Change Your Image
TImberline_Slugger
Reviews
Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies (2012)
Linc Looses Cut Off Point
The world of B rated flicks has been around since the days of Edward D. Wood Jr. It is acceptable to make a film with a working budget of $150,000, having a cast of more than ten and a storyline that tries to make sense. It is also accepted that there will be a script with people who are being paid as actors to play the parts and interpret the lines.
However, this is not the best example of this genre of film.
The story tries to follow the historical facts after the Battle of Gettysburg; it uses the characters that are well known through out history, yet, with the best will in the world, having a zombie in the same room/area as Abraham Lincoln does stretch it a bit. Having those Zombies evenly spaced over a field in a long shot makes more of a mockery especially while famous historical characters argue over who will die!
The acting notwithstanding, the make up (when you see Stonewall Jackson's beard, you will understand) is really a disappointment. The zombies must have gone to 'Little Miss Messy's House Of Childhood Makeup -Artists'...The music has been stolen from every B movie back to the 1950's. The camera work is straight from the pamphlet, 'How to be a Movie Director in Five Easy Steps'! (Where were the over the shoulder shots?)
Now for the good parts, for every movie has them: This movie tries to make a huge film with a small budget. The director and actors must have taken a small sum for their work and for that I commend them.
One question, if you had chosen to make the film without piggybacking on 'Lincoln vs the Vampires', would Asylum have said yes????
Nest time, be true to the film.
Scooby-Doo! Curse of the Lake Monster (2010)
Avoid this Scooby Dud!
It would appear in this day and age, that all the good ideas have been used up and either the movie makers 'remake' an already iconic film, or they re-brand it, changing it into something that resembles the original but in no way copies it 'frame by frame'. In this instance, Scooby Doo and the gang are mere shadows of their original characters; using ideas that are part of this made for TV prequel, and to be honest, failing miserably!
Going into the story-line would be a pointless exercise, purely because there is a mystery to solve; no surprises there! There are red herrings and misadventures, again, no surprises. Shaggy is a beatnik who wears green and brown with a goatee; Velma is smart, wears glasses, has bobbed hair, no surprises here either!
However, Fred now has dark hair (his style is like those in Glee), Daphne is tall and looks 30, and neither of the actors could act their way out of a wet paper bag. Robbie Amell, the piece of wood that plays Fred (who 'acts' as Fred would imply this fella has any acting ability at all) and Kate Melton (again, a plank of wood), seem to have never seen what the characters actually say and do...apparently this was important for Shag and Velma (and Scooby in CGI sort of way), so why not Fred and Daphne?
There is this new idea from Scooby 1 & 2 (proper movies with big name actors and some sort of budget) who started this 'let's have a dating contest' which somehow cheats the viewer into making the characters really human...not the cartoon characters in the original 1970's episodes. It seems a pity to change that area; a simple idea without all the emotional complications!
There are remakes and flipping an idea into a new 'brand'. Then, there are movies that have some sort of redeeming factors...well, all except this one.
The Green Hornet (2011)
Hornet without a sting
Now, I appreciate that this originally was created in 1936 for the radio. I also appreciate that this genre can be (and has been) open to various interpretations of: How the unsuspecting,'mild mannered', non- hero, becomes a larger than life hero! However, I am not sure what the director intended for this film. I am not sure if he wanted a 'free-spirit' script (wich hearkens to every Will Ferrell movie recently), or if he wanted a script that just flowed without control or direction. I am not sure if he wanted to follow the original idea of the character(s), or if he intended to have a new take on an 'old idea'.
Whichever, it does not work. It is a mish-mash of story, funny bits (which some viewers may not find as funny as those who made the film), fast action and dialogue...
Seth Rogan, Jay Chou and Christoph Waltz did what they could...They made a film that, without spoiling it, comes up, well, a bit short. They gave the characters life, but the life was short lived.
Save your money; borrow it from a friend.
The main question: What the heck is Cameron Diaz doing in this film???
Due Date (2010)
No, not an improve 'on the road' film.
When you sit down to watch a film, you can forgive it is a remake. You can forgive if the director chooses to make a film that has already been made. You can forgive if the gags are 'expected' or in some cases, childish.
What you cannot forgive is calling this film a comedy. Yes, there are those bits that you do laugh at...but in this film they are few and far between. The opening, at the airport, sets up a situation not too dissimilar to 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles'.
As well as, where are the charming characters? Where is the finesse? Where is the pathos? Do I really care that Ethan Tremblay is
well, exactly what is he? Why is he there? Is he so removed from a real character, unlike 'Del Griffith' (John Candy) in P, T& A that we do not care if he is
well, odd? We do not feel for Peter or his urgent situation.
What is missing are the need to care for these characters. Which is a pity. I wanted to feel for them and the situation, but when they arrived at Heidi's house, all hope was lost.
Watch it. Yes.
Hope for miracles. No.
Robin Hood (2006)
A modern low budget version of the 1100's! A cast of tens instead of thousands!
This is a BBC terror! This is suppose to be a program to show the 'real Robin of Locksley', however it is extremely low budget! There are many examples of lack of funding in: The costumes are modern clothes, chain mail made of cloth; Austrailian outback coats on Gisborne or worse a modern cloth with space age ridges in it; a crowd scene that has the same extras as in the last scene...The political correctness of women (imagine a woman with a point of view as well as riding in trousers) is cringe worthy! And as for the sheriff...he is as imposing as a hangnail! And to make matters worse (if that is possible) is Jonas Armstrong. Imagine, he has been on the Crusades and looks like it is a ride at a Theme Park!