Tag: bad film

Event Horizon


Event Horizon (1997)
★ / ★★★★

A spaceship designed by a scientist named Dr. William Wier (Sam Neill) reappeared near Neptune after disappearing for seven years. The scientist boarded a rescue ship with its crew of specialists (Joely Richardson, Kathleen Quinlan, Richard T. Jones, Jack Noseworthy, Jason Isaacs, Sean Perwee) which was led by the domineering Captain Miller (Laurence Fishburne). When the eight finally boarded the mysterious Event Horizon, the original crew was nowhere to be found. However, their advanced instruments detected a life form supposedly located all over the ship. What I first noticed about the movie was its great visuals. Unfortunately, it had nothing else to offer. The movie succumbed to typicalities such as the rescuers being targeted one by one as if they were stuck in a bad slasher film. I think the picture was more interested in generating scares than taking advantage of its creepy setting and the science that is currently out of our reach. It was a crucial problem because I noticed that the majority of the time, the characters were haunted by hallunications. For smart and supposedly well-trained people, I found it hard to believe that they could not detach themselves from the idea that the loved ones they left on Earth were actually on the ship or that someone from their past had come back for revenge. What I expected for the movie to focus on was the possible gateway to another dimension. Space is limitless and thefore open to many kinds of interpretation. I thought it was a wasted opportunity that the writer, Philip Eisner, took the obvious path–a formula that consisted of nothing but blood and violence. Everything was spoon-fed for us and that was one of its biggest crimes. I knew exactly when something would pop out or when someone would die. It was not a fun experience because I felt like it didn’t even try to do something creative. Toward the end, it was plagued with cheesy one-liners and the filmmakers failed to wrap up the story in a respectable way. It seemed like they knew that they made a disappointing movie and just tossed it aside. Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, “Event Horizon” is a science fiction film that might have been exposed to a black hole because all of the potentially wondorous elements had been sucked out of it. It didn’t have the bravado to challenge us, to ask questions about its characters and their mission and, most importantly, it didn’t make us think about how we would cope if we were given the same situation because it failed to pause from all the senseless action.

Resident Evil: Afterlife


Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)
★ / ★★★★

Nothing much happened in “Resident Evil: Afterlife” other than the fact that Alice (Milla Jovovich) continued on her seemingly interminable quest to shut down the Umbrella Corporation. After hearing a hopeful transmission that promised food, shelter, protection, and no infected individuals, our protagonist hoped to find refuge in a place called Arcadia. But when she reached the promised land, she found nothing but a beach and abandoned helicopters. Meanwhile, off the coast of California, Alice and Claire (Ali Larter) landed their helicopter on a prison where other survivors (Boris Kodjoe, Sergio Peris-Mencheta, Kim Coates, Kacey Barnfield, Norman Yeung, Fulvio Cecere) hoped to be rescued as they kept a man (Wentworth Miller), who promised to divulge a secret passage that led outside if released, captive. I didn’t expect the film to be insightful or groundbreaking in any way. But I did expect it to entertain. I wasn’t entertained. I was confused during the first thirty minutes because Alice had the ability to be in multiple places at once. For the rest of the time, I grew impatient as the material delivered the run-of-the-mill deaths from our not-so-colorful group of characters. There was only one scene I liked which involved a duel between Claire and a giant man wielding a massive ax. I was at the edge of my seat because I felt like Claire was in serious trouble considering she didn’t have any superhuman powers. And I think that’s the problem with our main character. Alice didn’t feel human so we couldn’t empathize with her when she had to face danger. She was capable of sacrifice but it didn’t feel like she cared for the people she seemed to protect. It felt like she was more interested in the challenge of shooting as many zombies as possible. The only fun fact about her was she liked to stack quarters on her spare time. But she even did it so robotically. Just because the material was inspired by a popular video game, it didn’t mean that each aspect of the film had to feel cold and calculated. When the characters met their demise, I didn’t care. I thought about who was next to be eaten or shot. I also wanted to talk about the zombies. It’s never a good sign when the zombies from television shows like Frank Darabont’s “The Walking Dead” look better than zombies in a movie. I don’t mean “better” as in more attractive; I mean “better” as in more convincing, more menacing. The franchise had about eight years to master its tone. Not once did I see that Paul W.S. Anderson, the writer and director, attempted to use mood to suspend his audiences in suspense. If Anderson had found a way to balance science fiction, action, and horror (with occasional humor), “Resident Evil: Afterlife” would have breathed new life into the series. It should have stayed dead.

