Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Candy (2006)
2/10
spend your money on a better movie
17 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
i went into this movie with an open mind and left with nothing but the feeling of being cheated. you see, i am a fan of this genre, and like many others i am a fan of "Requiem for a Dream". not long into this movie something felt very familiar. i was first tipped off when i noticed the word "heaven" sprawled across the screen. normally this would not have been a problem, but having seen requiem, i found the theme of heaven, earth and hell in candy very similar to summer, fall and winter in Requiem for a dream. "no big deal" i thought it could be an homage. however i was not so lucky.

this movie was rife with bad acting, poor plot twists, bad writing and above all else the air of a rip off. it was like they tried to take plot devices from requiem for a dream, but did not pull it off well. for example, in the fore-mentioned heaven/summer etc thing, it seemed to be very off of the place the couple were supposed to be in.

when they were supposed to be in heaven, they were dirt poor, Candy almost died, and later she turns to prostitution (ripoff alert) without so much as a second thought. its like they saw requiem but did not get it at all. anyway, after this, the movie moves to earth or autumn. in this overly long segment we spend what seems like an eternity watching the pair try in vain to quit their drug habit when they find out that candy is pregnant, only to be treated with a stillbirth or dead baby and a scene filled with crying and hugging a DEAD BABY. around this point in time i began to think "i paid $9:50 to watch struggle, not an attempt at drama poorly covered up with something intended to shock audiences" or something like that.

at the end of earth we begin to think "what could be worse? we have seen such horrible things, how can hell top this?". well apparently the writers could not think of an answer because all that happens is candy cheats on heath ledger, goes crazy (temporarily), is then committed to a hospital, where she makes a full recovery, leaves heath ledger who finally gets a steady job cleaning dishes, and ditches her drug habit, turning into a bright beauty. oh yeah, to make things worse they kill off the seldom seen Geoffry rush who was the movie's only redeeming quality.

can you tell me how losing your wife and getting a job/ relatively happy ending is worse than drug withdrawal/ your child's death? oh well. they seemed to miss the point of their derivative theme. how can earth be worse than hell, and how can there be hope in the depths of hell?

so, to sum things up spend your hard earned money on Requiem for a dream and skip this abomination. requiem has good acting, an original plot, characters you can actually sympathise with, some gut wrenching scenes and great dialogue. you owe it to yourself. now go rent!
7 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hitcher (2007)
2/10
don't bother. see the original
26 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
the first and maybe the most noticeable thing with this movie is that the main character is no longer the boy but is now his girlfriend. secondly the only thing that they left in that has to do with the original is the scene with the truck pulling the girl apart. but surprise, they did not even get that right. they had the boy, the main character in the original get torn apart. that wasn't even the most notable part of the original. the best part was of course when Jim is eating with john and finds a finger in his french fries. in addition they of course wildly altered the plot. the original had a man driving a car cross country for someone else as a job, when he picks up the hitcher. the new one has Jim and his girlfriend driving to a lake for spring break. all of the obvious aside, they cut out the crucial point of the movie: the guy getting Stockholms Syndrome and being unable to kill the killer. in the new one they pretty much said "oh look he didn't kill the scorpion! he doesn't have a killer instinct even if he is in danger." there was sub par acting in the main characters because they, like the "The Fog" remake, decided to reel in potential teen ticket sales by using people from teen dramas on the "CW" such as one tree hill or Smallville. this move to make the movie more visually appealing by using hot teen actors killed the already terrible dialogue, although i am sure that some people thought that the movie was great due to their use. these people don't know what a good horror movie is, because anything a little more scary than supernatural is sheer horror genius. i also doubt they understand sarcasm. the only reason that i don't give this movie a 1 out of 10 is that Sean Bean was not a terrible actor. neither was Neal Mcdonough. all in all remakes have an inherent flaw. they cant seem too much like the original, but they cant stray too much from the plot. this swell of remakes is destroying the movie business. the fog was not even good the first time around. why remake it?
25 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed