The Ruins

I'm just so fed up with hysterical, American, young people. I mean, forthe love of god, it went out of fashion with The Blair Witch project.Without giving away the plot, this is what you are going to see for anhour or so. After the unforgivably bad plot intro.

I don't have anything against a movie having a low budget as long asthe producer and director are creative. Several of my favourite moviesfrom the last couple of years are actually in that category becausethey found creative ways around the monetary limitations.

And I can see where they are coming from in this movie. They are tryingto build up some tension with the dialogue and give us personalconnections to the actors. However, they fail utterly. It's hysterical,stupid and very annoying. No, I can't feel sorry for you because youare American and you don't understand what they are saying. No I can'tfeel for you because you are stupid enough to go to that awful placethat even a blind person could see was dangerous.

This is one of the worst movies I've seen and I didn't even see thepoint to finish it. A total waste of time.

There are good parts in this movie, but they are few and far between,and the story is 100% swiss cheese. This one definitely isn't for theweak of stomach either. I didn't make the connection while watching thepreviews that this movie is about plants that eat you while yousleep…….(so not scary)…….and then the ending was garbage. Therejust wasn't enough of anything else besides gore to keep my interestwith this one (and I actually like gory movies). If you want to see amovie in which people perform crude surgery on themselves over and overagain, then this is the movie for you. If you want to see a scary moviewith a little more than the bare minimum of substance, BEWARE!Hopefully the plants will eat anyone involved with the creation of thismisguided masterpiece.

I saw the Ruins last night with a few friends, and I was completelyamazed by it. It was so much better than I expected, and would have tosay it was one of the best horror movies I have ever seen. The plot wasextremely interesting and creative and the movie was disturbing,terrifying, freaky, and suspenseful, having me on the edge of my seatthe whole time, wondering what would happen next. It is kind of strangeto say, but this movie is actually really powerful and moving. Thethings the characters endure to try to survive is gut wrenching andintense and it really gets to you. You really feel so much for thecharacters, nothing like in any horror movie before and at parts, itshard to watch what they have to go through. The acting is great in thismovie and everyone does an excellent job. But, Laura Ramsey definitelystood out. She was so completely and utterly amazing in this movie. Shegave the best performance I have seen in a movie in a while, and gavethe best performance I have ever seen in a horror movie before. Sheplayed her character with such raw emotion and makes the pain,confusion, and suffering her character goes through so unbelievablyreal that it gives you chills. You feel for her character so much, forher character is the one that suffers the most throughout the movie.She makes it so real it is hard to watch, and you are left amazed byher performance. I loved this movie and it was completely enjoyable andentertaining, but it is even worth watching this movie just for Laura'sperformance. That's how excellent she and this movie are. This is thebest horror movie, and those who enjoy horror movies and amazingperformances will not be disappointed, i sure wasn't!

Before I start, I am reminded of an episode of "The Simpsons" whenHomer is eaten by a Venus flytrap, and ultimately breaks it apartmaking his escape. When Lisa asks "Dad, how did you do that" he scoffedand replied "its a plant!" The story of "The Ruins" works if youbelieve that plants can move with great speed, mimic the sounds aroundthem (such as conversation, screams, cell phone ring tones, etc…)quite literally minutes after they can be heard, and you reject thatwhole well established scientific idea of photosynthesis and roots andall. In other words, its about as practical as you or I having coffeeand a bagel on Saturn's outer ring next Friday afternoon! To summarizethe story in approximately 60 words: 4 American students in Mexico fora spring break head off to ruins with a German they just met; when theyget to the ruins they encounter some locals who force them to stay onthe ruins until they're all dead. The plants can 'talk,' move withgreat speed, and eat them while they're alive, but preferably whilethey're dead.

Lots of gore, but it becomes lame the more you think about it, and Icouldn't help but chuckle afterwords. Acting is sub par, but I will saythis: I admire that the film's mutilation scenes are meant to save thecharacters rather then torture them to death!

I was trying to identify what made this movie a dud. From the writer of"A Simple Plan" complete with a good looking cast who have enoughtalent that they are more than just faces(and bodies). Some neataspects to the horror part. Nothing that has been done too much and nota typical horror theme. But when you get near the end and the climaxhappens. You know, where Sigourney Weaver is running through the selfdestructing space ship, or Jamie Lee Curtis character is in a mad dashto escape Michael Myers, or where Naomi Watts is down that strange welland the body appears there? That doesn't happen here. There is no heartin the mouth chase from unspeakable horror. The show doesn't actuallyhave a climax. It's like they ran out of money or accidentally cut itout. I could think of a number of ways the inside of a labyrinth likepyramid might be used to give a film an exciting climactic finish.Apparently the director couldn't. I give it a 6 for the positives notedabove, and the fact that with horror the bar is set pretty low. Adecent renter though.

the book was very scary and disturbing. i can only hope the movie is aswell. though i know they made at least one significant change from thebook in the movie. i will not reveal it now. but in response to anothercomment, not all American horror films have nudity in them. i have seensome great horror films that haven't, though the titles escape me rightnow at 7am. i will get back to you on that. i'm psyched to see thisfilm. i'm not expecting an exact representation of the book, for thatalmost never happens with book to film adaptations. i have high hopesfor Carter Smith. i saw his short film Bugcrush and thought it was verygood. anyone interested should go check it out. it's on a DVDcompilation called Boys Life 6.

this is the typical over advertised cliché as to imply it is a horrormovie. the suspense is pretty good( the feature's ONLY "stenght"aspect) but horror?….hmm no. there is nothing here you have not yetseen in any of this production's commercials.it is the typical "chickflick", if i would have to choose a term that would relate the as theclosest to the feature as a whole.

the acting is OK but the script and dialogs are generally verypredictable. i knew exactly the order in which characters will die orsurvive. the special effects are NON- Existent; the dialogs especiallyare reflecting the unrealistic Hollywood views on several subjectmatters. "we are 4 Americans stranded on a holiday, the world justsimply can not forget about us" ; or how the locals are portrayed aswilling to shoot their own people but NOT the American "citizens"; orhow the four main characters are the typical spoiled brats, like everyAmerican teenager is a "paris Hilton" or wanting to be(!?);or how the 4friends are interacting with each-other. Awful and quiet irritating attimes; if an average Mexican ci
tizen will watch this feature he/shemight have a smile or two, unlike someone north of the border living ina state of paranoid fear, and that even is the movie tries to twistthat as being the other way around… it is quiet sad to see grosscultural ignorance displayed here but not forgetting the sex clichés;yuck. God forbid those teenager's actions would reflect in any way, orgeneralize the present young generation north of the Mexican border…

i give it 4 stars for its suspense techniques only, a classic one,nothing special there; otherwise would be a full one star)).

In the middle of a dense forest somewhere in Southern America there isa ruin of an ancient temple. A couple tourists on their last days ofvacation want to see it, their curiosity triggered by the fact that thetemple isn't listed in any books nor visible on any maps. After a wildnight of partying they are led there by their guide and from there thefilm starts rolling.

History has seen more films just like this one. This is after all apretty standard recipe for a horror film: a number of ignorant peopleend up in a place where they shouldn't be and bad things starthappening to them. And when I first saw the trailers for this film Iknew it wasn't going to be something great - but it might have beengood enough. Alas, when the film started it was clear from the word gothat it was never going to use anything besides the well known clichésthat make for the bulk of many of these films and that it wasn't goingto use them well.

Pretty poor acting, mediocre effects at best, laughter when fright isneeded instead, plot holes as deep as the grand canyon. You name it, itwas in there. All of it.

3 out of 10 films that should never make it to the cinema

When watching the previews, and the commercials on TV, I honestlythought this movie was going to be slightly different than other horrorflops.

4 Americans go on a vacation to Mexico. You do the math: alcohol +European mingling + an unexplored region of Mexico = a disaster writtenall over it.

An excuse for a sex remark at times, and constant complaining comingfrom an ignorant blonde.

When the audience laughs more than they are scared, there's somethingwrong, and when you laugh during a crying scene, then you know themovie sucks.

Absolutely awful, perhaps the $10 should have been used on Nim's Islandor something of that sort, maybe Leatherheads?

Why anybody would rate this movie more than 3/10 I have no idea. I wentto go see it because usually any horror movie on IMDb over 6/10 isusually not bad. Boy was I surprised. The acting was horrible. The plotwas so bad I can completely summarize the whole movie in one sentence:6 people go to a temple and vines kill them. There's 5 minutes ofcharacter development and then the rest of the movie is spent on thetop of some temple in the middle of nowhere. They went inside it forlike a minute. I want my money back. The movie was so bad I didn't evenhave enough to write about so IMDb is making me make this post longer.The only reason I didn't give it a 1 is because one of the hot chicksshows her tits at the beginning of the movie.

read comments (0)

The Wrestler

I am afraid but I have to dissent from the popular opinion and disagreewith awards givers and most of the people so fervently complementingthis film for veracity, poignancy, greatness of directorial and actingsuccess. I strongly disagree with all these opinions.

The film is predictable, boring and suffers from bad taste. Thesituation of aged 'broken down piece of meat' wrestler is not typical,nor believable, neither interesting. It is a story of poorly lived life(not developed by the scenario) of contemporary gladiator. His life isparalleled with the life of a 'virtuous' stripper, who he intends forhis sweat-heart. Do you know why most sympathetic characters in thissort of films (and there many of those) are always a drunkard, aprostitute, a drug addict? Do you know people like this? I do not! Sowhere is the truth, the poignancy, do you wish to be like them, do youwish your children to be like them? Is this an example of who you donot to be?

The plot is also attempt to compare the wrestler's wounds with thepassions of Christ. OK, if that was an intent then why it was notdeveloped at all; just a statement or allusion to the fact does notmake it meaningful - the situation is very contrived and unreal. Moreprecisely, the film is about Mr. Rourke's passions as he correctlystated in a TV interview.

I do feel sorry for the great human material named Mickey Rourke, whowas endowed by nature with great body, face, good deal of talent andwho squandered it all, wasted in the orgy of drugs, violence andself-indulgence. I do hope that he will be able to remake and reinventhimself - but this is no reason, at least for me, to take part in hiscontinuous Sado-Mazochism, evident in "The Wrestler".

This movie is completely disgusting and horrible. Mickey Rourke is aterrible actor and should not ever be in another film. His acting asthe wrestler is just stupid. The character is stupid. He does a reallybad job at playing him. He's such a loser, he should not act. He can'tact at all. This film is so overwrought and so pretentious I can't evenbelieve it was made. There is not one redeemable quality about thismovie. Not one. There is so much gratuitous sex that it was basicallyjust like watching a porno. Also, wrestling is fake but this filmportrays it as if its an even more hardcore sport than football. Thecharacters cut themselves open and basically mutilate themselves onstage in front of a cheering audience. The violence in this made mevomit. There's a scene where the wrestler chops his hand off. Then inthe next scene it's back on. Hmmm. Bad film-making, or maybe it's doneto convey a message of some sort, which is pretentious. The movie endswith the wrestler dying and dropping dead in the ring from an explodedheart. Lets hope he stays dead.

I can only say that i watched this film with great anticipation as thescore on this website had reflected a film of majestic proportions. HOWWRONG WAS I !!!!!! Mr Rouke's face now has the ability to mask anyemotion better than any botox bimbo, which allows him to carry out eachscene just the same as the last (must be a dream for the editors forcontinuity). The script ,or lack of one, was incredible. I wonder ifthe meeting went like this.

Idea for film hmmmmmmm I know has anyone watched The Boxer well if weget a washed up actor and follow him around with a camcorder with arough draft of what we want and make sure he is not recognisable to thegeneral public then we don't really need a script so we save moneythere because lets face it we will have to spend a fortune on pluggingthis turkey and make people believe that it is a major comeback for ourailing star. Don't forget its wrestling so lets add a titty bar and abird who guys will remember for being yummy when she was about 20 andget her to strip because lets face it a younger model will cost usmore.

I don't know if it is me being British or just with me not followingthe acting oops sorry wrestling scene but in my opinion this movie isyet another waste of cellulose which has been turned into a blockbusternot because of acting talent or story (lets all face it if you want aheart-wrenching sports story film just watch The Boxer) but becausepeople went to see it just to look at how disfigured Mr Rouke's face isnow due to the plastic surgery from hell.

I have just finished watching the film. It doesn't even worth seeingthe end of it. There are lots of details that should be taken care of.

First of all, the dialogs are pretty lame. Except for several quotes,there were almost no quality speech in the movie. If you are getting adrama movie, it has to have much more than this one.

secondly, the movie was so boring for a non-wrestler fun. If you havebeen protecting your eyes from seeing such violence, you better notwatch film. It is disgusting to see that wrestler bleeding all over and"nailing themselves".

And do they really had to include so much striptease scenes? It hasirrelevant to see boobs throughout the wrestling movie. Only 1 minuteof it could be enough for everyone to understand that she is working asa stripper.

The only part that I liked is his dilemma of choosing his rest of life,whether he will choose to continue wrestling or retire. That brings twopoints. OK let's not be so cruel and give another point for the greatboobs and private dancing of Marisa Tomei!!!

Overrated. Terribly, terribly, overrated.

***Spoiler*** Randy was an overall a boring and emotionless character.Sure, he cried during that one scene, but that was way too little tomake me feel for him. Feeling sympathetic for Randy is like tryingseeing Seth Rogen play something other than a slimy, disgustingpothead; it's just not going to happen. The only good actor/actress inthe whole movie was the daughter, and she was only in it for like 10minutes. Oh, and the stripper was pretty hot.

When all is said and done, don't waste your time with this movie.

Very disappointing.

I had already seen other movies by Arenofsky and really hated them.Everything is carefully constructed, but in a bad way: it is donebecause the audience is always thought to be stupid – it's a case ofexcessive belief in post-modernity – his movies are completelyideological and he leaves no space for thinking. This one was noexception. In every take he's preaching. It is gratuitous andirrelevant at the same time. Decorative while pretending to bemeaningful. It gives an epic dimension to kitsch…therefore celebratingAmerica at its worst.

Rourke gets out of the grave to play himself, which must be a feat Iguess. And to tell the truth it's a better swan song than Sin city.Marisa Tomei shows her assets. There's not much acting involved…I'd sayit's rather a case of editing building up the acting. I bet there'a ahuge marketing budget behind this building it all up.

However Arenofsky is no Tarantino; no money will turn this into a goodmovie. Tarantino really enjoys popular culture… there's real pleasureand spontaneity behind his movies, and they actually are more complexthan any of Arenofsky's.

Thank god I'm forgetting is as I write !

The guy is very talented. Pi & Requiem for a Dream were brilliant butmade no money. The Fountain was solid but overly ambitious and lacked aHollywood storyline thus lost about $25 million. The Wrestler is Darrenpaying back his Hollywood machers. Yes, it is well acted but the storyof an aging burnout who can't let go of his past glory is the oldeststory in the book. I found the depth lacking and overall it justplodded along until the ultimately cliché ending. Just follow thenumbers people - cost only $7 million and will probably gross about $20- $30 million. This is Darren trying to remain viable in Hollywood andlittle else.

