Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Movie Reviews

Jack Rico

By

2011/02/08 at 12:00am

I Spit on Your Grave: Unrated

02.8.2011 | By |

Rating: 3.0

Rated: Unrated
Release Date: 2010-10-08
Starring: Stuart Morse
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.ispitonyourgravemovie.com/

 Go to our film page

How does one recommend a torture film to women? What does one say? “Dear, you’ll love that scene where five men rape a woman silly?” Obviously not, but as a critic, one hopes that the female in question is one whose tastes in macabre films entertain her. For those who are sensitive to bloody images, this review is irrelevant to you.

The remake of ‘I Spit On Your Grave: Unrated‘ based on the 1978 film of the same name, is not a horror film, but rather a revenge thriller which is violent and ruthless. The plot centers on a writer (Sarah Butler) who is brutally raped by five men (Chad Lindberg, Daniel Franzese, Jeff Branson, Rodney Eastman, Andrew Howard) during her retreat in the woods. She was ultimately left for dead. But when our victim flings her self into a river to escape and her attackers are unable to find her body, paranoia officially sets in.

This genre of films, historically, have always been very predictable. It follows a three-act structure:

– Act I: A woman is raped, tortured, and left for dead.
– Act II: The woman survives and recovers.
– Act III: A woman takes revenge and kills all aggressors.

‘I Spit On Your Grave: Unrated’ follows this pattern to the tee.

The main attraction in this film and for most people is how violent and grotesque the revenge scenes will be in the third act. I won’t lie, I squirmed at least three times in my chair, but even so, I’ve seen more vicious and disturbing films than this. In today’s world, audiences demand a high level of violence to amuse them, if the film can’t deliver, the box office revenues show the disapproval. ‘Spit’ brings it, but not as graphic or excessive as perhaps the Saw films.

I don’t know if women are going to see this movie or not, but it’s worth advising against it due to the disturbing nature of the rape sequences. I won’t blame many if they just walk up and leave.

Should anyone go see this film? My recommendation is that if you like these types of films and are looking to be shaken around by some gritty visuals, ‘I Spit On Your Grave: Unrated’, gets the job done. For my money, though, I much prefer ‘The Last House on the Left’ and ‘The Human Centipede’ (both on DVD) which feels like you’ve committed sin.

If you don’t care for torture or rape, but like scary films, may I suggest ‘Devil’ or ‘Let Me In’ which provide a more substantial experience at the cinemas.

Jack Rico

By

2011/02/08 at 12:00am

Middle Men

02.8.2011 | By |

Rating: 3.5

Rated: R for strong sexual content, nudity, language, drug use and violence.
Release Date: 2010-08-06
Starring: George Gallo, Andy Weiss
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.middlemenmovie.com/

 Go to our film page

The pornography premise for ‘Middle Men’ will be a main attraction for many male moviegoers who enjoy a good dose of sex plot to their movies with a touch of humor. It chronicles the rise and fall of three entrepreneurs who create the first legitimate porn website.

The film is “inspired by a true story” and that tagline held my interest throughout most of the 1hr and 45 minute duration. Part of my interest stems from its dramatic and almost absurd incidents about ludicrous business decisions that took place with copious amount of sex and drugs passed around. The acting by the cast was very good, in particular, Luke Wilson, who showed a dramatic presence absent from his previous roles. Giovanny Ribisi, delivered an interesting character, but I felt a bit over the top.

The film has enough drama, humor along with twists and turns to keep the interest level very high. If you want to see something under the radar, filled with sex, drugs and more sex, Middle Men has to be on the top of your list this weekend.

Jack Rico

By

2011/02/08 at 12:00am

The Romantics

02.8.2011 | By |

Rating: 2.0

Rated: PG-13 for sexual content, partial nudity, language and some drug material.
Release Date: 2010-09-10
Starring: Galt Niederhoffer
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.theromanticsmovie.com/

 Go to our film page

Jack Rico

By

2011/02/05 at 12:00am

The Roommate

02.5.2011 | By |

The Roommate

‘The Roommate’ starring Minka Kelly and Leighton Meester, should be considered an official remake of Barbet Schroeder’s 1992 hit, ‘Single White Female’. Its plot, a roommate with a mental disorder who wants to look and be just like her friend, are almost identical. This new remake version, perhaps intended for a younger female audience, is unexceptional. It fails to improve upon the original, from its acting to the dialogue to the direction, it might as well have been sent straight to DVD, or Lifetime. But because its two female leads are so beautiful and sexy, it unapologetically slips into the realm of guilty pleasure.

