Change Your Image
NickyDee07938
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Bunker (2022)
Write what you know, or can research. But FGS research properly.
Another low budget war-set film that failed to do its due diligence. I'm literally 4.5 mins in and already frustrated for everything else to come. When filmmakers, or more precisely storytellers, do not have direct experience in the field in which they are narrating, they have an obligation to research - and research the ass out of the subject. When they fail to do that, they fail in creating a world in which audiences can suspend their disbelief. There is simply no excuse for laziness in scene setting or character presentation especially when audiences are far more historically clued up. So, for anyone who's interested, just watch the first 4.5 mins and observe......
1) uniforms have staybrite buttons. They should be brass. Such a small detail isn't hard to get right. Buttons of the era up to WW2 (any will do as you're unlikely to see insignia detail) are freely and widely available online. Staybrite are horrible and shout modernity.
2) Our officer, the Lieutenant interacts with a Corporal (stripes on his left arm) referring to him as 'Captain'.....twice just in case you think you misheard it.....
3) The 'Captain' offers up a salute to the Lt first - not the way its done. You salute the rank, not the man. If indeed he was a Captain the Lt would have come to a smart attention and offered up the salute to the new arrival.
It's pretty basic stuff to get right to be fair. The script is just plain awful if the actors are regurgitating what's on the page. And it's not the first film I've seen in the low budget war genre that has made this simple error..........and there's a lot more wrong here that I could labour on with. But to keep it short when you don't have much in the way of budget you have to make the most of what you do have. Be less pompous, cut the narrative back and tell a simple story well. War-set stories are ones where scrimping on accuracy simply isn't the way to best present your story and keep your audience engaged.
Jeepers Creepers: Reborn (2022)
The new generation of filmmakers has it sooooo wrong.
Young, wistful, enthusiastic but oh so uneducated in the wiles of delivering, and more importantly understanding, what makes a classic horror film. The "How to Butcher a Classic 101" class has just graduated. As other reviewers have already conceded, and most admittedly are likely casual film watchers and appreciators rather than bona fide filmmakers, trying to lay open all the errors, omissions, technical inadequacies, and downright gaffs that were made in the process of bringing this to the screen, could fill a tome the size of Plato's Illiad. A word to the wise - the great villains of original horror remain in the shadows for the best part of 2/3 (ish) of a movie's run time, maybe emerging briefly over the films course to raise the tension, but NEVER in a manner that reveals so much that the fear, anticipation, and downright surprise, is lost. Even when you know who the villain is and what's at stake. Look at Aliens (okay not a horror per se, but was it exciting? Even though you knew who the villains were?). It's all about building to a climax - as in most things. Sequels, prequels, re-imaginings, reworkings, remakes all (and I mean in terms of recent franchises) seem to have forgotten this one, important, nay almost singularly most critical, point of storytelling; never reveal the source of the fear until the audience is so engrossed they cannot help but watch for the outcome. Alien is a classic example of this. The Thing, Halloween (original), The Howling etc etc etc. All classics without peer. Because screenwriters, and filmmakers knew then what made people tick. The fundamental failing of horror franchises today is in capitulating to what they perceive as an audience call for kill-count irregardless of story, plot, or character motivation. But that's not what entertains the majority; that's an unassailable fact. It's story, suspense, fear of the unknown, the unseen, the darkness - core human fears that have existed since the beginning of man's time on earth. That is why today's executives who greenlight these woeful, under-developed, derivative, kill-count focused insults to the classics, will never support anything that seems like it's a 'throw-back' to decades past ie. Good, solid, original, developed, and story-focused that tap into primal fears. They have been fed dross, blood, gore, violence without cause, and now doing what they know through nurture, feed the rest of us the same slop. Somehow, somewhere, someone needs to get a firm hand on all this and go back to the basics, to the historically accepted methods and modes of storytelling that have been in existence since before the time