Survival of the Dead


Survival of the Dead (2009)
★ / ★★★★

George A. Romero’s tired “Survival of the Dead” started off with two groups of people on an island with a vastly different approach in terms of dealing with the zombies. Group A, led by Kenneth Welsh, wanted to kill the zombies immediately while Group B, led by Richard Fitzpatrick, wanted to train the zombies to eat things other than humans. The first scene depicted Group A being exiled from the island. Cut to the soldiers (Alan Van Sprang, Athena Karkanis, Stefano DiMatteo) meeting a kid (Devon Bostick) as they attempted to decide their next destination. Some wanted to go North while the other said South but it didn’t really matter because we all knew they would end up on the island. I will always thank Romero for making a big impact in the horror genre for the classic “Night of the Living Dead” but what he needs to do now is to stop making these limp and cliché-ridden sequels. The questions that were posed about the way the living dealt with the dead and fellow living people were painfully pretentious and heavy-handed. The two old men with polarizing opinions about what to do with the zombies felt contrived. At one point, one of them stated that they’ve been rivals ever since the school yard. I thought they were immature, selfish and weren’t as strong or macho as they wanted others to believe. With the amount of arguing they had throughout the picture, I was surprised they weren’t killed off in the very beginning. I found nothing inspiring from “Survival of the Dead” because it simply featured a group people making one stupid decision after another. There was nothing scary about the zombies because they were slow-moving and the make-up was so obvious that it borderlined camp. Furthermore, it did not have a firm grasp on delivering tension that lingers. Too often did it rely on the score to tell us what was scary or amusing and I did not appreciate being spoon-fed what to feel and think. I wanted scenes where we were forced to follow a character in a dark, tight spaces, and all we could hear were silence and the character’s footsteps. It should have given us more scenes we could relate to whether there was a danger of a zombie attack or not. There was not one character in this film that I could root for because it spent too much time tackling trite moral questions instead what it meant for these specific characters to survive in world where hope seemed like a thing of the past. Even more disappointing was the fact that it didn’t even have that much blood. If one is looking for some scares, intelligence and creativity, I suggest to stay away from this generic supposed gorefest.

Don’t Look Up


Don’t Look Up (2009)
★ / ★★★★

I can withstand a lot of bad movies but the really memorable ones are the movies that make me angry during and after I watch them. “Don’t Look Up,” directed by Fruit Chan, is a prime example. Marcus (Reshad Strik) was an aspiring filmmaker with psychic abilities. When he visited places with bad histories, which often involved a grizzly murder, he would receive visions and he would incorporate what he saw onto his script. While shooting a movie in Transylvania, his crew discovered an old footage of a prior film shot in their set. Soon “accidents” started to happen which led to a series of deaths until the film crew finally called it quits and left Marcus to deal with his demons. Everything about this picture was exaggerated. The acting was shockingly bad, the gore was gratuitous and unconvincing and the CGI was completely unnecessary. It was so bad, the movie tried to scare us with CGI flies. The last time I checked, CGI flies are not scary. It might have worked in Sam Raimi’s “Drag Me to Hell” because that particular film had a nice balance of cheekiness and horror but “Don’t Look Up” desperately wanted to be taken seriously. Its desperate attempt to be liked left a bitter taste in my mouth. I did not appreciate its references to movies like the Takashi Shimizu’s “Ju-on” and Hideo Nakata’s “Ringu;” instead of paying homage, I felt like the movie was parasite and was an extremely unsatisfactory leftover. The horror did not work because it acted like it was above trying to tell a story that was interesting, involving and, most importantly, a story that made sense. I didn’t understand the connection between Marcus and his ill ex-girlfriend other than to serve as a stupid twist in the end (something along the lines of M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense” only lightyears less elegant). Eli Roth playing a director in the 1920s left me scratching my head. And there was no explanation why the girl was murdered back in the day and what the apparitions wanted to accomplish. A “seed” was involved which I thought was metaphorical at first but it turned out to be literal. It was just a mess and the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to burn the DVD so the next person interested in watching it can use his or her precious time doing something else (perhaps read a book or volunteer at a homeless shelter). “Don’t Look Up” is a smogasboard of everything bad about modern independent horror movies that heavily rely on special and visual effects. I just don’t believe anyone in the world can actually enjoy it. I am at a loss with why it was released in the first place but I suppose connections can go pretty far. If I can prevent at least one person from watching this, I consider it a triumph.

