Weak at best. Overacting on Michael Ironside's part (and i usually really like this actor! Flashbacks overused in modern cinema and that is a perfect example. Conspiracy theories, please! Of all the Vietnam flicks i've seen it's the first one that bored me! Pretty images, but nothing special or breathtaking. The ending (no spoiler) is a big letdown and far-fetched. Really it's the perfect example of what action films shouldn't be. All and all, nothing special, weak, boring, the epitome of what certain people view as what men are (or should be?) i dunno, i wouldn't rent it if i were you, unless you suffer from insomnia and are looking for something to put you to sleep.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Feed
(2005)
Sometimes i wonder what produced has this much money to waste
15 April 2006
Who exactly would want to endorse this? It has no merits whatsoever. Bad acting would be an understatement, obviously these are not professional actors or even actors with any sort of training or experience. The same could be said about the director.
The film opens with bad music and even worse quality of image. Even on mute, this film would be extremely annoying, if you look at the technical aspect of it. Looks like it was shot with a $500 camera you buy at Future Shop. I don't know if it's actual aesthetic choices or if they simply didn't bother with lighting at all, or were aware that lighting is an important aspect of film-making.
Now, i won't even talk about the plot because to be honest... what plot? It's full of gratuitous nudity, no attention to details and a general atmosphere that makes you wonder if it was written by a horny illiterate teenager.
To sum it all up. This is not a film. It's nothing. Who wants to watch nothing?
The film opens with bad music and even worse quality of image. Even on mute, this film would be extremely annoying, if you look at the technical aspect of it. Looks like it was shot with a $500 camera you buy at Future Shop. I don't know if it's actual aesthetic choices or if they simply didn't bother with lighting at all, or were aware that lighting is an important aspect of film-making.
Now, i won't even talk about the plot because to be honest... what plot? It's full of gratuitous nudity, no attention to details and a general atmosphere that makes you wonder if it was written by a horny illiterate teenager.
To sum it all up. This is not a film. It's nothing. Who wants to watch nothing?
The Dark Hours
(2005)
Finally a REAL horror film
14 July 2005
I just saw this film at the FanTasia film festival in Montreal and was blown away by it. I really didn't expect anything and was more than surprised with the professional quality of it. High praises go to the DP for amazing lightings and colours. The filmmakers were not shy on using efficient camera movements reminiscent of Kubrick's works. The music was discreet and up to the point, no cheap tricks were used here to scare us with a sudden raise in volume or other easy silly tricks we see way too often in Hollywood movies in recent years. The acting was flawless which is not only a sign of a great scriptwriter but of good direction of actors on behalf of the filmmaker. I have seen some pretty awful dialogue in some horror films which the actors obviously couldn't say with a straight face, so it's nice to see some great dialogues in a horror film! But my appreciation didn't stop with the technical aspects of it. It was a very efficient horror film in the sense that it produced raw emotions for the audience. It doesn't make us jump up in our seats, but it makes us cringe. This is why i call this a REAL horror film as opposed to an easy-to-do thriller. The ideas were original, the cutting of the scenes led us to think of different possible ways the story could unfold, and kept us interested till the end.
Really this is a MUST SEE film. Being a Canadian film, I do hope they will get good distribution and that the world will be able to see this. This team of filmmakers and actors will go far. Keep their names in mind because I would bet that we'll be hearing them a lot in the future.
Really this is a MUST SEE film. Being a Canadian film, I do hope they will get good distribution and that the world will be able to see this. This team of filmmakers and actors will go far. Keep their names in mind because I would bet that we'll be hearing them a lot in the future.
Firecracker
(2005)
It's hard to be a good actor with a bad script!
13 July 2005
the film was a big disappointment. i found it irrelevant, easy, badly scripted, badly directed and when I met with the producer, couldn't answer the simplest questions. Fortunately I got to meet with Selene who was super nice!
The only good thing in the film is Karen Black's acting. Who thought of getting Mike Patton to play a part? He sucked! The carnival was not pertinent to the story, i felt it was there just to "look cool".
The "chorus" aka Pearl looked misplaced. She had a definite 1970s look to her and she really didn't need to be in the film.
My thoughts:
Yeah... i really didn't like it. This is some self-indulgent film, i really don't get what the fuss is about.