The premise of ‘The Roommate’ is slightly different than the ‘SWF’. Sara Matthews (Minka Kelly) a new college student is assigned to room with Rebecca (Leighton Meester), a rich, pretty girl who unbeknownst to Sara, suffers from a personality disorder. As time passes by, their relationship grows stronger and Rebecca becomes more possessive of her friend. Little by little we see her eliminate all the things that make Sara unhappy until her ‘good’ intentions become too dangerous to ignore.

Yes, it is true that the script has no surprises or twists worth being excited about, the direction of Christian E. Christiansen is trite and worthy of Lifetime’s top 10 best, and the thrills are stale and flat, but Roommate’s sexiness and attractive cast, are hard to knock. As a result, the ‘bad’ aspects are amusing and you just go along with it waiting for another hottie to get killed or pummeled.

Whether it is a coincidence or just deliberate casting, Kelly and Meester look like twin sisters, Meester looking a tad younger. Nevertheless, it works specially well when Meester ‘becomes’ Sara in the final stretch of the film.

All in all, ‘The Roommate’ is a forgettable film, but it is never so bad that it sinks to the point of you walking out. People will laugh and enjoy the bad brushing it off as cheap escapism on a good, fun Saturday night out with the ladies.

Jack Rico

By

2011/02/01 at 12:00am

Let Me In

02.1.2011 | By |

Rating: 3.5

Rated: R for strong bloody horror violence, language and a brief sexual situation.
Release Date: 2010-10-01
Starring: Matt Reeves, John Ajvide Lindqvist
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://apps.facebook.com/letmeinrestricted/

 Go to our film page

For those who have not seen ‘Let the Right One In,’ you’ll like it’s Hollywood remake – ‘Let Me In.’ For those of you who have already seen the Swedish original, this new version will feel choppy and uninteresting, only until the second half where it really picks up.

Chloë Grace Moretz (Kick-Ass) stars as Abby, a mysterious 12-year- old who moves next door to Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee from The Road), a social outcast who is viciously bullied at school. In his loneliness, Owen forms a profound bond with his new neighbor, but he can’t help noticing that Abby is like no one he has ever met before. As a string of grisly murders grips his wintry New Mexico town, Owen has to confront the reality that this seemingly innocent girl is actually a savage vampire.

I must reinforce how wonderful the original was. The pacing might have been slow and at times just boring, but it built a visceral connection between the two young protagonists that was transfixing. As a result, it is only logical that you will constantly be comparing the two versions scene by scene, and I have to strongly recommend you against it. It is not fair to the new version which stands up quite well as its own individual work of cinema.

The opening scene of ‘Let Me In’ is absolutely enthralling. You feel like you are in for something special. Then, for viewers of the original, it begins to look hurried and uneven. With the introduction of the the second half, Hollywood begins to take over and it is clear how much more frightening this version becomes with its display of special effects. These elements appear to consist of a combination of CGI and speeded-up live action, but are at best mediocre, yet effective nevertheless. There are horror elements that will entertain such as the vicious brutal attacks; severed limbs and heads and blood gushing from opened arteries.

The acting is just as good as the original. Chloe and Kodi understood the isolation and unhappiness their characters felt. Overall, if you’re searching for a good horror film with some substance, Let Me In is an enjoyable watch.

Jack Rico

By

2011/02/01 at 12:00am

Sanctum

02.1.2011 | By |

Sanctum

‘Sanctum’ IMAX 3D is a survival action thriller that, although conceptually intriguing, never delivers a payoff that satisfies the pocket or the 3D experience it boasts about.

James Cameron executive produces this story, based on real events, of a team of underwater cave divers on a treacherous expedition to the largest, most beautiful and least accessible cave system on Earth. When a tropical storm forces them deep into the caverns, they must fight raging water, deadly terrain and creeping panic as they search for an unknown escape route to the sea. Master diver Frank McGuire (Richard Roxburgh) has explored the South Pacific’s Esa-ala Caves for months. But when his exit is cut off in a flash flood, Frank’s team-including 17-year-old son Josh (Rhys Wakefield) and financier Carl Hurley (Ioan Gruffudd) are forced to radically alter plans. With dwindling supplies, the crew must navigate an underwater labyrinth to make it out. Soon, they are confronted with the unavoidable question: Can they survive, or will they be trapped forever?

These types of movies aren’t new to the screen. The 70’s were famous for their disaster films such as The Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out, and the Oscar nominated The Towering Inferno amongst others, with the focus on the characters’ attempts to avert, escape or cope with the disaster and its aftermath. Then there was a resurgence in the mid to late 90’s with films such as Stallone’s Daylight, the remake Poseidon and The Ghost Ship.