of Aristotle. It isn't about changing the shape of the wheel, only the material the wheel is made of. It's about feeding audience expectation but in an unexpected way. It's so simple. Sadly, the young studio executives of today, and the filmmakers they exalt, seem to think changing the wheel shape makes them an auteur and worthy of admiration. The wakeup they all need is that the opposite is true. Jeepers Creepers: Reborn was bad in sooooo many ways, not least in its awful script. The writer should hang his/her/their head in shame. The executive who read it and thought 'yep, this one's ready to go' needs sacking. Cos he/she/they've just cost the studio/investor a good few quid that they'll never, and yes you know it, never get back. It wasn't worthy of being called a production ready script (and I know, cos I write, and have done for 25 years) - by at least another ten drafts. And that's being optimistic. Lighting, camera, sound, VFX (so much bad greenscreen it made my eyes hurt), production design, direction, and performances - all were dismally woeful and so much less than the original story deserved as a follow up. A director's primary job on set is to get the actors to deliver - to elicit believable, truthful presentation of character. That's a skill not everyone has. Clearly this director doesn't have it either. Dee Wallace, what were you thinking? When the foundation of your movie isn't properly formulated is it any wonder that everything else built upon it is shaky? Whilst they've butchered Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, TCM, Carrie, The Hills Have Eyes, IKWYDLS, with re-imaginings and some with untold numbers of sequels, this one, Jeepers Creepers: Reborn stands out as one of the worst to date IMHO. And I wouldn't be at all amazed if, as a franchise, it is subsequently consigned to the annals of history as a golden opportunity that went wide, oh so very wide, of the classic quality mark. Oh boy, can I get a refund on the time I've lost?!
The Reef: Stalked (2022)
Following Trend Is No Key To Success
Good storytelling isn't about changing the shape of the wheel. It's about making it work as a wheel should but by using different materials. You have to give an audience what they expect, just in an unexpected way. Since 1975 shark movies have tapped into the public consciousness but, technology aside, none have managed to bring the same sense of dread and foreboding as Spielberg's monster hit. And much of that lies in the storytelling and the increasing reliance on VFX to generate the antagonist. There has to be more to make a film worthy in this subgenre of horror than just a few pretty young people out on the open ocean in a contrived manipulated 'reason d' etre'. There has to be heart, soul, emotion, connectivity with audiences on some deeper psychological level - a story that touches audiences who can identify with the core struggles of the characters in some way. If that is absent everyone portayed becomes singularly dimensional, and uninteresting. There is no reason or desire for the audience to identify with or root for the characters. And if the setting is to be almost entirely waterborne then the actions of the characters have to be strong, consistent, natural, and more importantly believable. Horror has a habit of throwing up, and throwing us, characters with so little common sense we struggle to give any credibility to their behaviour. We almost revel in the fact their stupidity will ultimately end in their demise. This comes down to the development of a good strong narrative with well fleshed out 'real' characters who act in ways that audiences can identify with. That doesn't mean stereotypes, or cardboard cutouts, but archetypes, flawed in their realness. When I began screenwriting 25 years ago my script guru taught me one valuable lesson above all I remember in my creations - "write what you know or what you can easily research so that truth is the foundation of your story". So many films I see forget the importance of this. Storytellers that work, in this case, shark movies seem to default to individual belief, not truth, and it harms the end product. And doing so isn't some method of creating suspense, or compressing truth to adhere to an 80 minute running time. It simply is a case of failing to marry truth to suspense as a vehicle for entertainment - because reality is far more threatening, scary, intimidating, and ultimately fatal than anything you could imagine or believe as truth but which isn't. And that brings me conveniently to The Reef: Stalked which unsatisfactory presents, yet again, a Great White as the ultimate ocean threat, off what I can only assume are Polynessian islands in the Pacific. Whilst we are never told where they are the islanders featured suggest to me of say Samoa, or Fiji. In warm Pacific waters