The only good thing in the film is Karen Black's acting. Who thought of getting Mike Patton to play a part? He sucked! The carnival was not pertinent to the story, i felt it was there just to "look cool".
The "chorus" aka Pearl looked misplaced. She had a definite 1970s look to her and she really didn't need to be in the film.
My thoughts:
- it's VERY HARD to be a good actor with a bad script - what is with the red cape? Little Riding Hood imagery... i don't get it. - the b&w / colour concept was interesting yet badly done technically - it's unclear when this takes place. it's supposed to be 1950s but there is tons of anachronisms (white Nike running shoes being the most common one). - sometimes we hear the camera motor running... that's just BAD film-making - one car scene with the camera on hood while the actors are driving on a dirt road = IMAGE SHAKING, didn't the director ever hear of a backdrop? - too much details is worse than not enough, Jimmy's ticks are just annoying... one facial tick, fine. two, fine. three, fine. 25 at the same time = BAD! The actors didn't seem to be getting any direction. Which denotes a bad filmmaker. - Frank is a big stereotype - Is Jimmy gay? If he isn't, he sure was portrayed as such. Why? Is this hidden gay bashing? - they should have had a French-language consultant because frankly the "French" guy's accent sucked so bad and Karen Black couldn't pronounce "coeur" in her song.
Yeah... i really didn't like it. This is some self-indulgent film, i really don't get what the fuss is about.
Poko
(2003– )
artistic and beautiful; perfect for children
7 July 2005
This show is a little gem and I do recommend that parents try to find this DVD. It's a nice break from the stupidity that I keep on seeing on TV aimed at kids. Jazz music, soft voices, happy colours, it's a little piece of heaven. If i had children, I would make them watch this. It is a brilliant way to help educate and entertain toddlers. They have a way of helping kids cope with frustration which is the case with a lot of them. Moreso, the songs are catchy and easy to remember.
What really surprised me was the use of off-screen children that talk to Poko and he seems to hear them. This allows for a fun interaction. The viewer kid would feel that he or she is part of the bunch of kids talking to Poko.
Of course, I also recommend that the adults step out of the room while the infants watch this, as it can get a bit too cute and cuddly and can turn some parents violent, or so one would imagine (the Teletubbies syndrome). (This is for children under five, I would imagine.)
What really surprised me was the use of off-screen children that talk to Poko and he seems to hear them. This allows for a fun interaction. The viewer kid would feel that he or she is part of the bunch of kids talking to Poko.
Of course, I also recommend that the adults step out of the room while the infants watch this, as it can get a bit too cute and cuddly and can turn some parents violent, or so one would imagine (the Teletubbies syndrome). (This is for children under five, I would imagine.)
Nature Unleashed: Tornado
(2005 Video)
If all stereotypes could join in a movie...
29 June 2005
I don't believe the term "spoilers" applies to this film. Whatever you could hear about the film before seeing it would not "spoil" your experience, because you'll have a bad one no matter what.
This film is so bad you can't even laugh about it. It doesn't have the charm of bad gore movies, it doesn't have any charm, actually.
The acting is more than bad, whoever decided to cast Daniel Bernhardt as Josh Pallady should be hit repeatedly with something cold and wet. He couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag.
The script must have been written in less than 24 hours by some kid who's read too many occult books. All the symbols are connected in this movie in such a stupid way.
You would expect something about tornadoes, but they only play a small part, it's mostly occult gibberish intertwined with stereotypes (boy travels with girl, girl can't stand him, boy goes to have dinner with other girl, the first girl gets jealous kind of thing) the number 666, devil worshipers, talismans, gypsies telling fortunes, insane asylum...
Seriously everything that's been overdone in the history of cinema and literature is being shown in this movie.
It's so bad, i can't even start to describe it. It still amazes me how producers read the synopsis and said, "Yes, we'll buy it." Why???! I really recommend NEVER seeing that piece of cinematic garbage. If you have to decide between watching this on TV or spending an evening looking at the paint peeling from your walls, I seriously recommend the latter.
If you hear of this movie, and all the others in this series (Volcano, Earthquake, Fire), RUN AWAY!!!
This film is so bad you can't even laugh about it. It doesn't have the charm of bad gore movies, it doesn't have any charm, actually.