The premise of Sanctum is as interesting and absorbing as anything out so far this early 2011. The fact that Cameron is involved and that it was shot in 3D, and it would be released in IMAX, are all great bait to a story that is high on bad acting, recycled and cliched dialogue (“What could possibly go wrong with…” insert bad joke here) and cheap visual effects. The film was shot on a budget of 30 million dollars, not the 237 million dollars Cameron spent on Avatar. Australian director Alister Grierson, who never handled a 3D camera before in his life, is directing only his second picture, and perhaps, gave to some of the B like quality of the movie. You know it wasn’t Cameron. ‘Sanctum’ was not shot in film and it’s obvious, specially when it’s juxtaposed to special effects rendering sequences of caves. However, credit must be given to anyone who is directing underwater for half of the movie. That sounds like a tough task. The 3D experience was subpar for me. I had a chance to see the film in an IMAX 3D theater and I noticed that the sound was off. It sounded far away instead of next to you like most IMAX films. I also had some problems with the IMAX glasses, different than regular 3D glasses. The light of the film kept on penetrating the darkness of my glasses producing an irritable sensation for some key scenes. I had to keep on swiveling my head to find a point where it didn’t bother me. Was it the glasses? No. I changed them just to make sure. This happened occasionally, but nevertheless, it didn’t happen to me when I went to see Tron: Legacy in December. When it comes to 3D experiences in an IMAX theater it’s hard to say Sanctum was an experience. Between sound and imagery, it failed to mesmerize the senses.

Also perforating my ears was the dialogue from John Garvin and Andrew Wight. I don’t know which one was more at fault. When one is watching the characters onscreen trying to survive a disaster and they are engulfed by the ocean itself, all there is left to entertain you is great acting and engaging dialogue to get you through the events. This was not the case here as trite, cornball words were the du jour of the day. Seriously, it was awful. Aside from the dialogue, the rest of the film had its hits and misses. Some of the highlights were the sights of the cave, the underwater sequence shots, and the acting of Richard Roxburgh who should be Stellan Skarsgård’s twin brother. The pacing of the first 40 minutes took its time to build, introduce and flesh out the characters properly. It establishes some of the forth coming problems we are about to witness and lays out the villains and heroes of the movie. This is well done and it manages to hold some interest while it lasts. Right after that, in act II, the movie begins to introduce the lousy acting and dialogue into the action scenes. Interestingly enough, in the 70’s, disaster films were always cast with heavy weight actors which gave credibility to what you were watching unfold. Overall, this is a B cast, excluding veteran actors Richard Roxburgh and Ion Gruffudd. The level of mediocre acting is typical of what one associates with the genre. The dramatic moments are cheesy and painful to watch, specially the father and son scenes. Wakefield’s character mostly, is a vexing figure throughout the whole film. He possesses a very righteous personality, that combined with his histrionic acting, results in aggravating viewing. The tension is paltry at best, perhaps because there are no monsters, killer sharks, hungry piranhas or ravenous crocodiles. I thought there would be an unknown creature lurking in the murky and cold below. The soundtrack also didn’t do a good job of creating the suspenseful atmosphere.

Ultimately, Sanctum didn’t live up to expectations. With the high rise of 3D and IMAX tickets, this experience perhaps does belong in the deep unexplored bottoms of the Earth.

Ted Faraone

By

2011/02/01 at 12:00am

Monsters

02.1.2011 | By |

Rating: 2.0

Rated: Rated R for language.
Release Date: 2010-10-29
Starring: Gareth Edwards
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:UK
Official Website: http://www.facebook.com/monstersthefilm

 Go to our film page

It has been reported that “Monsters” was made for $15,000.  That would put it in company with the awful “Paranormal Activity.”  It’s also a lot of baloney.  Helmer Gareth Edwards feature debut is not a big budget effort.  The most credible press report your critic has seen pegs shooting at $100,000 and post-production, which is where pic was really made, at $450,000.  That should astonish no one who has looked at Edwards’ resume.  He made his name as a visual special effects man.  Edwards and backers got a lot of bang for their buck.  Heck, Edwards even worked three more jobs — as writer, cinematographer, and special effects guru.

 

Backstory is handled quickly.  Six years prior to pic’s action, a NASA probe carrying life forms from outer space, crashed over Central America on re-entry to the Earth.  The northern half of Mexico is now quarantined as an “Infected Zone.”  It turns out, about halfway through pic’s 94 minutes, that the Infected Zone is so named because that’s where the alien “creatures,” which look like giant squid (about 150 feet across), float through the air, and sound like elephants with sinus trouble, lay their eggs.  Said eggs are attached to trees and glow when touched.  US and Mexican military fight their advance mostly with air strikes and a giant border wall, the sight of which would probably put anti-immigration zealots into a state of ecstasy.