>

 

This is a meandering film that doesn't know what it is. For oneinstance it's very much like a documentary with the dizzy camera movingwith each footstep, causing a viewer to be sea-sick. Certain sidecharacters are documentary-like; as in, they aren't interesting, likepeople in movies, and seem somewhat realistic, i.e. mundane: thisincludes his boss, his opponents, his manager, and a little kid hebefriends. But then there's his daughter, whose subplot providesmelodrama the likes of a bad soap or, let's just say, a normal datemovie. And his "girlfriend" stripper, who provides the film with aformulaic love story, seems out of place, and their relationship neverseems right. This movie should have been more like the original"Rocky", and kept a fictional yet interesting feel throughout, withcolorful characters we can be a part of, instead of walking the fenceof realty show/fictional film. And the director should have kept thecamera from moving so much. He had two shots: a far away shot where thecamera isn't moving that seems like a security camera footage; and theneverything else is shaky-cam: to the max. This film is overrated, bigtime. And the bar scene where the Wrestler and his stripper gal sing"Round in Round" is truly horrific.

 

---

 

This movie really winds me up. I have never seen a movie thatdisappointed me more than this one. I'll explain why.

First of all, there is absolutely NO story. It's just a collection ofboring and uninteresting events. Man has job. Man loses job because ofhis health. Man in love with woman. Man tries to band with child. Mangoes to work again. That's it. I've actually seen it twice because Iwanted to know if I was missing anything, but I still can't get thepoint of it.

Mickey Rourke plays a good role but he isen't great. To be honest Ithink he doesen't deserve a BAFTA, it's character is way to flat forthat. And the same count's for the lovely Marisa Tomei.

Very, very disappointing.

 

---

 

I don't get why people are raving about The Wrestler. It is boring.There have been so many other films about aging boxers/sports peopleetc, that are better, deeper and wiser. OK - not so many aboutwrestling, but the film is not really about wrestling anyway. It isabout a man who is ultimately very damaged and who does wrestling inorder to live out his self loathing and self mutilation problem. Rourkeplays himself! I can't see an acting stretch here and the actinganyway, is limited. I don't get the stripper either - Marisa Tomei hasbeen nominated for an Oscar for this performance - why!!! She couldhave done it asleep. It was so contrived; yes, we've seen that roledone a thousand times before. The problem with The Wrestler is that thecharacters are two dimensional. There is no depth or understanding orstory as to why they are the way they are. The gory bloody parts aregross and are merely a means to engage the viewer in a very boringscript. Of course, 'The Ram' who Rourke plays, is a very self obsessed,selfish, damaged, lonely man who even after trying to build hisrelationship with his daughter; has to fail because he is a born LOSER.Some people are LOSERS - so I could not find compassion for him as thedirector and script and the acting does not allow the audience to enterthe characters fully. Couldn't wait until the end and REALLY hopeRourke does not get the Oscar for this - he does not deserve it - maybehe should get an award for not truly ending up a loser?

 

---

 

read comments (0)

Transsiberian

Exciting and unpredictable, "Transsiberian" is way above average. Thefine acting, script, and location photography add up to winningcombination. Carefully built character development in the first half,eventually leads to a bang-bang conclusion. If you enjoy train films,this is a must see. If you enjoy clever thrillers, this is a must see,because it heads in unexpected directions, without sacrificing too muchbelievability. Woody Harrelson gives a restrained and excellentperformance. Ben Kingsley hasn't been this evil since "Sexy Beast".Seek this one out. You will not be disappointed. Highly recommended. -MERK

A good Hitchcockian thriller that's effective and suspenseful. Almosteveryone in the movie either has concealed motives or is hidingsomething. American couple Roy (Woody Harrelson) and Jessie (EmilyMortimer) take a ride on an unfamiliar Transsiberian express train fromBeijing to Moscow. On the way they meet up with two strangers, aSpanish man and an American Woman. From there deception and intriguebegin and the plot starts to unfold. Ben Kingsley plays a Russiannarcotics agent attempting to track down drug smugglers. I kept tryingto think what was going to happen next. It's a decent movie, but Idon't consider it great.

I was sort of unsure what to think of Brad Anderson's "Transsiberian"after I had watched it. Oh, there was plenty of suspense, but much ofthe movie seemed like stuff that I'd seen in other movies. This storyof a couple (Emily Mortimer and Woody Harrelson) having an unpleasantexperience on the Transsiberian Railroad will probably give people anegative view of the railroad - hell, Siberia's no place where you wantto get stranded - but I've had good experiences both times that I'vebeen in Russia (on the other hand, I didn't take the TranssiberianRailroad); not to mention that Russian women are some of the hottest!Russia's likely overtaking of the US in terms of prominence ininternational affairs - along with China and India - makes it look moreand more backwards for movies to depict negative events there.Otherwise, the movie is worth seeing. Also starring Ben Kingsley andEduardo Noriega.

Transsiberian (2008) - My Review Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

I'm a big fan of Sir Ben Kingsley . Who can forget his amazingperformance as Don Logan in Sexy Beast ( if you have not seen it i urgeyou get hold of it!) . His versatility is extraordinary and it alsohelp that he is a master of accents. In Transsiberian he play a Russiancop with real nasty streak and no one does nasty as well as BenKingsley!

Roy and Jessie finished a volunteer stint in China. He loves trains, sothey go home via the Trans-Siberia Express. There are strains in therelationship, including her past. They meet Carlos, a Spaniard,travelling with Abby, a young American. Carlos keeps close to Jessie,and when Roy is left behind and waits a day for the next train so hecan catch up, Jessie and Carlos take a trip into the dead of winter tophotograph a ruined church. Carlos may be running drugs, so, later,when Roy catches up and introduces Jessie to his new pal, an Englishspeaking Russian narcotics detective, he's the last person Jessie wantsto see. Will the Siberian desolation be their undoing?

Transsiberian is one of the movies that seemed to get a very limitedrelease here in the UK . I'm not sure why because it is a solidthriller that holds up well against a lot of films of the same genrethat i have seen of late.

The characters are all very interesting and that is helped by some goodacting. Harlesson play the church going train spotter perfectly ( whata mind numbing combination!) as does his wife played by Emily Mortimer. She is obviously troubled by her past and what she has now in herlife but will she partake in the forbidden fruits that are laid infront of her?

The director has managed to make this movie feel cold and atmosphericbut not in a bad way. There is enough going on with the characters tohave you second guessing as to what will be there fate and i reallyenjoyed it. It's certainly the most interesting train journey i havebeen on in a while.

This was released on DVD last month , yet again without any publicityand it's a puzzle as to why.

7 out of 10

An excellent movie. I was particularly impressed by the acting fromEmily Mortimer.

As for the other reviews, I don't understand why people find itnecessary to go over the plot in detail. That is not a review, it is aSynopsis.

Also, I feel like everyone missed the point with the Roy character. Itwas subtle. Of course he was supposed to be the stereotypicalunsophisticated tourist, goody-goody church guy from Iowa. This was thesource of their marital problems since his wife Jessie had a wild past,settled with him, but still felt the yearnings for adventure. We, andshe, are surprised to learn later, when they are on the run, that hehas much more depth, brains, and savvy and that maybe he just choosesto be happy, fascinated with trains, and to live a simpler existencewith his Hardware store in Iowa. When Jessie recounts their firstmeeting in the hospital and him making the dopey doughnut statement,you just think of him as kind of simple. At the end, after we find outthat he is really not, we learn that he meant the statement as a sillyjoke to cheer her up - this was pointed to us, the audience. Roy'sunderlayers are kept subtle in the movie. She has a revelation abouthim and their life together at the end. She knows that she has hadenough adventure and now wants to settle down with her ideal guy andfinally have kids. Emily Mortimer says so much with her subtleexpressions.

The plot is relatively thin, but at its heart is the familiar Hitchockpattern of the quest from innocence to knowledge, the narrative of awell-intentioned protagonist gradually implicated and entrapped in aminefield of lies and deceptions. Think "North By Northwest," "Psycho,""Strangers on a Train," even Jimmy Stewart's restless eye and probingcamera in "Rear Window.") After that one big mistake, the big lie, "youcan go forward," as the inspector (Ben Kingsley) reminds the film'sprotagonist and us, but "there's no going back." Then he adds: "Can agood girl become a killer?" Of course the answer is "Yes," especiallyif her innocence is already "tainted" by memories of past desire,fueled by a thirst for adventure, and stimulated by the voyeuristiccuriosity that is the mark of any good photographer (which Hitchock'sfilms assure we all become during the course of second-guessing hiscamera's next move).

Director Brad Anderson moves his camera a lot more than Hitchcock,though it's Emily Mortimer's camera and her uses of it that interest usmost. She, and to a lesser extent Eduard Noriega, exude sufficientresonance to carry a film that's long on atmosphere and scenery andshort on plot complications. Much like the indelible impact of theshower scene in the middle of "Psycho," the film's culmination occursmidway, before Ben Kingsley as the inspector even appears. The mixtureof sex and violence, snow and blood, along with colorful frescoes froman icy Russian Orthodox cathedral, produce a thrilling, purelycinematic moment that's bound to live in our memories more securelythan it will as images in Emily's camera. (The "credibility" of thismoment is problematic only when viewers fail to consider the out-sizedvanity and lust of the Noriega character, who is too in love withhimself for the danger of a girl with a stick to make a seriousimpression on his consciousness, let alone his person.)

During the last half the film degenerates into more ordinary, banallysensational thriller fare, though the score, indebted to BernardHerrmann, along with some cynical but satisfy
ing twists in the plotmake matters worth while, if anticlimactic.

Harrelson convincingly plays a straight-arrow Christian fundamentalist(20 years younger than the actor's actual age!), and Kingsley impliesmore depth and complexity than the script gives him. But for the mostpart, both actors are wasted in their roles (though their charactersacquire wisdom thanks to the influence of the extraordinary EmilyMortimer). Kate Mara is appropriately Gothic-looking, a face thatexpresses little, instead permitting the viewer to read just aboutanything into it (important to the final scene).

The film's soundtrack includes hit tunes from the '70s (by the FifthDimension, Captain and Tenille) that add to the atmosphere of thegrotesque in latter-day Russia. It's questionable whether the movie isultimately the better for it, but it should be noted that, contrary toHitchcock's films, this one marks the death of the "male gaze." Thanksto the performance of Mortimer, there's absolutely no doubt in thespectator's mind about its empowered, thoroughly compelling possessor.

The movie is set in a somewhat unusual environment (geographicallyspeaking), which, in my opinion, is nice. In the movie you'll seeseveral clichés typical for a thriller, with being able to predict moststuff in the film along the way. As said, the movie doesn't have muchnew really, but the fact that it's set (mostly) on a train in themiddle of nowhere managed to give me the feeling that this wassomething new, and exciting.

Also typical for these kind of movies was the stereotypical view uponRussians, and foreign (non-american) people overall. The two polite andinnocent Americans can't even ask the train staff why the toilet isn'tfunctioning without getting shouted at in Russian. On top of this thepolice are told to be brutal and corrupt. But then this contributes tothe feeling one gets while watching the movie, that the two Americansfeels lost and insecure, and that they are in the hands of carelessstrangers who they can't even communicate with. I just wish they wouldhave done this in some other way, without having to rely on sillystereotypes.

Even though the end was quite predictable, I liked it, along with therest of the movie. Overall this movie is worth the time spent seeingit, and more.

I was extremely disappointed with Session 9. I thought the Machinistwas a lot better, but mostly due to Christian Bales incredible physicaltransformation. This one is really slow to start but the second half isterrific. I really squirmed in my seat from the tension that Andersoncreates. It is not a comfortable film to watch. There are a few momentswhere it is quite hard to believe the characters actions or lackthereof but overall a movie worth seeking out. Harrelson is prettyunderrated in my opinion. I think his Cheers persona still hangs overhim a bit 25 some years later, but he does a great job in this film asdoes the entire cast. The climax reminded me of Runaway Train for somereason. What an underrated gem that film was. I think it had JonVoight's finest performance, but I digress and I am done here.

Transsiberian was a waste of time. I found myself talking to myself,saying: "FFS!" and "Come on!". It was boring and filled to the rim withold tarded clichés like strange faces, birds and unique colors.

The script was unoriginally predictable. I wasn't surprised once.

I hate Woody Harrelson when he's depicted as the mentally challengedgoofy dude. In this movie he's both goofy and dumb. Come on, Woody!It's a mystery how this movie scored 7,3 at this time. People areeasily satisfied these days, I guess.

Don't waste your time, guys… Trust me…

/Martin Jakobsen

Cinematography was lovely. Ben Kingsley is always fun to see. Taking atrain ride through the Russian winter was a nice change from my usuallife. That's not really enough to build a movie around. The lead, EmilyMortimer, is, as another reviewer nailed it, SO insipid, really painfulto look at her; there's no way the Lothario that appears with fiercehottie in tow would fall for her. Too many things just don't add up,and you never come close to caring or even really being interested inthe characters. Yeah, there's some suspenseful bits, and some anxiety,but when it's all over you wish you'd looked it up here before youwasted your time on it. If Hollywood ever shows up in DC bawling forbailout money, this ambitious but mediocre movie can be on the list ofthings presented as counter-argument to their whining. I hope i neversee Emily Mortimer in a movie again unless she's the victim ofviolence. Read and believe the reviews that slag this.

read comments (0)

The Onion Movie

This Movie is about a TV news company and its supposed to be criticaland funny. But instead it is only crap. The first five minutes seemedto be good, but after that i figured out, it is just another "don'ttrust the conspiracy theories" movie.

