of The Last Supper and his delusional injuries sustained at the hands of "Mandingo" struck me as brilliant. If you think about it, even the scar where the sympothectomy was performed was in the location that Jesus received the spear wound. His wife playing Judas (the betrayer) and later viewed in his fear filled mind drove that point home.
There are movies out there that need to be seen more than once to truly discover their deep meaning. I think Sublime fits that category. The one mistake I believe that was made was defining it as a horror. I really think it would be more aptly labeled as Suspense or Drama.
There are movies out there that need to be seen more than once to truly discover their deep meaning. I think Sublime fits that category. The one mistake I believe that was made was defining it as a horror. I really think it would be more aptly labeled as Suspense or Drama.
It's not a horror movie!
SinfulMessiah2 April 2007
WTF! How in the world could this movie even be considered as a horror flick, maybe some people are pathologically afraid of hospitals and what they represent(disease,death,...), but I'm not one of those people. After watching this movie, I wanted the wasted hour and a half of my life back. So I feel obligated to shoot this hideous monstrosity out of the sky. To each his own, I guess, but I cant understand, how anyone could feel satisfied after watching this gargantuan mistake of a movie. The acting is poor, the plot non-existent, half the time you don't know if you're in the twilight zone or the scriptwriter was high on LSD, or just didn't finish elementary school. After all was said and done, and I finished watching the "movie", I felt devoid of all human emotions and empathy for the main character. I squealed with joy when it was over. If I could, I'd give it a 0 rating, but I'll have to contend with giving it a 1. Don't waste your time with this one, if you're a horror fan like me.
Don't Be Fooled By The Cover
hungryhippo19702 December 2007
It definitely kept my attention throughout. However, I was inspired to write this comment because of the cover art as opposed to the movie itself. Had I based my seeing the movie strictly off of the DVD artwork, I would've never watched it. Hell, I wouldn't have even picked it up to read the back of the box. (My initial reaction was that it was another in the "torture porn" realm.) The imagery is extremely misleading. It's nothing of the sort.
My advice is to watch the trailer to get a better idea of the feel for this film. It's much more a slowly-paced reality-turned-on-its-ear type of film, if there is such a genre.
Did I like it? Yep.
My advice is to watch the trailer to get a better idea of the feel for this film. It's much more a slowly-paced reality-turned-on-its-ear type of film, if there is such a genre.
Did I like it? Yep.
A reasonable, but slow-moving, hospital horror.
BA_Harrison2 September 2007
For forty years, family man George Grieves has lived his life without taking unnecessary risks, worried about what might happen should he venture out of his safety zone. But now he must have an operation which requires a short stay in hospital, and George's suppressed fears and phobias slowly bubble to the surface, especially after he accidentally undergoes the wrong medical procedure.
Sublime is a slow burning tale of paranoia and psychological horror that gradually builds in intensity, before fizzling out shortly before the end thanks to a disappointing denouement that isn't quite as clever or as original as it likes to think it is.
Throughout the movie, director Tony Krantz carefully builds an atmosphere of unease and develops a nightmarish quality that inexorably draws the viewer though the bizarre happenings. George, convinced that something very wrong is afoot in the hospital, becomes more and more agitated, and eventually convinces Zoe (Katherine Cunningham-Eves), his tasty nurse, to help him find out exactly what the hell is going on. What he discovers only disturbs him further.
Up until the very end, the film is pretty good: the acting is solid, the direction innovative (with good use of inter-cutting between two time-lines), the plot turns fairly unexpected, and there are some nasty moments to make you cringe. I had, however, hoped for a finale that would take me completely by surprisesomething like the end of Brian Yuzna's Society, which was totally unpredictable. Unfortunately, what Krantz delivers is a rather obvious 'twist' ending that is not totally unlike Adrian Lyne's superior chiller Jacob's Ladder.
Sublime therefore suffers somewhat in the originality stakes, but is still worth a watch if freaky tales are your cup of tea (and particularly if you like them loaded with symbolism and hidden meaning).
Sublime is a slow burning tale of paranoia and psychological horror that gradually builds in intensity, before fizzling out shortly before the end thanks to a disappointing denouement that isn't quite as clever or as original as it likes to think it is.
Throughout the movie, director Tony Krantz carefully builds an atmosphere of unease and develops a nightmarish quality that inexorably draws the viewer though the bizarre happenings. George, convinced that something very wrong is afoot in the hospital, becomes more and more agitated, and eventually convinces Zoe (Katherine Cunningham-Eves), his tasty nurse, to help him find out exactly what the hell is going on. What he discovers only disturbs him further.
Up until the very end, the film is pretty good: the acting is solid, the direction innovative (with good use of inter-cutting between two time-lines), the plot turns fairly unexpected, and there are some nasty moments to make you cringe. I had, however, hoped for a finale that would take me completely by surprisesomething like the end of Brian Yuzna's Society, which was totally unpredictable. Unfortunately, what Krantz delivers is a rather obvious 'twist' ending that is not totally unlike Adrian Lyne's superior chiller Jacob's Ladder.
Sublime therefore suffers somewhat in the originality stakes, but is still worth a watch if freaky tales are your cup of tea (and particularly if you like them loaded with symbolism and hidden meaning).
Very competent acting, good production values, where's the story?
hanszurcher16 March 2007
Very competent acting, and good production values. This movie attempts social-political relevance, an exploration of the fears and guilt of middle-class America on a profound level. Unfortunately this movie is just profoundly dull. The main character, George Grieves, is superficial and arouses no interest or sympathy. The film wants us to explore the fears and guilt of a man we could care less about let alone empathize with. The story itself is overwrought with heavy handed metaphors, lacks suspense or thrill and is torpid at best. For the most part I was left feeling disappointed and uninterested. If you really want to make a statement about the human condition, next time a little less thematic symbolism and a little more humanity.
Overall not a buy, not a rental. Wait for it as a SCIFI Channel Original.
Overall not a buy, not a rental. Wait for it as a SCIFI Channel Original.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