 

Enter Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) a news photographer with a touch of sleaze, who is ordered to rescue the daughter of his publisher, Samantha Wynden, a cute blonde played by Whitney Able.  This is the last thing a guy who gets $50k from Wynden’s dad for shots of blood and gore, wants to do, but do it he must.  His job is on the line.  Meanwhile, the “creatures” show menacing signs of branching out from the Infected Zone.  They also seem to be attracted to light at night, a tidbit auds should bear in mind.

 

A dangling participle requires almost total suspension of disbelief.  Why can’t Samantha simply get on a plane and fly back to the US — and what was she doing in Mexico in the first place given the nation’s chaotic state?  And what about going south, to an airport or ship terminal far from danger?  That would be too easy, and there wouldn’t be a movie.

 

No.  Kaulder and “Sam” have to take a train to the gulf coast and from there board a ferry to the US.  Neither cares much for the other.  Due to trouble ahead, the train stops and reverses course.  The pair set off on foot, hitchhiking to the coast, which they finally reach late at night; pay an exorbitant amount for ferry tickets, and crash at a local hotel — in separate rooms.

 

Herein lies pic’s turning point, where action finally achieves liftoff.  Perhaps it is a lesson of sorts.  Kaulder suggests that he and Sam bunk together.  Sam vetoes the idea.  He also suggests they go do tequila shots.  She’d rather sleep.  The ferry leaves at 7 am.  Sam closes door on Kaulder.  Kaulder hits the bar, does tequila shots, and picks up a prostitute.  She steals the pair’s passports and money while hungover Kaulder, in his underwear, chases a ticked off Sam who has walked away in disgust after paying him an urgent wakeup call.  Note to girls:  If your life depends on a guy, keep him in sight.  Note to guys:  1. Don’t be so obnoxious that the girl you are to protect refuses to let you do so, and 2. Don’t get drunk and pick up a whore on the eve of your escape.  The pair miss the ferry.  No refunds.

 

A price gouging ticket broker, who had charged the exorbitant sum of $5,000 for ferry tickets — It had better be the Queen Mary II at those prices — now wants an additional $5k per person to get them a river boat passage through the Infected Zone to the US.  Sam pays with her diamond engagement ring.

 

Despite a few close encounters with “creatures,” pic never really develops the suspense common to the genre as the pair claw their way to the US border.  Here, too, pic takes some liberties with geography.  Northern Mexico is not jungle terrain.  Riverboat scenes were shot further south, in Guatemala.  The genre issue is a tad complicated.  Edwards is a special effects man who set out to shoot a love story.  You send a special effects man to make a love story, and what you get is a love story pasted over a sci-fi thriller.   It’s not quite one or the other.  Sharp-eyed readers will note that your critic made no mention of Sam having to be persuaded to pay for the trip through the Infected Zone with her diamond engagement ring.  Perhaps hers is not a match made in Heaven. 

 

The ending, which comes almost unexpectedly — “Monsters” was edited crisply by Colin Goudie — is a tad loopy.  It involves a pair of “creatures” mating.  At least that’s what Edwards says they are doing, and one sort of gets the idea, but it is not entirely clear from the material.  There is a parallel to be drawn, however, and Edwards draws it.  But it also begs the question as to whether the “creatures” are pernicious, which is pic’s premise.

 

“Monsters” carries an “R” rating.  Your critic would give it PG.  There is little objectionable language, no drug use, and no sex between humans.

Jack Rico

By

2011/01/29 at 12:00am

Biutiful (Movie Review)

01.29.2011 | By |

En lo que se puede describir como un sueño realizado, los dos más grandes titanes del cine hispanoparlante, el actor español y ganador del Oscar, Javier Bardem, y el director mexicano y nominado al Oscar, Alejandro González Iñárritu, se unen por primera vez para traernos ‘Biutiful’, una cruda y trágica cinta que arrolla los sentidos. Read More

Ted Faraone

By

2011/01/25 at 12:00am

SAW 3D

01.25.2011 | By |

Rating: 1.0

Rated: R for sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture, and language.
Release Date: 2010-10-29
Starring: Patrick Melton & Marcus Dunstan
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://saw3dmovie.com/

 Go to our film page

 

James Frey, whose fictional autobiography, “A Million Little Pieces,” got him roasted on Oprah Winfey’s sofa for 48 minutes, got off easy compared to Bobby Dagen, ably played by Sean Patrick Flanery, who is tortured (along with the audience) for 90 minutes for concocting a fictional best seller about surviving the Jigsaw killer in “Saw 3D” or “Saw VII” — depending on one’s point of view.