Don't watch this movie it is a scam. The new World Order is going tocreate movies like this to dispel the truth. Watch Zeitgeist on videog00gle. But never watch the onion movie. Be always critical! Who thehell is the director of this movie again? Some unknown book writer whostudies fish and wales? Come on please don't do this to us. Mixing aMovie with fag, anti Christian and real conspiracy to make peoplebelieve it's everything all right. pf ff easy to find out.

i enjoy a good,clever satire as much as anyone.unfortunately this isneither.it is however,sick and offensive and i'm not someone who getseasily offended.it's basically a bunch of mostly unrelated short skitsthat don't just cross the line.rather,this "movie" actually createsseveral new lines and crosses them all.i didn't find it funny at all.infact,i'm surprised it even got past the censors.it's not that itspolitically incorrect and i'm no slave to political correctness.thatcan be all right sometimes,if done properly.no,this goes way beyond anydefinition of political incorrectness i've ever known.it's beyond meanspirited.i mean i guess it skewers some targets that deserve to beskewered,but mostly it demeans people and groups that don't deserveit,certainly not to the degree shown here.it's just cruel.but hey,atleast now we have a new word for something sick and cruel that itdefies description.that word is "Onion".for me,the Onion Movie is pure"Onion".0/10

by 6, 7 years.

it would have mattered in 2002.

even in 2005, it still would have been entertaining. trite, butrelevant to fans. (i understand from reading some of the discussionsthat the movie was made in 2005.)

released in 2008, it is nothing beyond redundant. one may call it a'straight to bittorrent' production. the other day, i thumbed through'the dangerous book for dogs' released by the onion. funny, and quitesweet. but not satirical. what evil does that defeat?

as for the obsolete, dated footage, they could have done any number ofthings with them, but they didn't. it's what many people refer to hereas 'loosely strung' scenes. that fact is made salient because thecontent is trite.

that they would continue to position themselves as satirists, andidentify themselves with that word, imbues the word 'satire' with thenew definition of 'pot-haze braindead wussiness'. if they're just goingto cave, then they really should move over and let someone else come upand perform that function.

the ability to put any message out into the world is a privilege; asmedia, hogging the floor is the ultimate breach of a medium's socialcontract with the people. the content of the onion has not changedsince the very early 00s, as reflected in the movie. (britney spears in2005? at least roast someone a wee tad more current like lohan.)

the culture, as always, is not stagnant, but not according to theonion. at least mainstream media (whatever that is) does not existmerely to barricade its own niche. unless one aspires to live in a late90s time warp, why would one read the onion?

there's no cure for self defeat.

(edit: 07/15/2008) to be smart-mouthed requires, first, a thoroughunderstanding of the culture and its audience, which enables an entityto accomplish the second task, which is to conceive of exactly what isoff in culture, and finally, to communicate this through wit andhumour. as the new yorker's attempt at satire shows, American mediadoes not understand its culture and audience, and thus, has lost itsability to create satire.

the onion has failed; the new yorker has failed. the aforementionedsatirists operate as though they have the authority on humour, thus,the audience would follow them wherever they take their messages. asthe general reaction to both works (this film and the front cover ofthe new yorker) show, this is markedly untrue.

the failures are of polar opposite natures, one too conservative andlate (the onion movie,) the other too foolhardy. both misscatastophically on timing. more importantly, both show a gross lack ofinsight into the piths of issues each attempts to address, thus, eachonly addresses the superficial symptoms, comments remain banal, thus,irrelevant.

but satire is not dead, the sources have simply shifted. to start, selfreference is rampant at the turn of this century, the funniest materialhas come from comedy which addresses its own genre/ medium. i honestlythink that such comedy is the catalyst for the recovery of satire.

I have been following the Onion since I was a high school studentdriving to Madison to get its forbidden fruits.

This "movie" was completely horrible.

It had to happen, I suppose, given the paper's popularity, but thisfilm is uninspired and perhaps the worst thing you would ever see.

..Assuming you have a sense of humor…

There was not one funny line in this "film". Hitting Youtube on randomwould yield a better result.

If you have already grown sick of the Onion's repetitive headlines, youwill find nothing of value here.

If you love the Onion you'll hate this movie. For that matter, if youhate The Onion you'll hate this movie. Its dreadful. No wonder itdidn't get distribution. Did anyone who has anything to do with theactual Onion have anything to do with this movie? If so, its probablytheir summer interns or something. None of the brilliant wit and socialcommentary is in this boring piece of garbage. This format in generalis pretty flawed. I can't think of any sketch feature films that reallyis able to maintain an audience with out having a running story linethrough out. There is a small attempt made for one. The anchor is upsetthat the network is going corporate. Of course every network news isowned by a corporation, but I get its a movie. Still it goes nowhereand I literally laughed once the whole time and that was probably aforced one just to not feel like I had entirely wasted an hour and ahalf of my life.

I'm a newbie fan of "THE ONION" as it appears currently on the Internetvia YouTube and other outlets. There it prospers as the witty, concise,parody of evening news that SNL News only dreamed of becoming. How thecreators of "THE ONION" web video parodies gave way to "THE ONIONMOVIE" lowest common denominator, inane fluff, is beyond understanding."THE ONION MOVIE" feels more like a National Lampoon production, or atworst, an indie launchpad for a witless, money-minded, first-timedirector. All of the smart, insightful, even moral-driven angst isgone. Where "THE ONION" strove for punishing parody; an eye-opener forthose blinded by the formula-driven news conglomerates, "THE ONIONMOVIE" is satisfied in keeping toe-to-toe with the plethora ofmind-numbing, gratuitous, insulting and sophomoric video antics as seenon YouTube, AFV, Stupid Videos, and the like. "THE ONION" has failedmiserably in jumping to the big screen by thinking it had to offersomething more or different. More, in this case, means filler andfluff. Different is defined as less than the original; a sad chapter inthis promising, comedic forum.

This movie sat on the shelf for 3 years, and having seen it tonight, Ican clearly see why.

I've been a fan of The Onion in print for several years, and havingseen the very promising trailer for this movie, expected an enjoyable,sharp movie. Instead, The Onion movie is an endless stream of p**s-poorMonty Python wannabe sketches where the aim is t
o be as offensive,unoriginal, obvious and mean-spirited as possible.

While The Onion is without a doubt, edgy and challenging in itsmagazine form, it is rarely, if ever out-and-out offensive. Ifre-enacting gun crimes and rape is your idea of humor, I suggest youtrack down a victim of either and see if they enjoy sharing the'laughs'. Two thirds of the way through, my girlfriend literally askedthat I shut off this movie in tears. I gladly obliged.

This is smug, insensitive college-boy humor at its worst, and whatsmore, it is woefully unoriginal and outdated. For instance, in onesketch Al Queda style terrorists repeatedly blow themselves up forcomic effect. Even if this movie had hit the scene in 2005, that 'idea'had already been done to death. Another sketch lampoons Britney Spears.Circa 'Baby One More Time'. Great job guys, only about a decade out ofdate there.

Other 'cutting edge' material (much of which I noticed was recycledfrom the in-print edition') includes an unbearably smugself-referential movie critique, and predictable arch-racist jokes,delivered with a wink and a nudge that only someone who hasn't hit acomedy club in the last decade would be remotely amused by.

More punchlines fall flat here than actually connect. An arch Asianstereotype joke actually ends with "Me no rikey". Pathetic.

Oddly enough, The Onion now has a free video pod-cast that follows muchthe same format as this movie, that actually manages to be funnywithout being constantly offensive, predictable and profane. I suggestfans check that out instead and leave 'The Onion Movie' on the shelfwhere it rightfully remained for 3 blissful years.

I wish I hadn't watched this. Still, I can hear the smug college-boyslining up to tell me I'm over-sensitive for not seeing the funny sideof brutal rape.

The punchline of the rape gag, by the way, is that the girl re-enactingthe attack flinches, but 'shouldn't be able to move because theperpetrator shattered her pelvis with a baseball bat'.

If thats your idea of humor, you'll love this movie. If on the otherhand, you have an ounce of sensitivity, avoid at all costs.

If you're a fan of the Onion, or satire in general, this is decentstuff. It's not any better than the podcast or the web site, but it'snot any worse, either. Just the same.

Satirical sketches contained within the plot of goings on at acorporate newsroom - that about sums it up.

As with the podcast and web site, some sketches are extremely funny,some are not. Which sketches you find funny probably depends on who youare and how you like your comedy.

It's one of those movies that you watch only once; but that once can beentertaining if you like this type of comedy.

This movie is just so funny, normally a movie has his funny moments,this movie doesn't IT IS FUN!! Steven Seagal makes the film even morefunny! This is his genre not the action but COMEDY!! This is a moviewhich has several little videos in it. Much of them are all funny, LenCariou is also acting good. If you're angry or something like that, youwill be happy after watching this video, just a awesome movie in hisgenre. Steven Seagal for the Win!!

I would recommend this movie to everyone who wants to have fun andentertainment. Keep it up like this Steven ;).

Oh and don't buy the BATES 4000.

I saw the trailer for The Onion Movie on a DVD recently and I couldn'thelp but stop laughing, so I knew that I wanted to see this movie. Irented the movie and watched it yesterday and I don't know, I'm justgetting mixed feelings about this film. Just it reminded me so much ofKentucky Fried Movie, not to mention that the film at the end, I justfelt like it didn't make much sense. But strangely enough, these skitswere good enough to where they'd be great on Saturday Night Live or MadTV, just putting them into a random 80 minute movie threw me off quitea bit. Some things were a little odd, some things were random, somethings were unfunny, and some things were just friggin' hilarious. Idid love Norm Archer though, he was just so funny and I felt so muchfor his character when he saw a dancing penguin on the desk, well,you'll see what I mean.

Norm Archer is a news anchor for the Onion News, a very off beat newsprogram that reports on: neck seat belts, Margo Cherry, the virgin sexysinger, stereotypical movie critics, neck belts for cars, geeks,missing good black socks, terrorists, a working armed gunman, and muchmore, including the new hit movie, well, I don't know if I could saythe title, again, something you'll have to see for yourself. But Normbegins to question who he's working for and how strange it is.

The Onion Movie has it's moments, I mean, don't get me wrong, as randomas it is, it has some great gags. I loved Margo Cherry, the wholeinterview, we of course know they're making fun of Britney Spears, onlyI think it was more blunt. But this was over all a silly clever movie,just how it was put together, it's more of a Saturday Night Live skitvs. an actual movie. But I would recommend this if you need a fewlaughs, as a movie, it's below average, as for the skits, it makes itmore worth your while.

6/10

read comments (0)

The Midnight Meat Train

I went to this movie expecting Texas Chainsaw Massacre on wheels.Instead, I got a suspenseful and intelligent horror movie with a greattwist at the end. This one certainly rates better than the otherflotsam out this year, including The Strangers, Funny Games, The Mistand X-Files, I Want To Believe.

Anytime I come out of a movie thinking about what I just saw anddissecting it with my friends I consider it a winner. Go see this atyour local discount movie theater before it goes away. And if you missit there, please do yourself a favor and rent it. Especially for horrorfans.

Photographer Leon Kauffman (Bradley Cooper) wants to break into theworld of art. After a semi-rejection from an art mainstay (played byBrooke Shields), he delves deeper into the heart of New York, trying toget at its most gritty. He finds it: a butcher who he believes iskidnapping and killing people riding the last subway of the evening.

Fans of this Clive Barker short-story may be pleased. The screenwriterand director changed practically nothing from the story, simple addingand expanding certain parts to fill the time (the original story isroughly thirty pages). All the supernatural elements are there — andmore — plus plenty of gore. Sadly, the film contains some CG gorewhere no CG was needed, which I not only dislike but found it even moreobviously fake on the big screen. There is a notable scene with TedRaimi (playing Randle Cooper) that could have been done withtraditional effects but wasn't.

Aside from the CG concerns, I found the movie more likable thanunlikable. Leon is a cool lead, his girlfriend is lovable and hisfriend is a good friend archetype. The butcher, Mahogany — VinnieJones — is a good choice for a killer, with a good actor. Jones showedhis horror mettle in "Tooth and Nail", but I think he really comes outhere with full power, looking very dapper in his suit.

Those who dislike mysteries may be left unfulfilled after this one.While it's a pretty straightforward tale, even after the supernaturalelements start showing up, some aspects remain unanswered. I probablycan't get into all of them now without spoiling the film, but I canspeak of one: the objects in Mahogany's medicine cabinet are neverexplained. I have my own theory on what they are, but I could be wrong(the short story never touches on this).

I don't know if this is a film you need to see. Once it goes to video,it may be more likely to be a second or third choice. As of earlyAugust, it is the only horror film in theaters and therefore a must-seefor those who crave a horror experience in the theaters. But by nextweek, "Mirrors" is coming and will probably overshadow this one. (Iwould like to scold the marketing people for keeping the publicity low,not releasing it to the main theaters, and more or less letting it die.This is not a blockbuster, but it's better than most of thatstraight-to-video fare. By not giving it a fair showing in theaters,you have sealed its fate.)

After Lionsgate killed the release of the new film based on Master ofHorror Clive Barker's tale, I thought I was doomed to see it on thesmall screen with a DVD release. Chance, however, allowed me to stumbleupon it at a small 'dollar theatre.'

What a lucky coincidence for me.

Midnight Meat Train is, easily, one of the top few horror films to hittheatres from American studios within the past few years. With a greatmix of suspense, violence, gore, and brutality, Ryuhei Kitamura bringsus a fascinatingly excellent horror film that excels in ways not seenin American mainstream cinema for a long while. Everything works well:the writing, direction, acting, gore, and violence are all very welldone and perfectly 'Clive Barker.' But, the real star of this film: Thecinematography. The look of the film and the way it was shot reallysets this film apart from the rest of what I've been seeing in ourgenre lately. It's not common to see a point-of-view shot from adecapitated head as it rolls away and turns, still seeing, to look atits own twitching body. But we got it here! PoV horror isn't new. . .but the execution of some of the PoV shots were fantastic. Victim'sviews, attacker's views, bystander's views. . . all there, all great.Also, the first 'butchering' scene is probably the most viciouslydisgusting scene I've seen in theatres in a long, long, long time.

For those that have seen it, I hope you enjoyed. For those who have theability, I highly recommend finding your seat. For those who must waitfor DVD, well, my apologies. . . but you'll like it then as well.

Overall, this is an extremely well made film packed full of all thethings that great horror requires: gore, violence, suspense, scares,and some of the most bleakly beautiful terror I've ever seen in atheatre.

Final verdict: 8.5/10.

The only good thing to this movie is the blood and gore. The moviestarts off really well and then drops you and continues to do so tillthe credits are rolling up the screen and you're left wanting yourmoney back.

To enjoy this movie, you have to accept that it's okay that thecharacters portray no type of logic whatsoever. When you see someonebeing killed and you go to one police officer to report it and he blowsyou off, you go to another right? Well in midnight meat train, whenthat happens you then assume the role of police officer yourself andpursue with the investigation.

The movie does have some good gory parts that compel you to sit throughthe nonsensical storyline. If you do intend to view this movie, you canwait for it to come out on DVD.

I was able to watch a cut version (7 minutes too short) of The MidnightMeat Train. Looking forward to it and hearing a lot of rumors, thisflick became a hype. A hype 'cause it was based on a Clive Barker shortstory. I have the story and always said that this one should become amovie. And now there is the movie. In a time of torture porn(saw/hostel) it is/was hard to bring out a real horrorflick. But theysurely succeeded with this one. The movie contains maybe 10 minutes ofromance (never good in a real good old horror) and you are alreadyinvolved with the characters. From minute one until the end (an openone, let's hope they don't franchise it) there is suspense, horror andgore. Maybe the only bad thing is the use of CGI. The smash on the headin which the eye re movement occurs is a bit too much CGI. But that'sthe only disappointment. Of course I was a bit afraid of the solutionof the killings knowing of the terrible ending of Hellraiser but thisone is believable. Clive's best adaption of one of his story's to me.The performance of Vinnie Jones is sublime, no lyrics ( I would lie,just one) but his face…Knowing Bradley Cooper since Alias this is oneof his strongest performances. This flick will become an instantclassic, count on that. For me horror is beauty, and this one is reallya beauty. It is very simple, King is for queers, I have seen the futureof horror, his name is Clive Barker…a master of horror.