The acting is more than bad, whoever decided to cast Daniel Bernhardt as Josh Pallady should be hit repeatedly with something cold and wet. He couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag.
The script must have been written in less than 24 hours by some kid who's read too many occult books. All the symbols are connected in this movie in such a stupid way.
You would expect something about tornadoes, but they only play a small part, it's mostly occult gibberish intertwined with stereotypes (boy travels with girl, girl can't stand him, boy goes to have dinner with other girl, the first girl gets jealous kind of thing) the number 666, devil worshipers, talismans, gypsies telling fortunes, insane asylum...
Seriously everything that's been overdone in the history of cinema and literature is being shown in this movie.
It's so bad, i can't even start to describe it. It still amazes me how producers read the synopsis and said, "Yes, we'll buy it." Why???! I really recommend NEVER seeing that piece of cinematic garbage. If you have to decide between watching this on TV or spending an evening looking at the paint peeling from your walls, I seriously recommend the latter.
If you hear of this movie, and all the others in this series (Volcano, Earthquake, Fire), RUN AWAY!!!
I Wanna Hold Your Hand
(1978)
What a bunch of pathetic unimportant characters.
14 March 2005
I rented this film on a spur of the moment thing. I saw it in the comedy section of my local video store and thought, oh a film about The Beatles and their fans, this ought to be a gas. Wrong.
The historical footage is very well integrated in the film. You never see the faux Beatles up close and you see the "real" Beatles on various TV sets and so on. That's good.
Now that the only good element of the film has been taken care of, let's go explore the bad points. First off: the characters! My God are they common, stereotypes and annoying! Okay, we all expected girls to cry, to yell, to shout, to faint. Fine, but did they all have to have such powerful annoying voices? And i think about the main character here, Miss Rosie.
It's an easy slapstick adventure, when people fall constantly, stupidity rules and luck has everything to do with the movie.
There are very few Beatles songs in the film, and it seems it's always the same ones that play over and over again. I don't want to continue, this is bringing me down.
Don't rent this unless you're deaf.
The historical footage is very well integrated in the film. You never see the faux Beatles up close and you see the "real" Beatles on various TV sets and so on. That's good.
Now that the only good element of the film has been taken care of, let's go explore the bad points. First off: the characters! My God are they common, stereotypes and annoying! Okay, we all expected girls to cry, to yell, to shout, to faint. Fine, but did they all have to have such powerful annoying voices? And i think about the main character here, Miss Rosie.
It's an easy slapstick adventure, when people fall constantly, stupidity rules and luck has everything to do with the movie.
There are very few Beatles songs in the film, and it seems it's always the same ones that play over and over again. I don't want to continue, this is bringing me down.
Don't rent this unless you're deaf.
Darkness
(2002)
Good horror moments, weak storyline.
8 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
*contains spoilers* I excepted nothing when I saw this film and midway through it, I was quite impressed. The hauntings were very spooky and gave me chills. But when the film continued and the explanation came for the hauntings, well, it's all been done before. The occult, blah blah, same old same old.
From the start, the characters are barely credible. The mother seems to be shamelessly trying to seduce her father-in-law at the housewarming party. The father's quirky actions are soon a reason to worry (without much reason, at first, i must say), then his madness is just oh-too-typical. What struck me about him though is his resemblance to Patrick Swayze, but in a kind of cheap version. His "cute smirks" were really annoying too, as if he was trying to always look like a hunk when the camera was on him. Not appropriate. But mostly, the architect is a caricature of the "old man whose only purpose in the movie is to help the protagonists find the truth." He knows way to much and is ready to reveal it to anyone, it seems.
That being said, it's entertaining, and i guess that was the sole purpose of the film. It's not grounds-breaking, but it does its job.
And i have to admit the use of filters gave the image a very beautiful quality. It's been somewhat overused over the last couple of years, but it's still pretty eye candy.
So... in summary. Good spooky effects, good lighting effects. Cheesy characters. Somewhat cheesy storyline and a somewhat "surprising" ending.
