Change Your Image
silverspur_dave
Reviews
The Restaurant (2017)
A nice diversion
I disagree with several reviewers who've blasted this film for bad or "wooden" acting. One of the indicators that you're watching good acting is that you forget the actors are acting, and that was pretty much my experience here, with a wide range of characters played with appropriate gusto and skill.
Much of the violence is out of shot, the details left to the viewer's imagination. A dying scream followed by a generous splash of blood can say more than the grossest, most graphic death.
There were a few problems with the plot and the pacing, and the ending could have been better; however, with a little sympathy and patience, you'll find an hour and a half of decent entertainment here.
Boo! (2018)
Ninety minutes I'll never get back
When the biggest scare in a movie is three kids dressed as ghosts jumping at the front door yelling "Trick or Treat," you know you're in trouble.
In a good movie you empathize with the characters, but here I found myself not giving a rat's behind about any of them. Sometimes you see a film and think, these characters are flawed but relatable. The characters here are just flawed. Badly.
And seriously, this is 2019 and everyone knows how bad tobacco is, yet three of the main characters smoke. I mean, really?
Some of the imagery is heavily influenced by other films. When 12-year-old Caleb leaves his bedroom because he hears something downstairs, a sheet-covered ghost arises from his bed and follows him. As he descends the stairs, a crucifix slowly turns upside down. I'm not kidding.
There are some not-too-bad scares toward the end, but it's all too little, too late. The whole thing is a disjointed train wreck (except that a train wreck's not this boring), and I'm just glad all I spent was $3.99 for this pre-viewed copy.
On a positive note, some of the acting is almost good. But there are too many horrible events that turn out to be nothing but bad dreams, and that gets old fast.
The Plague (2006)
Explanation for how the formerly comatose kids have sufficient muscle
In response to mentalcritic's statement: "No explanation is ever offered for why these now-adolescent characters have the urge to eat the living things around them, leave alone how they would have sufficient muscle to stand under their own power after having been comatose and convulsive for ten years."
An explanation for how they would have sufficient muscle is offered in a deleted scene, actually an expanded version of the scene where David feeds his comatose son Eric and talks to his brother Tom. David explains how twice a day the children's bodies go into convulsions. Far from weakening them, he explains, this strengthens and builds up their muscles.
Rarely does deleted material give me the feeling it really shouldn't have been deleted, but this is one example.