A hell of a ride

I knew this would be worth seeing after hearing that Kitamura wasdirecting this movie. And my hopes were up because although I lovedmost Clive Barker stories I think the movies mostly were unsatisfyingto say he least. I can't remember having seen a decent Clive BarkerMovie since Hellraiser…. until Midnight Meat Train came along.

Actually I don't get why so many people put this movie down. Thecinematography is awesome and the shots of the subway are as impressiveand stylish as the city shots. Sure some of the CGI Gore FX looked abit cheap and also the train FX were easy to spot… still this is aHorror movie and for that the Effects were far above average. I meancome on… the decapitation scene from point of view was a classic andthe hammer bashings were raw. I usually hate CGI
Blood but here thefountains were pretty impressive and except the real cheap scene wherehe sees his face in his own puddle of blood I liked it.

This movie is as well for gore maniacs as for fans of stylish imageryand he Clive Barker fans also won't be let down. I can't quite rememberthe story but I think they should have explained the whole backgroundmore in-depth because the end leaves many questions unanswered.

Maybe they should not have spent so much time introducing thephotographer, his work and his girlfriend although I think also thispart of the movie was done with suspense. After all the movie is abouta photographer taking shots of New York at night which draws him to thesubway where he gets fascinated by a tall guy he thinks is a murderer.He follows him and tries to uncover where he works and goes at nightjust to be drawn in too deep in a story that involves trains, butchersand human cattle for evil overlords.

I think the typical cynicism of Clive Barker came across very well withthe butcher dressing up for work, following his time schedule by theminute and pretty much just doing his job.

So even with the flaws of a script focusing too much on suspense andgore and forgetting to unfold the whole back story to the viewer Ithink this one is definitely watchable. So don't focus on some worn offone-liners and too tight budget in the FX. After all I think thedecapitation scene is destined to be a classic and I haven't seen sucha raw and gory, yet kind of funny scene since the opening of the by farinferior "Wrong turn 2". Well done Mr. Kitamura, thumbs down Lionsgate.People should throw tons of money at this guy to make more movies likethis and Versus.

"Midnight Meat Train" is a special horror movie. I just finishedwatching it on FEARnet and realized how much of a shame it is thismovie did not get a proper release. First off, Vinny Jones, who I wouldhave never expected to see in a role like this (he says one word) wasjust amazing as the "monster". In fact, all the acting was top notch aswas the whole set up of the movie. The only reason I docked the movie afew stars is I wish the gore was a little more abundant in some of thescenes. I think it would have made the movie perfect. In any case, thisis one of those underrated films that for some reason was snubbed fromthe mainstream. And that is a horrible shame since it is better than99% of the horror movies out today. So if you have On Demand make sureand watch this film, I promise it is well worth the time.

The story behind the horrible studio treatment if this film iswell-known by now, so there is no need to harp on it but to say thatthis film deserved a true theatrical release, NOT in budget dollartheaters, as it is certainly better than most of the crap that passesas horror lately (yes, "Prom Night" remake, I am talking to you) thatmakes it into theaters. That does not mean the film does not have itsshare of flaws, but visually, it is one of the better looking horrorfilms of the last few years. The direction and cinematography is crispand captures the uneasiness of the big city setting and the isolationand claustrophobic feeling that the subway injects into many people.Once you are on, you are vulnerable, as there is really no escape andthis film captures that tension brilliantly.

A photographer (Bradley Cooper) needs to take more risks with his work,so he decides to go out into the city in the middle of the night tocapture people involved in nefarious acts. This leads him to thesubway, where he unintentionally discovers a blood-thirsty serialkiller who is gruesomely butchering passengers who are riding late atnight. He becomes obsessed with capturing this guy and proving that heexists, which ultimately leads him to discover the horrific truth andcome face to face with this evil, while getting his best friend andfiancé involved as well.

First, this is a bloody, violent film. Gore hounds will love the kills,as they are brutal, unflinching, and in-your-face. The large meattenderizer the killer uses to knock his victims out becomes a characteritself, but that is just the beginning of the brutality. Meat hooks,carving knives, gutting, throat slitting, decapitation….this killermeans business. The kill scenes are slickly directed and remind me alot of the kills scenes in "See No Evil." The pacing is pretty good,though the scenes with Brooke Shields are unnecessary and it is sad tosee her wasted her. The acting is above average. The very sexy BradleyCooper is adorable to look at, but some of his scenes seem forced andover-the-top. Still, he manages to become a character we can root forbecause we know he is truly a good guy, so what happens in the end ispretty hard-hitting. That is another great thing about this film: it ispure horror and does not apologize for it. There are no unnecessarycomic relief scenes–just good, old-fashioned horror.

However, there are flaws. The whole premise of the film-the serialkiller on the train-is never fully explained…even in the filmsresolution. We are led to believe that dozens and dozens of people havegone missing–all last seen on the subway, but nobody has everdiscovered the secret before. Yes…I understand the female cop's role,but that was just one person. Was everyone in the department in on it?Did the victim's family never look for them? I guess there is where weneed to suspend belief, eh? The ending is also predictable, andsomewhat unsatisfying, particularly because of the loose ends that itfails to tie up. Regardless, this is a great entry into the slashergenre and is probably one of the best horror films of the year.

My Grade: A-

So, lets face it, It has not been that great of a couple of years forus hardcore horror fans. We live in an age where direct to video horrorflicks are far more enjoyable than theatrical releases. I find myselfchecking the DVD/Bluray new releases more so than the theater dates.When I first saw the theatrical trailer for Clive Barker's The MidnightMeat Train, I couldn't wait. I was so excited that there was a new filmadapted after a Clive Barker story. I was not disappointed.

Firstly, lets talk about how the flick was treated by Dimensionexecutives. I saw 1 theatrical trailer for this flick, and that was it.No kind of advertisement whatsoever. No TV spots, no posters orbillboards, and finally, no release date. I kept waiting for this flickto play at the theater, but the day never came.

The Midnight Meat Train was a victim of office politics, and nothingmore. Dimension had to ensure that "The Strangers" did as good aspossible at the box office, that TMMT was essentially shelved. Later,released quietly to a handful of dollar theaters across the country.

This flick, is honest to god, one of the best horror experiences I'vehad since our calendars rolled over to the 00's. Everything about itfeels like an old school horror flick. Beautiful scenery, and artdirection, outstanding gore effects, superb acting(especially by VinnieJones, whom only says 3 words in the entire movie, but still pulls astellar performance.) I've said before, that after the credits rolledon this film, I felt a way that I hadn't felt since the first viewingof "Lord Of Illusions." The atmosphere, and setting plays a big role inthis film. Being a little bit of a claustrophobic in the first place,the thought of being attacked in such a personal, and enclosed areasent shivers down my spine.

The Midnight Meat Train is the horror event of the decade, so do noteven think about missing it. Don't let the fact that it was screwedover at the theater detract you from seeing the flick, as I saidbefore, it was all office politics, and in no way a representation ofthe quality of this film.

Check Clive Barker's The Midnight Meat Train out on FEARnet ON-Demandin high definition, or visit Fearnet.com on October 30th for theinternet VOD premiere.

9.5/10

&nbs
p;

Yes, this was good old fashioned horror.

Bradley Cooper (Wedding Crashers, "Alias") is Leon, a photographer thatis trying to find the real New York. He has a good eye and he finds awhole lot more than he bargained for when he snaps a model (Nora - yes,that's her whole name) that turns up missing and starts following a man(Vinnie Jones) who rides the trains at 2 am.

Lots of blood and carnage including a decapitation as the man usesbutcher's tools to process bodies. The bodies are never found and weare not sure what is going on, but we keep getting closer and closer.

The ending is just about as wild as the ride and well worth the trip.

read comments (0)

The Hurt Locker

Some unrealistic movie spoilers included.

From real life experiences, this movie continued to disappoint from thevery beginning. I'm currently deployed on my second tour to Iraq as aninfantry man. This film has nothing near what would happen in real lifeoccurrences. From the very start to name a few: the bomb cart, the EODelements rolling out solo with no escorts, the EOD staff sergeantsneaking of VBC, having sleeves rolled the entire time in ACUs, towhere i had to call it quits on my 2 dollar haji copy, the sniperscene. The list would continue, however, it is unnecessary to listthings wrong happening with a time span of 2 minutes before more thingswere incorrect; and the point was made.

This movie is for people and critics to watch that have nounderstanding or experience with deployments or the military.

People with military background or knowledge of the military will bedisappointed with the inaccuracy.

This film has a lot going for it. Mostly the directing which wasimpressive the whole way through. Unfortunately the characters let itdown. Although there are several occasions when the character talkabout themselves and about being back home I still feel we never trulyget to know the characters. Which means we never really care aboutthem, and the fact that the lieutenant doesn't care about his own lifedoesn't help things one bit.

As for realism etc, I hear its being praised a lot, though I'm not asoldier so I can't comment. I will say that the boys don't seem to havea lot of backup throughout the film. They seem to do an awful lotthemselves. But maybe that's just how it is.

Bottom line, I enjoyed this movie, but its not up there with theclassics greats. In a way maybe its too close to the fact, as in I feellike I'm reading the daily newspaper. The story seems so familiar, itsbeing played out right now half way across the world. Don't get mewrong, the story of those soldiers deserves to be told and retold, butin the movie it feels a bit non inventive.

The whole film long I got the feeling that there wouldn't be asatisfactory ending and there wasn't. I mean the war isn't over etc, sothey keep going where you left them off. This is the major problem,there's a start middle and more middle but this is a film not real lifeso where's the ending?

but it still sucked. OK, let me qualify this statement- if you are notin the military, or are not a strong military history buff, thenperhaps you can enjoy he movie for what it is, a mild action/thrillerset in the middle east. Otherwise you will be very irritated watchingthis movie.

I am on my second tour in Iraq as a Cavalry Scout, currently living atVBC, as mentioned in the movie. I have provided MANY EOD escorts to IEDsites. There are some key factors that his movie really gets wrong.

First, EOD almost never, ever disarms IEDs. They blow them in place,using C4, much like the first bomb scene. This is because it is muchsafer for the EOD team than disarming the bombs, many of which are setwith the sole intent of killing EOD, and to prevent another insurgentfrom coming along and reusing the bombs. Also, the explosion usuallywill set off any secondary IEDs that may be wired into the first ones,stacked beneath it, etc. Of course, that bomb really only needed oneblock of C4 to detonate it, and the robot could have easily taken thatout in it's claw, but I can buy the excuse as the director needed tokill a character off for the plot. I've seen the guys in the suits asmuch as with th robot, it all depends on the situation, however nonehave ever sat around with a Gerber multi-tools, puling on the wires anddragging the bombs around. These are very volatile substances andyanking on the blasting caps can easily set them off.

EOD always has a cordon of security out before going to work. Snipersand IEDs as ambushes to lure EOD techs into the open are very common.Watching his two other soldiers as they stand on HMMWV hoods, stand inthe open street and wait to be taken out with a sniper shot is justgrating.

A soldier with an M4 carbine is no security against vehicles, as thecar scene shows. A vehicle crew would never, ever dismount the heavymachine gun in the turret to stand about with an M4 on the ground. Thatis just ridiculous. It seems that every time this EOD team rolls up toanother bomb, all the crews have dismounted away from their heavyweapon and hide clustered in buildings. There is no security cordonwhatsoever.

The car bomb scene was a disaster. First is the sniper using theChinese AK that sets the car on fire with a seemingly well placed shotto he gas tank? The ca, full of bombs (which are wired together), needto be set off by lighting the car on fire? If this Arab was such a goodshot, perhaps e could have just been shooting the EOD team standing outin the open. As it is, he shoots over the heads of these guys just tohit the car. And if that was the method of triggering the bombs, whatwere they actually wired to? And the wire appears to be thick, like detcord, not electrical wire. Det cord would detonate in a fire… Anyway,EOD, instead of backing off and letting the fire do it's job anddestroy the bomb, grabs the fire extinguisher from their HMMWV to putout the VBIED? So if they are ambushed or blown up on their way back tobase they won't have anything to put their own vehicle out with becausethey used it all on a bomb?? So after the sniper shoots the car, asingle EOD team member goes in an clears the roof tops, without the aidof the squad of soldiers nearby. He just rushes through a place that isknown to have had at least one insurgent in it, by himself. That isjust asking to get shot, or worse.

My favorite line at the VBIED scene is when the black soldier radios upthat the building is evacuated, and tells the guy ripping through thecar looking for the initiator (why?) to leave it for the engineers.WTF? EOD leaving bomb disposal to the engineers? That is what EOD ISFOR! Then there's the disregard for rank structure. The Specialist thatrefuses to say Sir to a Lieutenant Colonel, when E5 Sanborn slugs E7James with no repercussions, standing at Parade Rest for officers(never mind they are in a hot area still…). The uniforms bug me, likean American flag on both sides of the ACU top, the green subdued clothlag is unauthorized for wear according to AR670-1, the sleeves arenever rolled up on an ACU top…

And who exactly is this O5 with the 1st ID patches? Is he supposed tobe mental health, chaplin, or something like that? Then there's thesniper scene. WTF is happening here? EOD suddenly just goes offsomewhere near Najaf, because guess what, there isn't a lot of desertlike that near VBC. And who goes off without an escort? And the mercs,the Barret scene… oh God, it just goes on and on painfully.

All this and the movie isn't even half over yet. From my time workingwith the EOD teams in our areas I can say that this movie is crap. Itwould be much better as a police story in a busy city, not in awarzone. Then I could buy into why this guy is disarming bombs. I amglad I saw this on a $2 burned Haji copy. If I'd paid real money forthis movie then I too would have a death-wish.

Action woman Kathryn Bigelow returns to form in this intense war dramaabout an elite Bomb Squad whose job is to disarm and diffuse deadlybombs that plagues modern day Iraq. Her first film since 2002's K19:TheWidowmaker, this movie is the best way to make a comeback and I justhope people will notice that. Rarely does a woman captivate the actionjunkies out there by putting together a series of intense, breathtaking scenes and with the lightning fast pace she simply won't let yourecover and you'll find yourself glued to the screen for the whole twohours of the movie.

Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty all gave goodperformances though not memorable in any way, they carry the sentimentsof the so
ldiers currently serving in the Iraq war and I believe justiceis brought to each of their roles. Supporting roles include RalphFiennes, who is everywhere right now, Guy Pearce and David Morse.Although much of them are pretty much in only a scene or two, they didpretty well considering. The Hurt Locker is a movie that transcendspolitics and all that mumbo jumbo. Simply put, this movie is a kickassaction pic that grabs you by the throat and won't let go until the endcredits roll. If you're into this kind of stuff, then this is a mustsee.