the GW isn't the threat it is of temperate waters. Tigers are. And some of them grow incredibly big. Plus of course they are known tacticians and hunters, pursuing prey over long distances - stalking them. In an instant the face of the narrative changes. It presents something familiar but with a distinct difference that provides truthfully more fear and suspense. GWs are apex hunters but they aren't renowned for being methodical scheming pursuers of prey. So truth here is manipulated again for the purpose of shamelessly following trend. And as an audience, and filmmaker I expect more of the story's antagonist than mere regurgitation. The Reef that preceded this was again a GW but the facts that served as a source for it were actually about a huge Tiger shark off Townsvillle and the boat was actually a trawler not a yacht. Which would have presented a more terrifying journey for audiences, truth or the filmmakers idea of truth? I could go on 'ad infinitum' and pick this film, and story, apart but that's not the point of this review. I admire filmmakers tenacity, and I know from first hand experience how hard it is to make a movie. There are so many obstacles to climb over I just feel making your own to add into the mix doesn't help anyone. What I will add just as a final thought though is that VFX doesn't have to be bad, or unrealistic. The cost of creating animatronic sharks is so horrendously expensive CG is the most cost effective way these days. Sadly. The best example I have seen was in "Kon Tiki". If you haven't seen this 2012 movie then do. CG sharks can be made to look terrifyingly real. And in that the truth is assaulting the senses of what we know to be fake and what we struggle to reconcile as real. We have so many miles to travel as filmmakers as we see audiences get 'film smarter', but also when audience attention spans shorten you simply cannot afford to lose them over issues that could be resolved early in the process - a story that is well thought out, smart, and built upon fundamental truths about which there can be no real valid argument.
Shark Bait (2022)
Film location with extra edge
Aside from the usual character stupidity that proliferates and aggravates in narratives in this sub-genre, I found it amusing that film producers would actually put their cast in / on the water around Malta. It's been a breeding ground for GWs in the deep water off the W and NW of the island for decades. They are regularly seen all round the island by divers. Can't imagine what the production insurance would have run to. The roaming distance of those animals is huge these days as they seek out new feeding grounds. The Mediterranean is now well populated with them. Bet the cast was clueless to that fact 🤣. Been a diver a long time, and have dived in Malta. Wouldn't dive there now - too old and too much sense.
Great White (2021)
A decent effort
Whilst the 'shark survival' sub genre has plenty of contributors it's probably fair to say that many, if not most, are really let down by either sub standard vfx or by really non committal performances. The few that stand out, including the Reef, The Shallows, and Open Water, do so because they don't skimp on those two very important components. As far as stories go it's very hard to offer much in the way of differentiation. By its very nature the sub genre puts people, mainly young adults admittedly, at the mercy of the ocean's top predatory fish, which through over reliance on the biggest and most recogniseable, as opposed to the most voracious or scheming, becomes a little predictable and trite at times. Great White for me sits firmly in the middle of all these shark movies. It's a predictable story with a predictable setup and outcome. Like many horror movies do, it invites, through its simplicity, audiences to predict who will die when, based on stereotypical characters and character traits. That said, Great White is entertaining enough, blending good performance with live shark footage and enough 'below water, above water' cinematography to induce suspense. What lets it down rather badly are the few occasions where the VFX sharks fall into the Sharknado realm of shoddy and ineffectual. And that's a pity, as with The Shallows level of CGI this could quite easily have avoided the one major pitfall of films in this sub genre - it's too dangerous to get real up close footage to convince. So if you have to fake it - don't appear to be faking it. KONTIKI is your reference if you need to see VFX sharks done seamlessly. Anyway, this is certainly not a bad film, it's entertaining and passable as an entry alongside the films already mentioned. Those who have slammed it unashamedly really are doing it a disservice and frankly their critiques or opinions are little more than the chum that minor characters in this type of film become.
47 Meters Down: Uncaged (2019)
Cash in the bank isn't reason enough
Despite the long-standing obsession with the sea, sharks, and all things creepily fascinating that live beneath the surface, there can be no disguising the cash-in value that peoples' fear of the ocean has in the realm of cinema. Whilst 47 Metres Down had some place to occupy in the history of shark movies, alongside Jaws of course, and perhaps even The Shallows, and oddly Sharknado, this sequel feels less at home than Jaws 4 did. And that film was a new kind of awful. There is no denying that $38m against a $12m expenditure in making this film justifies it financially, as did its predecessor with a $62m against $5.5m . Commercially they do the business, but I still have to ask myself, artistically at least, why when they are so poorly conceived conceptually, require the suspension of massive disbelief on so many levels, and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the need for narrative suspense. I guess its enough that we know there's an ocean roaming predator contained in a microcosm of caves that might or might not be (the scenes on the swimming deck would suggest it is) fresh water fed, and that man's most feared predator in the seas, the White Pointer is somehow stuck within it - when science and news items clearly show that such a species could not survive in such conditions (they have never lasted long in captivity) let alone thrive and adapt. The only species of shark that could, theoretically, do that is the Bull Shark. But the Bull just isn't imposing enough in sheer bulk to cause that level of fear - when frankly in such a contained environment it isn't the size of the shark that is so suspenseful but being stuck in a small space with a creature you know hates you and is a known maneater. Call me finicky but it doesn't take much to make this narrative viable, and without audiences having to suspend disbelief to fantastical levels to achieve the desired result. Anyway, sad to say, I completely zoned out at the idea of a blind Great White living in a cave ! Yawn ! Next ! Stars only for pretty girls in bikinis cos there's no other reason to watch the full 90 minutes of this otherwise.
Lights Out (2016)
The horror genre is so tired and laboured right now !
I could go on at length about how the horror genre is so genuinely over-saturated with movies that are retreading, retreating, rehashing, and repeating the same tired and cliche-riddled narratives, and that Lights Out delivers nothing new to the landscape, but we all kind of know that already. And still we perpetuate with wasting time watching the same old storytelling, and the same old scares. The Babadook visited this uninspiring sub-genre but delivered in a much more satisfying way. Somehow filmmakers need to find the universal fears of the dark, the unseen, and the unknown, in a different setting, an unusual location, or in a story that shows us an unfamiliar hero, world, or a set of unusual circumstances. Maybe then we'll have something to really rave about. Or maybe this film just says more about the level of movie smarts in people who enjoyed it as filmmakers are always trying to adjust content and theme to the lowest common denominator. There was nothing poor about this film technically, in the performances, the direction or the set design. It was just.......narratively boring. Creature features that rely on a mystical, or other worldly antagonist really need to follow the "Alien" strategy. In that masterpiece of horror storytelling suspense was generated through NOT revealing the fullness of the creature. Once that cat is out of the bag (sorry, an Alien pun) it is very difficult to maintain any tension. Especially in a supernatural tale that relies so heavily on audiences being fearful of the ghost / entity / demon / spirit. A good backstory can really add depth to character interactions, to setting, to motivations and decision making, but it must be full, easy to understand, meaningful thematically so that it resonates, and most importantly, impactful. When films don't articulate this, a backstory's inclusion feels forced, manipulated, and contrived. I've seen many short horror films on Shudder, and Alter, and many more with better, more deserving (of feature film treatment) stories than Lights Out. I guess it's a luck thing - I just don't get how something so filmically basic as a short went viral. It wasn't even THAT good. I've seen way more impressive offerings. Anyway, all that aside, Lights Out was competently put together, well shot, well acted, and decently directed. I've no doubt that James Wan's involvement took it to a level it otherwise might not have achieved based on the story alone.