Ps: i spotted the "bad guy" 10 minutes into the film. Can you do any better? ;)
From the start, the characters are barely credible. The mother seems to be shamelessly trying to seduce her father-in-law at the housewarming party. The father's quirky actions are soon a reason to worry (without much reason, at first, i must say), then his madness is just oh-too-typical. What struck me about him though is his resemblance to Patrick Swayze, but in a kind of cheap version. His "cute smirks" were really annoying too, as if he was trying to always look like a hunk when the camera was on him. Not appropriate. But mostly, the architect is a caricature of the "old man whose only purpose in the movie is to help the protagonists find the truth." He knows way to much and is ready to reveal it to anyone, it seems.
That being said, it's entertaining, and i guess that was the sole purpose of the film. It's not grounds-breaking, but it does its job.
And i have to admit the use of filters gave the image a very beautiful quality. It's been somewhat overused over the last couple of years, but it's still pretty eye candy.
So... in summary. Good spooky effects, good lighting effects. Cheesy characters. Somewhat cheesy storyline and a somewhat "surprising" ending.
Ps: i spotted the "bad guy" 10 minutes into the film. Can you do any better? ;)
Eternal
(2004)
pseudo lesbian galore!
16 July 2004
Sometimes you tend to say you like films because they're entertaining. Doesn't mean they're good. But you liked them. This one falls under that category. Entertaining, but not "good".
Canadian horror movies are rare. Quebec horror movies are even rarer. Vampire movies though, are common. So is this common or new? New in Quebec, old elsewhere, perhaps.
Dracula's a woman. A sexy woman. She's a lesbian. She doesn't seem to have any special powers other than being sexy. Guys fall for her, girls can't resist her and she likes her dog(?!).
I have to say it was elegantly filmed, the locations were very beautiful, the acting is good, but the characters are hard to believe. The policeman, Ray, is cliché after cliché.
It is not scary, it is not new, but i've been turned on since the beginning. So i guess it works...
Canadian horror movies are rare. Quebec horror movies are even rarer. Vampire movies though, are common. So is this common or new? New in Quebec, old elsewhere, perhaps.
Dracula's a woman. A sexy woman. She's a lesbian. She doesn't seem to have any special powers other than being sexy. Guys fall for her, girls can't resist her and she likes her dog(?!).
I have to say it was elegantly filmed, the locations were very beautiful, the acting is good, but the characters are hard to believe. The policeman, Ray, is cliché after cliché.
It is not scary, it is not new, but i've been turned on since the beginning. So i guess it works...
Dans l'oeil du chat
(2004)
stupid quebecer artsy-fartsy bullsh*t
13 May 2004
This has to be one of the most boring plotlines i have ever seen. One deceived man discovering the past of his ex-fiancé. Woopsidoo! How original! It's layered with voice-over over voice-over, whispering, dissolves/cross-fading so much you just end up losing your lunch. It's a pretentious little film where you don't feel sorry for any character. They all end up getting on your nerves. The story itself is simply unbelievable and if i haven't made this overly clear, CHEESY!!! And why is this in the thriller genre? It's a stupid little drama that wants to be a thriller, but there's no thrill and no suspense. I would say the acting is bad too (wayyyy over the top) but i guess it's not the actor's fault but how they were directed (poorly!). Oh and that gratuitous nudity that tries to look like it's actually showing all the beauty of the female form! Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and burned it! So overly done. Nothing new there. Move along folks, there's nothing to see.
It reflects the worse kind of Quebec cinema, the type that's everywhere and makes us look like a pathetic culture. No class whatsoever. The little village mentality even in the big city. We're supposed to believe that everyone cares about two people's love story? I mean the neighbours, the new girlfriend, the landlord, why do they give a damn if this guy loved the dead girl anyway? We have outgrown this little village mentality of the 50s in Quebec. It's not like that, yet they often portray Quebec and Canada as if it had never left this stage of evolution. All i have to say is bullsh*t.
It reflects the worse kind of Quebec cinema, the type that's everywhere and makes us look like a pathetic culture. No class whatsoever. The little village mentality even in the big city. We're supposed to believe that everyone cares about two people's love story? I mean the neighbours, the new girlfriend, the landlord, why do they give a damn if this guy loved the dead girl anyway? We have outgrown this little village mentality of the 50s in Quebec. It's not like that, yet they often portray Quebec and Canada as if it had never left this stage of evolution. All i have to say is bullsh*t.