After a long break, director Kathryn Bigelow returns with 'The HurtLocker', and shows why she is one of the most exciting film-makersworking today.

Following a particular bomb squad currently serving in Iraq, the filmshows the conflict on a number of different levels. From theground-level troops, to the commanding officers, to the civilians whowitness every intense stand-off on a daily basis, 'The Hurt Locker'puts the viewer on the front line.

Where other war-related films revel in the action-orientated battlescenes, Bigelow deliberately drains all the excitement and popcornapproach from the scenes involving gunplay and bombings, making for amuch more natural, realistic effect.

The interaction between the U.S soldiers is first-rate, showing how theBush government's ham-fisted invasion of Iraq has affected the troops'effectiveness on the ground, and its alliance with Iraqi civilians.

Performances are perfect. Jeremy Renner is excellent as Staff SergeantJames, who loves the rush of disarming bombs, even if it means puttinghis fellow soldiers at risk. Anthony Mackie is great as thelevel-headed Sanborn, while Brian Geraghty scores strongly as Eldridge,who admires both James and Sanborn, but can't decide which side totake.

A great companion piece to Brian DePalma's criminally under-rated'Redacted', 'The Hurt Locker' is an incredibly vivid, technicallybrilliant drama that shows that the people who suffer the most duringwar are the ones who have to experience it first-hand, and that a warplan half-completed can only lead to disaster. It is also great to seeKathryn Bigelow ('Near Dark'/'The Loveless'/'Strange Days'/'PointBreak'/'K-19 : The Widowmaker') back, showing once again what aterrific film-maker she is.

OK, the action aspect has been described in other comments. No need torepeat that it's extremely well done, and that it's powerful. The first30' of the films are so gripping you feel you're going to die with theartificer.

I'd like to say something about other aspects of The Hurt Locker.First, the fact that, though only focusing on the 3 main characters,the members of the EOD team, Bigelow manages to put Iraqi people in thepicture. Not trying to tell the story from their point of view, whichwould be very difficult and might easily sound false. But showing howthe war in Iraq is fought among common people who are desperatelytrying to live a normal life. This creates a situation of deadlyuncertainty, which is well caught in the movie, and also moralresponsibility. The final scene, where the artificer talks to the humanbomb, is not just gripping and suspenseful: it's also a sort of moralallegory. Can the US troops there defuse the bomb, which is a metaphorof a country totally out of control? Well, the ending of the sceneprobably tells you what's Bigelow opinion on it.

But let's go to the little lower layer. If danger is an addictive drug(that's what the film tells you right from the start), it should besaid that William James is not the only addict in the film. He tries toget back home and live a normal life again with his wife and child. Hecan't. He gets back to Iraq. Is this only James' problem? Or are the USon the whole addicted to war, violence, danger? I think the endingtells another story, not just that of the protagonist. The man whocannot stop gambling on his ability to deactivate bombs may be an imageof a country which cannot stop gambling on its ability to win wars (orto persuade itself it is winning the wars it's started).

All in all, a deeper film than it may seem at a first viewing.

The Hurt Locker is a serious character study and a taut, suspensefulaction thriller at once.

The subject matter itself - the work of a bomb expert, possibly one ofthe most nerve-racking jobs on the planet - yields most of the suspensebut Bigelow manages to squeeze out every bit of tension of the premise.

This film to me was very apolitical - though set in Iraq, it isdistinguished from most of the Iraq-themed war films in that itconcentrates much more on the job itself than the politicalenvironment. Iraq seemed more like a backdrop - any other war would do,The Hurt Locker does not preach about this one specifically.

The story is deeply emotional, depicting a thoroughly disturbedindividual's life in hell. Jeremy Renner gives an incredibly powerfulperformance as an EOD officer completely hooked on adrenaline stemmingfrom his everyday close shaves with death.

All aspects of film-making are top-notch, from the brilliantlysubversive screenplay through vivid cinematography, masterful directingand perfectly paced editing.

In its storytelling the filmmakers wisely break with traditionalHollywood narrative techniques. There is no clear antagonist, no risingaction, no obvious character development and no climax. And yet thefilm manages to be more interesting, tense and suspenseful than anyHollywood action thriller I've seen in years while making a powerful,yet subtle statement about the insane addiction that is war. Kudos foreveryone involved for making this film without compromising.

This is pure quality, cinematic storytelling at its best, a thinkingman's actioner.

Saw this last night at TIFF and followed with a "Mavericks" chat withBigelow tonight. It flips between quiet, drawn out tension and momentsof sheer insanity. It skips most of the navel gazing and … as someoneelse has already said … is filmed in a straight-up fictionaldocumentary way that lets you draw your own conclusions without forcefeeding anything to you.

Special note on the music and sound editing - phenomenal. I'm sure thatwas a big reason I was completely wired at the end of the movie (it wasthe 3rd of the day at TIFF, and probably helped me stay awake for thelast one).

Another great effort by Bigelow. And I'd never heard of the 3 leads butwas glad they went with no-names to tell the story of everyday herosoldiers. Was also nice to be spared the obvious "why are we there …which idiot sent us here?" questions (cuz yeah… you don't need amovie to find those answers).

Kathryn Bigelow is one of the few woman directors in Hollywood who canmake a good action movies for the boys. With Heat Locker, this protégéof James Cameron turns up the heat in a movie clearly for thetestosterone audience. Set in Iraq, the movie looks at a bunch of BombDisposal experts who are stationed in Baghdad for a count of days. Asthese men go through bomb after bomb losing fellow-soldiers along theway, the movie impresses upon the hopeless state to which the war-zonehas fallen, and the mostly thankless high-risk job of the soldiers thatrisk their lives there. Yet the movie is not about the war, or itspolitics, but a zoned in look at one team's existence in it. While onesoldier counts his days until they're relieved from duty, another livesat the thrill that the risk of their job brings them. Some great bombsequences, a supremely-confidant lead performance by Jeremy Renner anda few awesome great cameos make this a great time at the movies. Atleast for the boys.

Simply put, action ace Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" is a nearmasterpiece of suspense and unrelenting intensity.

H
er first film since 2002's "K-19: The Widowmaker," The Hurt Locker isdefinitely a return to form from the director of probably the greatest(in this man's humble opinion) surfer-action movie of all time "PointBreak." The film follows Bravo company, a team of bomb technicianssituated right in the heart of the Iraq war's modern IED warfare.Jeremy Renner, mostly known for impressive performances in "S.W.A.T"and "The Assassination of Jesse James," gives his most rivetingperformance yet as the lead, Staff Sergeant William James, a recklessbut brilliant soldier who has taken down almost 850 bombs.

What separates this film from the bulk of mainstream cinema that hastackled the Iraqi situation is that it doesn't simply exist as apolitical polemic, or even a reminder of the humanitarian horrors thatplague the Iraqi people.

Instead, Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal give us a story thattranscends politics and can be seen as almost a straight up kick-assaction pic. The film is plotted by increasingly dangerous and fullyrealized defusion sequences, all of which were shot from beginning toend in single takes with DOP Barry Ackroyd's cameras continuouslyroving around set in order to create a tense realism that translateswell to the screen.

Very elaborate attention to detail and mise-en-scene is in every frameof the pic, with Bigelow choosing to shoot in Jordan and locationsbeing less than 10 KM away from the Iraqi border. And from a searingheat wave ranging up to 49C to actual Iraqi refugees used as extras toimpeccable sound design and special guest cameos by Guy Pearce, DavidMorse and Ralph Fiennes, Bigelow has succeeded in creating an entirelymemorable and visceral experience that will surely leave its mark inthe pantheon of the very best war spectacles put to film.

read comments (0)

The Escapist

While The Escapist may not have an all-star A-list cast, it has apretty recognizable international one. When I saw the names attached tothis thing, I couldn't believe that it had trouble findingdistribution. Luckily IFC Films stepped up to the plate and will add itto their VOD schedule to get some exposure for its DVD release. Muchlike Unknown from a few years back, Rupert Wyatt's film is a hidden gemof intrigue and suspense. A disjointed narrative tells the story of aragtag bunch of criminals looking to escape from a maximum securityprison so that the orchestrator, Brian Cox's Frank Perry, can see hisdaughter before she dies from drug abuse complications on the outside.Each member of the team has a specialty necessary for the escape towork and/or finds his way on the team through trade, whetherconsciously or not. You do begin to wonder way Rupert has decided toshow it all inter-spliced with flashbacks on how they got together, andwhen the conclusion is reached you will understand in a surprisinglysatisfactory turn of events.

Now these names may mean absolutely nothing to you, but on paper theyare quite the collaborative team. Cox leads the way in recognition andstature, followed by a favorite of mine Damian Lewis, (in a smallerrole than I had anticipated), and Joseph Fiennes. Add in the familiarfaces of Steven Mackintosh, Liam Cunningham, Dominic Cooper, and singerSeu Jorge and you've really got something for a film that will probablynot be seen by very many people. And that is the real shame herebecause The Escapist has a lot going for it. With a good marketing pushand word of mouth, this had the potential of being a sleeper hit—anindie done well. Hopefully IFC viewers will start spreading excitementand help it to achieve cult status of some sort. It may not be asmainstream as "Prison Break", but utilizing the same core idea, Wyattculls together a unique tale that takes more from a film like Jacob'sLadder than pop culture television.

It all begins with Cox's Perry, tired and scared, finding Lewis sittingon a cell bed. The next thing we know, Cox joins up with the team asthey have just smashed their way into the laundry room, only now he hasa bloodied shirt and what can be assumed as a nasty gash to hisstomach. We have been dropped right into the escape and now the groupis together, putting their plan in motion. But wait, all of sudden weare back in time watching Cox do laundry duty, Cunningham's Brodieputting on an ant race, and Mackintosh's Tony berating newcomer Cooperas he arrives at the prison. The discovery that we are about to go on ajourney with the escapees, juxtaposed with how they all came togetherto plan the event, becomes clear. With sharp cuts, yet coherent storycontinuity, it all makes sense as both halves reach their crescendos atthe end. The plot line of the past thread reaches the point at whichthe film started and that progression leads to the end of the escapesimultaneously. Both meld together as one, revealing what has indeedbeen going on the entire time, possibly not even parallel timeframesafter all.

Complete with some very nice camera-work, Wyatt shows some skill as adirector. Scenes like that of Mackintosh and Cooper in the showers, fogshrouding their advance into the water, shielding us from what we knowis about to happen, really stick out. Even the trip to that end, withCooper's Lacey being "helped" by guards and inmates, opening doors forhim to "hide" in, plays nicely into the artistry and aesthetic beingput on display. The prison is dark and dingy, yet a paradise incomparison with the large expanses of sewers they soon find themselvestraveling through. It is a muted palette throughout, making the lightat the end of the tunnel (both figuratively and literally) that muchbrighter in notion and reality. And the way in which we see thingshappen is with suspense and intrigue. Watching the inmates plan theirescape with dominoes as we are shown the real life places they mimicalong with extended sequences of rapid process cuts—whether they bemaking drugs, creating a steel cutter, or even a jailhouse brawl—manyinstances beg to be appreciated visually as well as for how well theyadvance the story.

It all ends up being an actors' movie, though, as the performancesshine above all else. Fiennes was almost unrecognizable to me at thestart. I thought that was him, but something was off. Only after aboutthirty minutes did I finally realize it, Fiennes performing as a madman"utility" guy, nothing like the Shakespearean heroes he is most knownfor. Lewis is great as the menacing prison czar, always with a smileyet demanding the respect of every inmate with his own brand ofpunishment the guards look the other way on. And I really liked SeuJorge's role as Viv Bastista. He is a wild card to thefilm—librarian/drug cook/witness for Lewis' Rizza. What really makesthem all so elusive and mysterious, however, even as we learn who theyare as men, is the fact that we don't know what has landed any of themin jail. Are they killers? Thieves? Rapists? It doesn't matter. Thesemen all come together for a common cause and work as a team to achieveit. They sacrifice themselves for the others, just as Cox realizes thatfreedom doesn't have to be of the body, but can also be of the mind.

It was only yesterday that I had the chance to watch a film that islittle known, yet somehow managed to make it to my nearest Vue cinemain-between some of the current, perhaps contrived blockbusters that areon our screens currently. So it was only with great surprise that thisfilm, which I had heard great things about after it debuted earlierthis year at Sundance had a screening, after some persuasive actions ona friend, I was able to settle down for what I hoped would turn out tobe a memorable prison film. At a first glance The Escapist would appearto be your usual affair of a prison drama, however Rupert Wyatt hasdone far more than that in this wonderful existential, puzzle box of afilm, it drives on with true mystique and leaves you as the viewerquestioning the true structure of the narrative as it thrives you alongto the thrilling, lynchian climax.

The opening of the film begins the puzzle with what appears at first tobe a strange narrative choice, you join a number of inmates that areseemingly in the midst of a prison break. The thumping electronic scoresets your heart racing with a mixture of confusion and interest. Justas you think your in the middle of the escape, the director makes whatseems to be a very questionable editing choice. He appearingly jumpcuts back in time, before the escape. The film itself constantly jumpsbetween the escape and the lead up to the escape. Throughout the firsthalf of the film I must admit I found this seemed to hurt the pace ofthe film, but that's only if you take this as a conventionalPrison-Escape film. This isn't Escape From Alcatraz. And this narrativestyle that is explored through the film becomes clear more and reallybegins to pick up the pace in the second half, and the climax of thefilm really does show this choice of structure really did complimentthe story. You genuinely are knocked out by the films climax, it's onthe same level as Memento, and you feel equally fulfilled by the end ofThe Escapist.

The cast is really five star, lead by the wonderfully diverse Brian Coxas the haunted, subdued life sentence serving inmate Frank Perry.Arguably his career defining performance. He brings multiple layers tothe character impressively without much dialogue, it's a powerful,albeit silent performance for the most part, but you genuinely feel forhis character, and without giving anything away you will understand whywhen you do see the film, as the main story point is what leads to theengineering of the escape. Cox is joined by a fantastic supporting castof some of the finest English actors around today. For the most partthere appearances are often short, but there screen time does more thanenou
gh to create the tense, look behind your back atmosphere you wouldexpect in any prison film. Steven Mackintosh gives a chillingperformance as the stereotypical inmate that is always the prisons bigbad. He takes a distinct liking towards Perrys new cellie, with someunnerving results. His fictional older brother in the film, the"leader" of the cell block is played by the wonderful Damian Lewis whoI became a big fan of after Band Of Brothers. He has considerably lessscreen time here but for me, his chilling stares, and few words weresome of the most memorable for me after the credits rolled.