Contracted (2013)
Good idea delivered with promise - albeit slowly
*May contain spoilers*
I never cease to be amazed by the number of critiques on films that completely misconstrue elements within the very thing the reviewers are lambasting that actually makes the reviewer look inept. CONTRACTED has its issues, running time isn't necessarily one of them, plot deficiencies or inadequacies that frankly don't prevent the story from moving forwards without huge leaps of conjecture, a few laboured performances and 'out of sync' character anomalies that stretch believability somewhat (the doctor is a case in point - medical exam of a female without a nurse present ? In today's sue culture ?) and some clichéd devices that aren't so worn out, but telegraphed. That said, it's a good, solidly put together little horror flick that metaphorically warns of the dangers of unprotected sex, the drink and drug culture of today's youth, and the disfunctionality that many young people feel when confronted by parents and peers with differing social, ethical, and moral values to their own. What CONTRACTED ultimately delivers is a zombie movie which uses flagrant sexual conduct as the method of viral transmission. It's a neat device with a thoroughly understandable yet well concealed analogy propping it up. That people can't see that frankly astounds me. It's obvious that Samantha is dying - she's rotting from the inside out - through whatever viral infection it is that BJ (the most undeserving character name in the film) passed to her after slipping her roofies in the drink that was never hers. The big guy, Zain, admitted to Alice selling BJ something at the party. The only undisclosed plot element that troubles this otherwise very creative idea, is the backstory and final tying up of the BJ character. It's almost as though he's a McGuffin rather than a plot oversight - deliberately undealt with by story's end. Now whether that's to allow for a follow on story as prequel or sequel, only the filmmakers can tell us. By the final 'accident' scene, Samantha's transition is all but complete - her eyes glazed over, teeth rotten, flesh tearing attitude, stumbling incoherence, more dead than alive as she lunges for the closest living thing - her mother. If it's not obvious enough, just ask any of your female friends about the last time they had maggots cascading from their lady parts ? So come on people, wise up - it isn't that hard to get to grips with this narrative. It's only a small step to the realisation that this is how pandemics begin - with the very first unsuspecting person to pass the infection on. And CONTRACTED is a smart effort at conveying a new idea behind the zombie apocalypse notion using the analogy of sexually transmitted infections - something we all have general knowledge about and can, in one way or another, relate to.
I Spit on Your Grave 2 (2013)
Sadly pandering to the malignancy of the masses.
I'm always wary of sequels, probably more so than I am of remakes, and with a little more knowledge of how the business works than most, my scepticism is more often than not justified. Case in point with Steven R Monroe's second outing in the director's chair for what is no doubt being lined up as the next in a long line of torture porn franchises. What it is that stirs the masses so completely and utterly into a spastic-like euphoria over increasingly disgusting and plainly exploitatively tortuous content I don't think I'll ever truly understand. But the fact remains that ISOYG 2 is nothing more than a derivative hackneyed journey into territory that has been rehashed and rehashed so many times over the last 10 years in an effort, so executives suggest, to appeal to a new audience of cinephiles, that the true art of entertainment has been lost and replaced by blood, guts, visceral violence, and an inhumanity that, were it documentary rather than fiction, would have every human rights group up in protested arms. Fact is I fear for the future of cinema. Because what we are enduring in ISOYG 2 and other films that seem to recycle the same old plot devices, one dimensional characters, and situational nastiness, is a reflection of how society has, and continues to plummet towards an abyss I never imagined I'd witness. There is a glorification of violence amongst young people today that is exemplified by a 'f**k the consequences' attitude, a guilty smugness in the face of moral and legal obligation, and an enchantment with any film that allows that same expression in what is lauded as a 'make believe' world. Sadly it isn't that, but a much truer reflection of reality than we would, the majority of us I'd have to say, be prepared to admit to. ISOYG 2 has a digital perfection to it that is consistent with experienced and monied filmmaking, delivers aesthetically well composed images, but mediocre performances, and a frankly poor, situationally ridiculous, and unimaginative script. But beyond that it lacks a responsibility to influence as if, and sadly again it is the power behind the industry, pandering to the malignancy that infects the masses of younger cinema-goers and says "we make what we make because it sells !" That feels like a cop out ! We all need to feel a greater sense of responsibility towards what is made and what is consumed - not in a censoring way just with thought about what all this horrendous content is doing to us as a society, inferring unacceptable levels of acceptability. If we don't do that then those with the dollar remain with the dollar and dictate that we continue to kneel with no other voice than "hail to the all-conquering power of the green", which ultimately makes slaves of us all !