 

Horror thriller’s plot is simple.  The late Jigsaw John (Tobin Bell) who appears in flashback, had an accomplice, which everyone who saw “Saw VI” knows is crooked Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) whose career has not exactly soared since his stint on David E. Kelly’s “Picket Fences”.  He may be best remembered by some as the fellow in HBO’s TV series, “Sex and the City,” with a male part too big even for Samantha (Kim Cattrall) to handle. 

 

Bobby Dagen is raking in cash on his book tour.  Hoffman gets upset about this (why is anyone’s guess) and sets out to right matters.  He also has a beef with Jigsaw John’s widow, Jill (Betsy Russell), who has fingered him to the cops as her late husband’s accomplice and tried to kill him.  At least that makes sense.

 

Like the rest of the Saw series, “Saw 3D” relies on about one dead body every ten minutes, cheesy special effects, and relentless villains to achieve suspense.  The vics are also not guilt free.  They mostly (with a few exceptions) did something bad…. In other words, they’re human. 

 

This alleged thriller relies on an extraordinary suspension of disbelief.  Hoffman’s traps depend on perfect timing, amazing mechanical perfection, and a puppet showing up on TV at exactly the right moment to move the plot along.  The money such a setup would cost would be far beyond the means of a policeman.  It would be the kind of cash that would make Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke apoplectic. 

 

By now everyone who knows anything about the Saw franchise knows that its central premise is that life is about choices.  Unfortunately for those caught in Jigsaw’s traps, said choices are Hobson’s on steroids.  Pic’s second scene is set in an urban storefront in which two guys, both dated by an attractive women held overhead in a sling which emphasizes her most excellent endowments, are chained to circular saws.  In order to save the girl, one of them must saw the other to death.  If they save each other, the girl gets sawed to death.  This is classic Saw.  It is also a tad unfortunate since the unaccredited actress is sort of righteous.

 

“Saw 3D” also plagiarizes other works.  Hoffman stitching his face after Jill’s alleged murder attempt is straight out of Spanish pic “Pan’s Labyrinth.”  A bit in which Bobby has to shove hooks into his pectoral muscles was used to much better effect by Arthur Kopit in “Indians,” both on stage and on screen.

 

3D is a gimmick that Hollywood tried about 50 years ago.  It coincided with the Hula Hoop.  There is nothing new under the sun gear, as “Road & Track” magazine founder John Bond said.  Hollywood is reviving the gimmick to get bodies to shell out money to see subpar films.  It will work for a while.  Thus far your critic has seen only one picture that benefitted from 3D:  It is “Despicable Me” (which is reviewed on this site).  Heck, even CBS Sports is toying with 3D to get folks to watch its depleted roster on television.  Note to programmers:  3D does not make up for crummy material.  A compelling work can be shown on a 13-inch black and white TV screen and hold one’s interest, if not one’s breath.

 

Helmer Kevin Greutert was an editor on many of the Saw pictures and directed “Saw VI”.  Tech credits, save for the cheesy special effects, are adequate.  So is sound recording, although “Saw 3D” could be a silent picture and be none the worse for it.  Dialogue is at best banal.  Performances are almost universally awful.  Only Flanery rises above the material, which is not saying much.

 

“Saw 3D” is billed as the end of the Saw franchise. That would be a good thing.   With No. 7 it has jumped the shark.  But your critic fears otherwise.  Pic leaves a number of dangling participles on any of which can be hung “sequel.”  Auds do not know if Bobby dies or if Hoffman dies.  And it is revealed that Jigsaw John had a second accomplice, a blond haired physician (Cary Elwes) who cauterized his stump after amputating his own leg — pic’s opening scene.  Near pic’s end it is revealed that Jigsaw John made the guy his “executor” of sorts.  The future will depend on the box office that “Saw 3D” does.

 

Released just in time for Halloween, “Saw 3D” is rated R according to its press materials “for sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture, and language [sic].”  Take a pass.  Put the Jigsaw guys out of their misery.

Jack Rico

By

2011/01/25 at 12:00am

RED

01.25.2011 | By |

Rating: 3.5

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of action violence and brief strong language.
Release Date: 2010-10-15
Starring: Jon Hoeber, Erich Hoeber
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country:USA
Official Website: http://www.red-themovie.com/

 Go to our film page

Select a Page