The cinematography of the film is quite simply incredible. With a bleakgrey tone to the film that keeps the existential atmosphere brooding inthe background. Much of the film takes place in vast maze's ofunderground tunnel works. The filmmakers managed to captured aclaustrophobic feel towards the ongoing story. Full of black shadowsand long, seemingly endless age old tunnels that are barely lit by theflickering orange flame from their cell-made torch's. Thecinematography really helps compliment the enclosure of the prison,both inside it, as well as the escape. Their really isn't anywhere togo, its dark, brooding, and downright terrifying. As you would expect aprison to be! The Escapist really is a revelation in regards of moderncinema. It just reels you into the story from the get go and takes youon a bleak ride through the dark underbelly of the prison, metaphoricalin its tone, Rupert Wyatt really has crafted something wonderful here.The film defiantly leaves you with that deep satisfaction that Britainhas been getting some blisteringly good films as of late, alongsidefilms like Dead Man Shoes, it gives you the sense that there is still alot of great to come.

Only a handful of films have ever been awarded a 10/10 for me - this isone of them.

Having been given the chance to read the script by Rupert a couple ofyears ago, when the film was in preproduction and looking for filminglocations, I have been waiting for this film for a long time knowinghow much potential it had - never have I been so gripped by a moviescript on first reading.

Oh boy, I wasn't disappointed. Wyatt delivered the story big time, forme. I went to see it last night on the first showing in Cardiff andenjoyed it so much that I went with a friend this afternoon to see itagain. My friend also agrees with my feelings! I can understand howsome people may find it confusing (especially in the first 15 minutes)but I think by the end, when all the pieces fit together, it's aclassic.

Having seen it the second time now, there is SO much detail I missedthe first time (some of which my friend actually spotted on the firstwatch).

This film ticks all the boxes for me. Strong characters played bytalented actors. A complex but ultimately rewarding plot. An intenseand superb soundtrack (needs to be seen in a cinema with good surround- I jumped several times at "normal" ambient noises coming from variousplaces around the auditorium). The music is just perfect for the film.

Even now, I feel I want to go and see it again to see what other clueshave been left in the storyline to subtly point to the payoff at theend of the film.

As one reviewer said, this is an existential puzzle box of a movie, thetrue meaning of the title being revealed at the very end. It's not justabout escaping from a prison, nor is it a pretentious metaphor. Itsjust very very well made.

I appreciate some similarities with Shawshank Redemption for obviousreasons, but really this film stands up on its own rights. The reasonsfor escaping are wholly different - SR was to right a wrong while hereit is familial breakdown and taking responsibility for ones ownactions. Brian Cox's character, and the rest, are believable andfleshed out enough to engage with but the real achievement here is inthe pacing and structuring of the plot.

The film cuts between the actual escape itself and the events andplanning leading up to the escape. Dominoes, diamonds, and of course,drugs all play a part in the set-up of the escape, which plays out withbreathless excitement. The grim presentation of the prison, DamienLewis' character in particular, appears shockingly believable. Prisonsare not ruled in the way they should be, and a character like his,having a grip over the institution rather than the other way round,seems sadly truthful. He is very scary…

The end, like Shawshank, is uplifting in a downbeat kinda way. Itreminded me of The Descent, which i hope is not a great spoiler forpeople. I almost cried but actually you're left feeling quite happy forthe central character. There is not the same redemption as SR, which isa good thing, so don't go in expecting happy endings, or heaven forbid,Prison Break The Movie. For that it is not, though its existenceprobably owes something to the success of that over-running TV show,and the ingenious escape route is one Michael Schofield would be proudof. But really, this is a great little indie movie which came and wentat the cinema very quickly, but will no doubt find an audience in theyears to come.

Frank Perry (Brian Cox) is a long term prisoner in a London jail wherethe guards look the other way and one would be wise to avoid theattentions of Rizzo (Damian Lewis), the boss inmate and his unhingedjunkie brother Tony (Steven Mackintosh in scenery chewing form). Thearrival of a new cell mate, Lacey (played by newcomer Dominic Cooper)coincides with Perry receiving the first letter from his family infourteen years. His daughter is a heroin addict and close to death.Perry decides he must get out, to see her and make things right whilethere is still time. He goes to his closest friend Brodie (LiamCunningham) and they enlist on-the-edge pugilist and thief Lenny Drake(Joseph Fiennes) to put together their plan.

But the film begins with the escape, cleverly setting up many questionsin the head of the viewer, which are then answered in flashback. Wewant to know why Frank starts the escape attempt what appears to be astab wound, how drug dealer Viv Batista (Seu Jorge) gets involved andwhy Lacey is part of the team when he has arrived in the prison sorecently. The answers come, but slowly so that it's only at the veryend that the little hints and clues scattered through the story of theescape attempt itself make sense.

This structure and the final plot twist would alone make this filmworth repeat viewing, but not just for that. Writers Daniel Hardy andRupert Wyatt (Wyatt also directed) let images rather than words do thetalking, and with a cast of this calibre it pays off brilliantly. Theactors are allowed to use their faces and bodies to tell us the story:Brian Cox letting his face fall into a pile of regret when he reads theletter, Damian Lewis's posture as he walks past the cells to find outwhat happened to his brother, the tiny shifts of expression on DominicCooper's face as he relives his forced dalliance in the showers withTony, from self pity to self hatred and back again. It's top notchstuff.

Comparisons with "Shawshank Redemption" are inevitable, but while"Redemption" was really a story about hope, "The Escapist" is actuallya film about redemption, about the single unselfish act that can redeemwasted years, perhaps a wasted life. And, as Perry points out, thatwe're only as free as we allow ourselves to be.

I didn't vote on any films in 2008. There were plenty of decent filmsbut nothing made me want to post on IMDb, whatever I want to say hasalways been put more eloquently by someone else. But this film deservescredit, naturally I checked here before I watched but afterwards I feltcompelled to demonstrate some appreciation. No, you moron posters, itis NOT Prison Break, neither is it trying to be. After it finishesyou'll want to watch it again. It looks real and gritty definitely notstudio. I don't know e
nough about film to tell you if it was thescript, acting, filming or anything else, it took me to a differentplace - Isn't that what we want most in a film?

One of the best British movies I've seen in years, this has it all- astrong cast with Brian Cox turning in the performance of a lifetime -all restraint and pent-up frustration - a script that twists and turnsand keeps you guessing and puzzling until the very end… and after!Grim and intensely atmospheric, the film develops into something quiteunusual for the genre, and redeems its characters and even its batteredviewers in the last act. It shows that a crime movie from the UKdoesn't have to be all flash and swagger, it can have intelligence,sensitivity, originality. Take note, Mr Ritchie! The pace of the film,and in fact every shot and every noise, is choreographed and conductedby newcomer Wyatt with a fine balance of detail and speed. We don'tneed to know much about these characters: like in a real prison, theyare keeping themselves to themselves. Motives are shadowy andallegiances are born of necessity. Cutting between the escape and thehatching of the escape plan makes us approach the film as a puzzleright from the start, and as the pieces fall into place, the finaltwist is set up perfectly. I'm looking forward to more work from themakers of this soon-to-be-Cult Movie.

Truly superb film. I was impressed by the choice of actors, some ofwhom played characters that one wouldn't expect them to do so well in -Damian Lewis, in particular, really impressed with his performance as'the bad guy', while Steven Mackintosh also does an impressive job ofscaring the living daylights out of you in this film.

The sound design and parts of the music really help the film along,building the pace at the right moments, creating suspense and capturingthe raw, gritty feeling of prison life perfectly. It was a delightgetting so involved in the subtleties of a film's soundtrack -something that is lacking in modern day feature films.

This film should stand out far more than other films of this genre, itis award-winning material.

I caught this at Sundance. Not the premiere but one of the othershowings. Then I went back to a second viewing! (The only film thereI'd felt that way about.) The audiences reaction said it all. Peoplecame with very little hype or knowledge about what was billed as aprison escape movie. So this was one of the few films at the festivalwhich really exceeded expectations. I knew something was up when itstarted with the escape itself! Cutting back and forth between theescape and the plan was a device that I worried at first would annoyme, a tip of a hat to Memento but without good reason for being there.I was wrong - in fact the reason we get this structure is one of thecleverest reasons I've ever seen and its only fully clear what it allsignified in the last few seconds of the film. But I won't spoil it..its just worth saying that this film and its clever structure and twistmakes it more of a Jacobs Ladder or Memento than a ShawshankRedemption. You need to see it twice to pick up all the clues andunderstand completely - a bit like Donnie Darko or Mulholland Dr -enjoyable even if you don't get it completely but there are otherlayers to figure out in future viewings. The film had an interestinglook to it like a 70s movie and excellent cinematography although Iwished that they'd either not used CG in places or done it a bitbetter. The acting from Brian Cox (carrying the film) and StephenMackintosh (minor role) really impressed, first time I've seen Coxcarry a movie since Manhunter. The sound was very interestingly donewhich is rare and together with the unique, detailed look of the filmgave me the impression of a director (Rupert Wyatt) who got to realisehis unique vision…. which is what these Sundance movies should beabout. The music was quite diverse, and best when not getting toosentimental, but it helped with the pace if not the mood. LeonardCohen's song also perfectly led us in and out of the story. But thetechnical side of the film-making from all parties was clearly topnotch and Joe Walker's editing, creating a double story while keepingboth interesting was also stand-out good. I also loved the retrotitles- these films its referencing from the 70s are some of myfavourite but this managed to update, subvert and improve them. Hatsoff.

Seen at Sundance Premiere 2008. Within the first 2 minutes of theEscapist you know your buckled in and you won't be getting up till thecredits start rolling, and thats just how it is. In the tradition ofthe Bird Man of Alcatraz, Great Escape, Cool Hand Luke and other greatsof the prison break genre you can add the Escapist. The feel is modernbut the setup is old school and true to the genre in a familiarlycomforting way. Director Rupert Wyatt has created a fantastic actionfilm with intelligent sequencing and a meaningful ending that makes youremember its indie roots. What is even more amazing though is the(((sound))) , it is insane! The sounds of the prison are so real andchilling in their quiet way, then when the action hits its like a tidalwave of sound hitting all you senses. Rarely does a new flick comealong with such wide potential that brings new ideas and old onestogether so well. I'm left extremely impressed by all involved. Moviewill be best seen on the big screen with high quality sound, I imagineAmerican audiences will not show this as much love as they should do tothe lack of big names but I suspect the UK will embrace this very well.

read comments (0)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Hello all, I can honestly say I have read reviews from this site for along time now and always love visiting IMDb and find it very useful formany things. However I have never registered on the site or given areview on this website up to this point.

That being said after just having walked out from watching this movie,I absolutely had to write a review. I kind of grew up with reading thebooks and watched the cartoons when I was a little kid and liked thestories. Though these movies about the Chronicles of Narnia are topquality and bring me back to my childhood.

I can say it has a bigger picture to it than the first one. I haven'trated a movie with a 10 like ever at most maybe an 8 or 9, Transformerswould probably rate 8 on my list and that was my favorite movie for along time. Though the movie had all I could want in a movie. Of coursesome things were a little cheesy but I would expect such a thing from amovie/book where the main characters are children ;).

I am not saying any of this to hype of a movie, there is nothing worstabout a movie than hype that people build up before they see it, thenthey go see the movie and it turns out to be horrible in their opinion.

I walked in expecting a great Narnia film and I got precisely that. A10 doesn't mean the movie is perfect, but for what they tried toaccomplish which was make the movie directly based off the book thenthey couldn't have done a better job in my opinion.

Anyways, go see the movie!

I came into this movie expecting a fantasy film with a couple of coolbattle sequences, and some boring dialog. LWW was good, but PrinceCaspian is a humongous improvement on it.

The movie is really well paced. The movie starts off with tension, andthere is rarely a dull moment. You might have three or four minutes ofdialog, but after that the tension is high.

The kids are much better acting wise, and their chemistry is a lotbetter. Peter is arrogant, Susan is indecisive, and you really don'tsee any character flaws in Lucy or Edmund in this one. Trumpkin is areally interesting character, and has some good lines. I was surprisedby how good Ben Barnes was as Caspian. Liam Neeson, was well… LiamNeeson, excellent.

This movie wasn't just one big plot. There were several subplots thatthey delved into. For instance there is a whole Political side to themovie. There is a relationship between Susan and Caspian (which is notin the book). They show how Peter misses being an adult, and won'taccept that he's a kid. They go into how Susan really doesn't want tohave any romances. They go into the superb relationship between Aslan,and Lucy. They show individual Centaur's relationships with othercentaurs. The movie really has lots of sides to it.

The scenery in Prince Caspian is breathtaking, and it is mostly not CGscenery. There is one scene when they're in a river, and you can seethrough the water, because it's so clear.

The animation is very realistic, except for the water monster at theend. All the creatures especially the mouses are beautifully done. Theanimation in the battles is very good. There is one part where CGhorses are dying and it reminds me of LOTR.

The battles are the best part of the movie. They are epic to say theleast. When they invade Miraz's castle the battle is reallyspectacular, and reminds me a lot of Helms Deep from LOTR. There arelots of short sword fights in the movie, but there is one really greatone. Peter and Miraz duel it out. The duel was really well done, anddidn't get repetitive. The final battle at the end was really intense.No lie, a kid sitting next to me was literally on the edge of his seatduring the final battle.

Prince Caspian is without a doubt the best fantasy movie since LOTR TheReturn of the King. The battles were great, the story was easy tofollow, and it was appropriate for kids over seven. Disney has anothergold mine on their hands. This movie is going to do so well. My dad sawit and he hates fantasy, but he loved it. Make sure to see this it isreally awesome. Best fantasy movie in five years.

I really liked this movie. Its an exciting sequel to the Lion, TheWitch, and the Wardrobe. Its much more of an action movie than thefirst and the tone is darker, but its still the Narnia we all love.

Story: In Narnia, Caspian, a Telmarine Prince, is wakened by hismentor, Doctor Cornelius, who explains to him that his aunt has justgiven birth to a son, meaning that if his treacherous Uncle Mirazkilled Caspian, he would be the sole heir to the throne and his sonwould be his successor. Caspian, realizing that his life is in danger,escapes with his horse and a small ivory horn given to him by Dr.Cornelius, who says not to blow it except in great need. Followed byseveral Telemarine soldiers, Caspian encounters two Narnian dwarfs anda talking badger in the woods. Terrified, he blows the horn. One of theNarnian dwarfs, Trumpkin, goes off to stop the soldiers and getscaptured, while the other dwarf, Nikabrik, and the badger,Trufflehunter, carry Caspian inside their house. Back in England, thefour Pevensie children are heading into a subway station to depart forschool, one year having passed in their world since they first enteredNarnia. Just as the subway train pulls into the station, the wallsstart sucking in, and the whole station tears apart to leave thePevensies in a large cave by a beach in what they immediately recognizeas Narnia. After playing in the waves of the sea, they discover CairParavel, their castle, has turned to ruins.

Meanwhile, Nikabrik is all for killing Caspian because he's aTelmarine, but Trufflehunter reminds him that Caspian, having blown thehorn of Queen Susan, will lead the Narnians to freedom. They leadCaspian to the Dancing Lawn, where all the old Narnians have assembled,including the swashbuckling mouse, Reepicheep, who offers Caspian hisservices. However, the Narnians are disgruntled at the Telmarines anddon't want one of them to be their leader. Caspian, however, convincesthem that if they help him reclaim his throne, he can bring peacebetween them.