Children of the Living Dead
(2001 Video)
Clearly this director had never seen a horror flick before
2 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
The film advertises loud and clear "with tom savini" (from Dawn of the Dead) who's only in the movie for the first 14 minutes...
it's a film where evil zombies fight back. Full of too many uncalled for camera movements (feels like the cameraman learned all about the trade watching MTV.. it moves all the time for no reason) and there are lots of extreme close-ups of mouths and even stomachs! For some reason in the opening scenes, a weird blue filter was used outside for no reason.. everyone looked blue?!
So the premise of the films says that zombies don't take to children (what the f***?) why not? It opens with people shooting zombies. no explanation given why there are zombies though. Then it moves on to 14 years later where all the zombies have been killed and people seem to have forgotten all about the fact there ever were some walking the earth...
so 14 years later, kids we don't know are now the stars of the film. they do a stupid party on a grave and then die because a zombie stepped on the road ! The end of them.
At some point some grave robbers vandalize some 5 coffins that are just left there by themselves alone at night in a cemetery after the funeral. yeah sure like anyone would just leave their loved ones to vandals! and then a zombie who believe he's a vampire or something bites a corpse and brings it back to life.. sure whatever! oh and did i mention BAD ACTORS?!!
So the movie starts AGAIN, still with BAD actors!!! We're now 30 minutes INTO the film with a TON of new characters, half of them useless, with the stupidest dialogue ever. I didn't know they were still making such awful b-rated movies these days. it was made in 2001 but really has a 1986 feel to it. every character is shallow, talks too much and has no reason whatsoever to do what he or she does. it's hilarious!! wow! i wish some people could be here watching this with me cause such bad movies have to be shared!!
This time though it's all about ONE super villain zombie. he is truly evil. he can even think and he plans his attacks. sure.. doesn't that defeat the purpose of a zombie? i guess this time we can call the living dead monsters and not zombies since they are not the dumb dead we're used too.
In the end the movie shows that the director clearly had never seen a horror movie before. He repeated all the mistakes everybody makes. The plot is so thin it's non believable. And as always the girl at the end has to lock herself up while all the MALES shoot the zombies. Right i forgot that girls can't shoot!
Whatever that was so bad.. 1.7/10 :
it's a film where evil zombies fight back. Full of too many uncalled for camera movements (feels like the cameraman learned all about the trade watching MTV.. it moves all the time for no reason) and there are lots of extreme close-ups of mouths and even stomachs! For some reason in the opening scenes, a weird blue filter was used outside for no reason.. everyone looked blue?!
So the premise of the films says that zombies don't take to children (what the f***?) why not? It opens with people shooting zombies. no explanation given why there are zombies though. Then it moves on to 14 years later where all the zombies have been killed and people seem to have forgotten all about the fact there ever were some walking the earth...
so 14 years later, kids we don't know are now the stars of the film. they do a stupid party on a grave and then die because a zombie stepped on the road ! The end of them.
At some point some grave robbers vandalize some 5 coffins that are just left there by themselves alone at night in a cemetery after the funeral. yeah sure like anyone would just leave their loved ones to vandals! and then a zombie who believe he's a vampire or something bites a corpse and brings it back to life.. sure whatever! oh and did i mention BAD ACTORS?!!
So the movie starts AGAIN, still with BAD actors!!! We're now 30 minutes INTO the film with a TON of new characters, half of them useless, with the stupidest dialogue ever. I didn't know they were still making such awful b-rated movies these days. it was made in 2001 but really has a 1986 feel to it. every character is shallow, talks too much and has no reason whatsoever to do what he or she does. it's hilarious!! wow! i wish some people could be here watching this with me cause such bad movies have to be shared!!
This time though it's all about ONE super villain zombie. he is truly evil. he can even think and he plans his attacks. sure.. doesn't that defeat the purpose of a zombie? i guess this time we can call the living dead monsters and not zombies since they are not the dumb dead we're used too.
In the end the movie shows that the director clearly had never seen a horror movie before. He repeated all the mistakes everybody makes. The plot is so thin it's non believable. And as always the girl at the end has to lock herself up while all the MALES shoot the zombies. Right i forgot that girls can't shoot!
Whatever that was so bad.. 1.7/10 :
Tell Your Friends