Trumpkin is taken by Telmarines to the waters near Cair Paravel to bedrowned, but the Pevensies save him. After proving to the dwarf thatthey are the Kings and Queens of old, they set off to find the others.Lucy glimpses Aslan and tries to convince the others that she's seenhim, but only Edmund believes her. After many twists and turns, theyeventually encounter Caspian and his troops. After that the five heroesmust fight several battles to save Narina from the evil Miraz.

Here are my overall reactions to the movie:

Script: Its very exciting and it keeps you interested. It has goodthemes about returning to Narnia after a year, and myth becomingreality. It its a bit convoluted at times so younger audiences may havea hard time understanding some things. Also some parts of the storyseemed a little rushed. But overall it was good.

Acting: The acting was good in the first, but its excellent in this.William Mosely plays Peter well, we really understand how he feelsbeing treated like a kid on Earth after being a King in Narnia. Hisfights with Caspian are also well done. Anna is completely in characterfor Susan, and she manages to foreshadow her fate in The Last Battle.Skandar does well as Edmund. He has kind of a quiet and coolpersonality unlike the little brat he portrayed in the first. Onceagain Georgie captures the innocence and spirituality of Lucy. Thoughbecause she has grown, she isn't as little and cute as she was in thefirst. Newcomer Ben Barnes does well as Caspian. But in most of hisscenes he seems like a confused boy that is just trying to stay alive.Trumkin was also acted well as a cynical dwarf. And the guy thatportrayed Miraz was good at playing a sinister villain. I thought himeven more chilling then the White Witch. Speaking of the White Witchshe makes a ghostly appearance when a Hag and a Werewolf try toresurrect her. I wil
l say no more about her.

Directing: I have nothing to criticize. Though I will say somescenes/themes felt a little rushed, the directing was pretty good.

CGI: It has majorly improved from the first. Everything looksrealistic. Reepicheep, the Wer-wolf, the River God, the dryads, andAslan. The only time it didn't look real is the first shot of Aslanwhen Lucy dreams about him. But aside from that it was perfect.

Music/Score: It was very good except for the song that plays when thekids leave Narnia.

Overall: A fun exciting family the whole family will enjoy. And I meanthe whole family, not just the kids. The tone is darker, the battlesare more violent, and the kids are older which will make the film moreenjoyable for adults and teens. This was great and it made me want tosee more Narnia. I hope that the release date for The Voyage of theDawn Treader(which is May 2010), is pushed up to Christmas 2009 so Idon't have to wait as long.

Going to the theater I didn't expect to be blown away but to be atleast entertained well - but I was wrong. The roughly 150 min movie DIDblow me away with a wonderful, intriguing story, above average acting,a life-enriching message, outstanding effects (a far more seamlessintegrating of the animal characters), and an even more refined musicscore. Narnia II is a must see and could elevate the series to thelikes of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars… after coming out of thetheater I felt the need to watch it again and immediately watch partIII… a wonderful feeling. Take the time and watch it - especially onthe big screen, it's worth every penny you spend.

this was pretty violent for a rated pg movie… it was well made….thestory was great…the acting was great….. i totally recommend it ifyou take your family out to movie night. you should see this movie. ithough this movie would be stupid because most sequels never reallymake it big. but i was very surprised. this was pretty violent for arated pg movie. But action is what made this entire series is it not?Me and my girlfriend went to see this movie which she grew up readingthe series the chronicles of narnia. she was blown away…. i can'twait to see what the voyage of dawn teader looks like….. i am totallylooking forward for the next movie.

In this sequel to THE LION THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, the fourchildren begin the story one year later back in Britain. However, theyare summoned back to Narnia and they are shocked at what awaits them.Centuries have passed and most of the mythical creatures seem to havevanished–replaced by greedy humans bent on their destruction. So it'sup to the kids as the returned kings and queens of Narnia to makethings right.

Visually, this is a truly amazing movie. While the last film in thisseries was a sight to see, this next installment is even better–withamazing CG creatures and a battle that is quite thrilling. However,once you look beyond the amazing special effects, what you are leftwith is only rather ordinary–mostly due to rather one-dimensionalcharacterizations. Instead of real people or mythical characters, mostof what you see in the film seems to lack any sort of back story ordepth–they are just there. Some won't mind this and will simply sitback and enjoy the eye candy (and it is impressive–you certainly can'tdeny that). People like myself who love characters and story will be abit less impressed. Additionally, while the general tone of the C.S.Lewis story is intact, there have been a few changes–such as a ratherdifficult to believe romance (it seems to come out of no where).

Despite all my negative comments above, do NOT take this to mean Idisliked the movie. It's just that is clearly could have been betterplus I really wish there had been more story to it than just one battleafter another with slow-motion clips abounding during the fighting. Forteens, this is probably a good film and worth seeing with theirfriends–they'll most likely love all the action and cute characters(though there are far less here than in the more child-orientedpredecessor). Plus parents don't need to worry about them seeingit–the message is good and there is inexplicably almost no blood inthe film. For the more adult audience, they may just want to wait untilthis one comes out on DVD.

By the way, although there is no indication how long the kids were gonefrom Narnia between the two films (and they refer to it as "manycenturies"), at the very end Susan says it's been 1300 years. Wherethis number came from is anyone's guess and there is no explanation forwhere she suddenly gets this number. I think there is a dangling plotelement Disney forgot to take care of and it left me confused.

I am 18 and I absolutely LOVED this movie.best movie i've seen thisyear so far. I know the books backwards and forwards. I've been verypleased with the Disney adaptations and they have not disappointed meso far.

It's action packed and very entertaining. go see it because it is aclassic tale from C.S. Lewis and make sure to bring that specialNarnian with you!!!! I know you won't regret it but i wouldn't bringkids younger than 8 or 9 because of the many battle sequences. This isfor sure to be enjoyed by generations to come because it is the classicbattle of good and evil.

I never read the Narnia books, but after seeing the second Narnia moviethis weekend, I don't think i will ever see another Narnia movie again.

I was not a big fan of the first movie, the elf creature was creepy andthe talking beavers just put me right off (beavers meant to be seen,not heard), but after suffering through Caspian this weekend, i nowfeel the first movie is a masterpiece!

Caspian starts out interestingly enough. After the children arrive backin Narnia, there are a few scenes that invoke wonderment and awe as wesee the current state of things in Narnia. However the the wondermentwheres off quickly as the movie plods along and the story unfolds.

I won't spoil the story (or lack of one), but i will say that the plotis unoriginal and uninspiring. The acting ranges from campy over acting(such as the taking mouse/rat) to statedly incompetent (as in all fourof the children).

Towards the end the movie actually goes a little haywire and the plottwist is ridiculous at best… As a matter of fact, if someone had justtaken a ride into the woods, this movie could have been ended in thefirst 15 minutes.

The FX aren't that special. The dialog is lame, the plot is stupid andthe acting is brutal!!! This is one Caspian that should be suck to thebottom of the sea… wink:)

PS/ did i mention that Prince Caspian has some kind of flirtatiousrelationship with Susan… the fat, bitchy sister! talk about a bonerkiller! She goes through the entire movie looking uncomfortable andconstipated… come to think of it, i never did see any indoor plumbingin Narnia! Does a bear crap in the woods? well it does if Susan's intown!

I saw this at the midnight show on Thursday, and thought it was prettygood. Barnes was basically a pretty face with a cool accent, but thatdefinitely didn't ruin the film. The kids have gotten a whole lotbetter since the first one, which made it kinda fun to watch and seehow they differ. The special effects were very good; more realisticthan TLWW. And the battle sequences were great- better, longer, andmore. I honestly wasn't expecting this one to be as good or as intenseas it was, and was pleasantly surprised. If you liked the first one,but wanted more battles, character and pretty much everything, you'lllike this one. 4/5

I loved this movie, it was excellent to see how well the movie stuckwith the book and all the same actors played their parts so well. Thepanoramic feel of the movie was incredible and the locations weresuperb. Seeing how the characters grew through the year was al
sointeresting to see how living life as a royal and then back to thestart could change a person. The one thing I might have to knock downwas the last battle in which Aslan awoke the trees. First thought thatcame to mind "The Ents take a walk". Although it was a masterpiece toinclude the mystical workings of Narnia it was a bit of a let down tosee the same great battle techniques as seen in LOTR. All in all it wasa great movie and would definitely see again!

read comments (0)

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

I know people will get upset when I say this but this film bored theever-living hell out of me. Personally I think that we need anotherthree hour (actually it was 90 minutes but it felt like three hours)dull-fest about the holocaust like we need a hole in the head.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the holocaust was an atrocity ofproportions so staggering that it is difficult to conceive. And that ispartly the point. I cannot empathise with the people in the deathcamps, surely no one who wasn't there could. I understand on a purelyintellectual level that the suffering was unimaginable - UNIMAGINABLE,as in not possible to imagine, at all, ever.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas follows Bruno, the young son of a seniorNazi, as his family moves to the country where his father put in chargeof running what the boy initially thinks is a farm of some kind.Exploring, Bruno meets (through an electric fence) a Jewish boy of hisown age and the two talk. Despite fine acting on the part of the twocentral child actors the film is meaningless and unrealistic. Sadly itfollows the unerringly "safe" route of so many films of its type byshowing us the horror with none of the insight. It has the usual castof "goodies" who are unaware of, shocked by or victims of the holocaustand the "baddies" who are monstrous almost inhuman figures whosemotivations remain unknown and unexplored. Even as he is being led tothe denouement the protagonist remains wilfully ignorant of the natureof the camp that his father is running which is not only stupid butactually quite insulting.

The mistake that lies at the core of films like Boy in the StripedPyjamas and Schindler's List and twenty other films about the holocaustis that they concentrate on the suffering of the victims of theholocaust to the exclusion of all else. Implying that we can, in eventhe tiniest way, empathise with people who went through this experiencediminishes the pain of those who did. They place us in the metalposition of the victim, unable to affect the outcome of this terrorwhile ignoring the far harder truth, that what we should be frightenedof is not victimisation but becoming the victimisers. By showing usonly the horror of the people in the camps films like this one run therisk of allowing us to forget the horror that we could be the onesrunning them.

The central message of the film appears to be that the holocaust wasbad - really, really bad. Good God, it's sixty years afterwards, isthere anyone out there who doesn't know that by now? Is there a man,woman or child on the planet who wouldn't recognise a picture of AldofHitler as The Most Evil Man Ever (TM) and be aware of his attemptedmurder of an entire race? I somewhat doubt it.

If you want to see a truly gut-wrenchingly terrifying film about theholocaust watch the little known HBO TV movie Conspiracy (2001)starring Kenneth Branagh and Stanley Tucci. That film contains not asingle gunshot or image of the holocaust and yet can, quite justifiablyin my opinion, claim to be both the best WWII movie ever made and themost coldly horrifying examination of humanity's capacity for evil.Stacked against that, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is quasi-feel goodholocaust tourism.

Hi! I read that at lot of the other writers here say it was such agreat movie, and that they got moved to tears. Personally I could notdisagree more. I admit it was interesting to look at the world troughthe eyes of a eight year old boy, but what did he really see? Afairytale concentration camp with children, where everyone was justsitting around. For not to mention a camp without security and almostwithout guards. And the commanders son (main character) came to playwith a boy for hours each day! Some writers recommend this movie foreducating at schools. How could they? If you are going to portraitsomething very far from what really happened, you either add humor, ormake everyone sure this is just a fairytale. This movie did neither..

During World War II, the unbelievably naive eight year old child of theNazi commander of a concentration camp becomes the friend, through thebarbed wire (with nary a guard in sight) of an eight year old inmate ofsaid camp. Eventually, he decides to enter the camp (excavating atunnel through it!) to help his friend find his father. Their destinyis (spoiler ahead) the gas chamber, in a jaw dropping awful scene.Unabashedly sentimental and terribly manipulative, this movie makesRoberto Benigni's famously awful "Life is Beautiful" a model of tasteby comparison. Maybe in the original book (which I have not read) thisworks as a fable, but I'm not exaggerating by saying that there is nota single moment in this film that is believable. For starters: If itwas so easy to enter the camp, with just a shovel, how come the inmatesdidn't escape?. And the scene where the mother cries as the rain ispouring when she realizes the fate of her child and the camera movesupward is a textbook case of cinematic manipulation. Avoid this at allcosts.

This is by far and away the worst film i have ever seen. I do notunderstand the point the filmmaker is trying to make. The acting fromthe adult actors was wooden and void of emotional content for most ofthe film (the last fifteen minutes was rather overdone, screaming isnot acting…its screaming!). The child actors were a lot better thantheir adult counterparts, and for most of the film brought an amount ofcredibility to their roles that i must credit them with. That is theonly praise i can give to this frankly awful, insensitive and crassfilm. So the film is not about good acting.

The historical value the film brings to the table is non-existent, ittakes what we are all taught in school and exploits it to make a filmabout this black hole in human history. So its not a film about thehistory of the holocaust.

The film makes no sense. How does Bruno stay at the edge of aconcentration camp, playing games (at one point he even throws a ballover the barbed wire fence) for at least 2 hours a day, without anysingle guard spotting him (there is a guard tower overlooking thespot). Shmuel has to take a long walk to the fence from where he issupposed to be, why hasn't anyone ever followed him or stopped him? Atthe end Bruno is treated like an ordinary prisoner whilst being herdedinto the "shower". Why hasn't anyone noticed his long hair, or hisclean skin, or his full belly, or his healthy looking body? OK, so itsnot a film about truth or common sense.

The film is structured well, until the ending. I can just imagine thescene at the writer's house now. The writer sitting at his desk, aboutto write the ending to the most emotional and well written holocaustfilm since Schindlers list…and then his partner walks up to him,kisses him on the cheek and says "come to bed darling". The writer thenproceeds to make the biggest mistake of his life, he writes the crass,insensitive and unfulfilling ending that eventually makes it into thefilm. There is no justice, no justification for the two hours ofwatching. There is no sadness in the ending, just anger. So its not afilm about justice or sadness

This film is blunt and stunted. If La Vita E Bella is like a delicateinstrument designed to invoke a powerful and provocative insight intothe holocaust, The boy in the striped Pyjamas is like a fork. Used tostuff ones face with over-emotional dribble, it turns into a veryinsensitive and crass production, which leaves a very bad taste in themouth.

Read the book by John Boyne and loved it. Movie was very disappointingfrom the start. The movie was about a German family and the actors werethe British upper class - with Oxford accents! John Boyne how could youhave allowed that to happen? The same with the Pavel and Schmul - bothhad British accents. The two young actors should have switched roles -Schmul looked a very healthy concentration camp victim - while
Brunowas the scrawny one. The innocence and naiveté of the characters in thebook was totally destroyed. Bruno's unshaven head in the camp lostmeaning Too slow - missed the nuance of the book - failed to reallybuild the two characters of Bruno and Schmul.

I came on to this site to read about this film before going to see itat the Cinema. I read with enthusiasm the reports of it and as my wifeusually weeps at sad films I packed an extra 2 packets of tissues forthe supposed emotional turmoil we were about to endure.

This film is a very slow starter, I knew before I started to watch it,it was only 1 hour 25 mins long so after 60 minutes I was starting toget a little impatient.

I was disappointed to say the least, it wasn't a particularly goodstory and I seemed to miss the brilliant acting I was lead to believeby reading these other reviews / synopsis.

I looked over at my wife at the end of the film and she looked back atme with a 'thanks for wasting 1 and a half hours of my time' look, NOTEARS, well maybe a few of anger.

I think 7.9/10 average is more than generous for this film, it's OK ifthere is nothing else that takes your fancy but I wouldn't make aspecial journey to see it.

Here's the thing with Holocaust movies. If you produce the movie fromthe perspective of a Jewish person, then the viewers will understandthe real pain caused in World War II. The problem with 'The Boy in theStriped Pyjamas' was that the perspective was from the son of a highranking Nazi commander, so it was harder to have sympathy for when theson was killed. I understand the point that they were trying to makeabout how immune the Nazi's became to killing the Jews and how when thecommander's son escaped and was gassed, no one noticed. In a Holocaustmovie, it is important to touch on a few things: the point of view fromthe Jews, why Nazi's hated them, and times when Jews received outsidehelp from others. I mostly just got a gist of Nazi's and the life ofhigh ranking Nazi commandant.

The two best movies about the Holocaust that I have seen are"Schindler's List" and "Defiance".

Went into this film a little unsure but with an open mind, attemptingto take it for what it was and appreciating that it was going to bedifferent to the usual films I see (generally action).

We learn of the family and of how they are relocating due to thefather's job and follow them as the move to their new home. The naivetyof the son emotes a sympathetic feeling from the audience as weunderstand what is going on to a greater extent than he does. Histreatment of Pavel as being 'just another normal person' helps tofurther his appeal to the audience. In particular the way that thedaughter changes following her teaching, leads you to side with theyounger sibling as he remains oblivious to the horrors that areoccurring a little way outside of his bedroom window.

However, I found that any empathy that I felt for the son was lost ashe turned his back on the boy from the camp when he was summoned towork in the house. Yes it is understandable that he was scared by theintimidating Nazi officer, but he had already seen what had happened toPavel when he made the grave mistake of spilling wine. My sympathy waslost to the point that I felt no great sorrow with the way that thefilm ended. Yes he was only a child, but he must have realised whatwould happen if he lied. In a way my sympathy stopped as suddenly asthe film did.

The film does a good job of showing a portion of what was going on atthe time. The way that the daughter was 'brain-washed' into the Naziway of thinking, the boy was naive and lead astray by the propagandafilm of the camp and the way the wife was happy to relocate for herhusband's job, so long as she did not have to see or learn of what wasoccurring.

It's a definite far cry from the usual action films that I watch, butthat by no means lowered my enjoyment of the film. My only gripe isthat the amount of development of the family's story felt as though ittook away time from the development of the boys' relationship and alsothe closing of the film.

A film that does a job of telling a naive story that is occurringbesides one of the most horrifying times of history.

I've got to say that I saw this tonight and I loved it. It's a verypowerful, very well made film but it had a good Director and deserved agreat one.

I'd have dearly loved to have seen it filmed in German and subtitled,but accepting that that won't happen, I applaud the decision to go foralmost perfect received pronunciation rather than German accentedEnglish which would have been beyond awful.

For me, the bugbear was the music. Herman directed both Little Voiceand Brassed Off - the man KNOWS how to use music effectively (Danny Boyin the latter film still makes be cry like a baby). The climax to thisfilm however felt ham-fisted. The orchestration completely drowned themoment where I feel a much more restrained hand would have had greateremotional impact. Much of the rest of the score was fabulous.

In the acting stakes, I think the ladies won the day, with both AmberBeattie and Vera Farmiga giving performances that were a joy to watch.

A great film, but it could have been better.

If I were to have a problem with this otherwise stunning film it's thefact that, much like 'The Dark Knight' this is not a film you want totake your kids to. Its dark, disturbing and one of the best weepers ofthis fine year. Anybody above the ages of fifteen, you must see thismovie. It might not beat 'The Dark Knight' with style or substance butthis is without a doubt the most important film of the year. Theimagery is so disturbing, you have to remind yourself, it's just amovie. But here's where there no escape, this isn't Last House on theLeft. This is real, this is a film based on a novel of the same namedbased on historical events of a German family moving to a country housenear a concentration camp and their son befriending one of the boysinside the camps.

And if your hearts not in your heart during that unbearably tense finalact then something is painfully wrong with you. These final minutes areso disturbing i broke out inot a cold sweat, Even stranger is how Iallowed this to slip under my radar for weeks. I remember reading thebook that this is based on when I was young. I remember loving it. Andnow I find it just wonderful how much the makers of this film have doneit justice.

During World War II, 8-year-old Bruno (Asa Butterfield) and his familyleave Berlin to take up residence near the concentration camp where hisfather (David Thewlis) has just been made commandant. Bruno is unhappyand lonely, until one day, when he wanders out behind his house andfinds Shmuel (Jack Scanlon), a Jewish boy his own age. Though thebarbed-wire fence of the camp separates the boys, they enter into aforbidden friendship, oblivious to the true nature of theirsurroundings.

If i were to complain about this film, plausibility is where I wouldstart. Its exaggerated for sure. The lack of authentic German accents,the seemingly absent guards and an overall sense that this wouldn'thave gone in that direction. All however is quite easily redeemed withits tear jerker, heart stopping ending.

As difficult as it may be to watch, it should certainly be a film thateverybody sees if only for the realisation that this horrific eventoccurred. If you're willing to forgive some implacability faults and acouple of odd accents then you'll walk out of this film feeling stunnedwith just how horrific the truth is.

Verdict: a painful yet fully accomplished journey, that will appealsolely to those who can withstand the disturbing imagery, erry settingsand that holy mary mother of god ending that will have you clenchingyour jaw in hope they make a copo
ut ending. To our dissatisfaction,they don't. And while it might have been more releasing it would havespoilt the realisation. For what its worth this is film of the yearmaterial.

read comments (0)

Surveillance

I just got home from seeing this film in Paris. All I could thinkduring the film, and as I made a mad dash for the exit when the creditsstarted to roll, was that it made me ashamed to be an American — or atleast ashamed to be associated by my nationality with anything to dowith this film.

The style in Hollywood nowadays, it seems, is to be as spectacularlyviolent as possible and to avoid at all costs providing any character amoral compass. While some fine films are made ("The Assassination ofJesse James," "Babel," "Gone, Baby, Gone," "No Country for Old Men," toname just a few), the impression we give to the world by ourfilm-making is that we are a country of ugly, violent barbarians. Thisfilm is in no way on par with the above examples of truly greatfilm-making, but only shares with them the projection of Americans asviolent, bloodthirsty, dishonest, amoral, and reprehensible - if not bythe characters we portray then in our taste for bloodier and bloodiercinematic portrayals of sociopathic Americans.

I'm no prude when it comes to film violence, and I don't want toadvocate against creative freedom, but this film is the worst of ourworst. Even the nine-year old child in this story has no redeemingqualities ferchrissakes, with an inexplicable lack of morality oremotion - or even a shred of humanity - despite enduring perhaps themost brutal and revolting experiences a human being could suffer.

And the film, like every one of its characters, has absolutely noredeeming qualities whatsoever.

My advice: Stay away. I only wish I had, and I only wish itsdistributors had spared France the dubious privilege of its advancedrelease.

I was tempted to stand at the exit and apologize to every Parisian asthey exited, and ask them to at least TRY not to judge us based on thetravesty they'd just witnessed. The only thing that stopped me was thegreater urge to distance myself from the theater as fast as my feetwould carry me.

Feh!

1st, let me say that I'm an ordinary person (i.e., not an industryperson) who pays to see 50-100 films a year — and I do not go tohorror flicks

2nd, I rely on IMDb ratings and reviews to shape my movie choices, andwish there had been more accurate, reliable info on this before I sawit (when it opened in Vienna)

3rd, this is the first review I've written after ~10 years of being apart of IMDb

the best thing I can say about this is that it's a low-grade B movie –a psychotic-thriller about wanton torture & murder

I find no redeeming value in this movie … I do not walk out ofmovies, but this one deserved it!

the "FBI agents" are not very convincing

the small-town cops are stereotyped to an unbelievable extreme(shooting tires out of vehicles to stop and abuse/ terrify them)

Ryan Simpkins as Stephanie gives a gem of a performance in thisotherwise ridiculous movie, a breath of reality in this sordid mess …but I feel sad for her personally, since 10 year old kids shouldn't beexposed to this wickedness (hence it's rating)

many alternatives would be preferable to spending time watching this –taking a nap, visiting a trauma room in an ER on Halloween, going to apark, watching open heart surgery, dancing, having a colonoscopywithout anesthetic, etc.

What really irritated me is that it was not at all the kind of moviethat I wanted to watch. I expected a kind of "detective story" anddidn't expect the total turnaround the script takes. Not that I don'tlike being surprised by a well-constructed script. It's just that themovie should be re-branded and viewers should be warned that it is NOTa story of "FBI investigates killings" but of "perverse mentally sickkiller couple are presented as romantic heroes in this twisted andunrealistic story". Now I understand that some viewers actually enjoythis type of movie, including depictions of particularly viciouskillings. That's fine. There is a genre called "horror movies" for thattype of content. I simply want to warn viewers who have more mainstreamtastes that they will be disappointed, perhaps even sickened, by thismovie.

Within the first fifteen minutes the mystery of the film "Surveillance"is solved. Unfortunately, I don't think that was the intent of itsdirector, Jennifer Chambers Lynch.

Two FBI agents (Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond) arrive at a remote ruralpolice station to investigate several violent murders and interrogatethree suspect/witnesses. Before long, it becomes apparent that eachwitness may not be completely forthcoming with all they know and allthey have done.

The only memorable characters in the film are, unsurprisingly, Pullmanand Ormond, yet their performances are of lesser success in comparisonto many of their others. In addition, I am looking forward to the endof "in your face" violence, although I don't see its end anytime in thenear future.

What makes a good twist? Really, if there were a formula then it couldbecome a genre of its own. Instead we make do with thriller, whodunnit,horror, etc. In fact, therein lies the answer - a good twist is onewhere it's not that you can't work out what the twist is going to bebut rather that you weren't expecting a twist at all.

Now, I wasn't expecting there to be a twist (as opposed to arevelation) in this movie. Maybe I was naive and you might see itcoming. I suspect that I had got so fed up with the consistent trope ofthe characters being evasive, neurotic and, frankly, rather irritatingthat I had got bored, in which case the twist, such as I thought itwas, wasn't one at all. Perhaps it was a corner in the drama, elevatedto coup de cinema in the same way that a shutting door becomes thunderto the dozing.

There you go. It's a rather pure film for that reason/those reasons,like a sophisticated student's project. 4/10

Based on some early reviews I was really looking forward to seeing thismovie. I was ultimately very disappointed.

Starting on a positive note, Surveillance is very expertly shot, and isbeautiful to look at. However, on almost every other account it failsmiserably. The first two acts are simply boring and annoying, mostlybecause of the quote-unquote "weird" characters. The people populatingthis story on paper might have looked interesting, seeing them actedout, however, just goes to show how incredibly difficult it is tocreate really interesting dramatic characters. These people act andbehave like no human being would, just for the sake of being weird orunusual. The plot also progresses in a very leisurely manner. Then thethird act comes, where events go from boring to completely nonsensical.The obligatory twist is just dumb beyond belief.

Then the acting - geez, I don't think any of the actors should put thisone in their resume. Bill Pulman, bringing his best "constipated DeNiro" impersonation, is the worst offender. In the last act he overactson a disastrous level, to a point where one wishes a meteor would fallfrom the sky and put him out of his misery. It has to be the mostcringe-worthy, embarrassing episode of his career. But the rest of thecast also do their best to follow his lead. When will Hollywood learnthat psychotic killers do not necessarily behave and talk like JimCarrey on PCP? I've seen worse films in 2008 but given the talentinvolved I didn't think Surveillance would be such a painful experienceto sit through. Avoid this stinker.

Jennifer Lynch's first feature since "Boxing Helena" is the worst filmI've seen this year. The script is an inept mess and the direction isclueless. The characters are cardboard cutouts with indecipherablemotivations. Editing-wise, this looks like a salvage job. FBI agentsare investigating a seri
es of murders. Which means they are alsoinvestigating themselves. Jennifer is not David, but she tries to be.The problem is, she doesn't have his talent or his ability to create areal, identifiable world into which darkness can be threaded. This isall darkness and all misery. Lynch opts for a cynical, boring,pandering "thriller" with no thrills. The violence is graphic at times,but it has no context. Worse, there is not one character we care about.That this sorry nonsense just won top prize at Sitges (over the waysuperior "Martyrs" and the fresh "Let The Right One In") is a disgrace,and undermines that fine festival's credibility. Don't believe any hypeabout this. It's abysmal.

After a very scary, crude opening which gives you that creepy "Chainsawmassacre"-feeling, everything falls apart.

SPOILER ALERT: As soon as the two FBI-officers start jabbing, you knowthey are the real killers. Anyone who have seen enough of these"fooled-ya"-movies can figure this out.

This movie is mader with one thing in mind: To depict brutal murders.Why, then, is not the little girl tortured and murdered as well? Willthis be next for us movie-goers? The torture and abuse of children?Whats wrong with you people? Lynch is truly has a disgusting, uglymind.

An excellent film. Beautifully shot.

Don't go see a violent film if you can't tolerate violence. I agreethis film seems to follow a trend in "Serial Killers in the AmericanWest" but it doesn't make it any less important.

It's not exactly a date movie and there were some disturbing shots, butoverall a joy to watch for the dedicated horror/suspense buffs.

The only point I will concede is that while Bill Pullman was anexcellent bad guy, I did notice he was ACTING like a bad guy from thevery beginning.

That said, I'm definitely recommending it.

What is about movies that are abstract and meaningless only for all tobecome apparent in the last 20 minutes? I want to enjoy a movie frombeginning to end. It may be "arty" to have some vague road movie plotline that has you guessing but when it doesn't unravel until near theend then I feel cheated.

So we have some redneck cops, we have a young carefree couple, we havea couple of FBI agents (appear from out of the blue!) in a town whichappears to have a population of 5. The cops aren't very nice, the youngcouple are out for fun…. lo and behold the otherwise normal FBIagents turn out to be serial killers in the last bit of the movie andbingo we have a plot! Shame we have to spend 80% of the movie askingWTF???

read comments (0)