Zombi 2


Zombi 2 (1979)
★ / ★★★★

After I’ve seen zombies that can run like the wind à la “28 Days Later” or “28 Weeks Later,” slow-moving flesh eaters just don’t impress me anymore unless they’re being spoofed like in “Shaun of the Dead.” But I always try my best to put things into perspective because modern zombie pictures wouldn’t be the same today without the classics. A woman (Tisa Farrow) and a reporter (Ian McCulloch) decided to go on an island in the Caribbean to look for the woman’s father. Along the way, they met a couple (Al Cliver, Auretta Gay) on vacation who were kind enough to take them to the island of interest. But little did they know that the island was infested with the living dead. Although considered now as a classic, I believe “Zombie” was a mess. It talked about voodoo being the reason why the dead were rising from the grave but the word was not really explored nor did it touch upon its source. Voodoo has a variety of definitions depending on the culture–did this one involve dolls and pins? Furthermore, characters would ask something like, “What ARE those things rising from the grave?” in utter disgust. And someone would reply he didn’t know. However, after a few seconds the word “zombie” was thrown around like a football. That inconsistency in the script bothered me as much as the characters choosing to make one stupid decision after another. If the characters are as stupid (and as slow-moving) as the zombies, the fun is immediately taken out of the equation. Time and again the character would purposely run into an area where she knew there would be a dead end. I also hated the fact that characters would stand around and wait to be bitten. Horror movie directors should always ask themselves, “What would I do if I was in this particular character’s situation?” Thinking how we would respond and applying that instinct to the characters would not only make the characters more believable, we would be able to relate to them so much easier. If I saw a zombie a few feet away from me, I wouldn’t even think about trying to find the best weapon. Instinct would tell me to run as if I was in a 200 meter dash. And if I happen to run at a dead end and I had no choice but engage in combat, I would fight like I’ve never fought in my life. The last thing I would do was to stand around and say, “Oh, here I am. Bite me.” This was supposed to be a spiritual sequel to George Romero’s original 1978 “Dawn of the Dead.” “Zombie” or “Zombi 2” certainly wasn’t as intelligent or as ambitious as that film. Although I must say that the zombie versus shark scene was pretty neat. Oh, and I suppose I liked the soundtrack, too.

St. Elmo’s Fire


St. Elmo’s Fire (1985)
★ / ★★★★

A group of friends (Mare Winningham, Andrew McCarthy, Demi Moore, Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez) who recently graduated from Georgetown University believed they would be forces to be reckoned with out in the real world but they quickly found out that life was hard and they were not going to be friends forever. I cannot begin to describe how much I disliked this film but I will surely try my best. The characters in this movie has got to be one of the whiniest, most self-absorbed, and most idiotic people I had the displeasure spending time with. It’s not the fact that they constantly made mistakes after graduation. I love it when characters go through trials and their respective cores are challenged. It’s just the way the script made each character an annoying caricature with no sense of direction. The most irksome was perhaps Estevez’ character as a stalker who we were supposed to believe was in love with somoene four years older than him. Like the others, he had a one-track mind and there was no substance to him other than what we saw on screen. On the other side of the spectrum, the character that was somewhat likable (played by Winningham) craved for independence from her rich family. I wished the picture focused more on her because at least I had an idea about what she wanted to accomplish in life and the many elements that were against her. It was not difficult to root for her because of her inherent goodness and her proactiveness to change things around when she was not happy with a particular situation. Written and directed by Joel Schumacher, it’s a shame because “St. Elmo’s Fire” could have really made a statement about post-college life in the 1980s. Instead of looking inwards and moving outwards, it was stuck in the character’s inner demons and it did not give them room to grow or learn something meaningful. When it tried to move forward, it fell flat because the scenes were very disorganized and just did not make sense why characters chose certain paths. When I look at the movie as a whole, it felt like it was just a giant party where I met a lot of people but I could not remember any of their names by the end of the night because all of them failed to strike a chord. In the end, I wondered why the characters would be friends with each other in the first place. And then it occured to me: they probably enjoyed watching each other crash and burn in order to feel better about themselves. But I had serious doubts whether the film was astute enough to arrive at such realization.

When in Rome


When in Rome (2010)
★ / ★★★★

Have you ever seen a movie in which you wanted it to end approximately ten minutes in? Kristen Bell stars as a curator who decided to go to Rome for her sister’s (Alexis Dziena) wedding despite the fact that she was married to her job. In Rome, she met a charming guy (Josh Duhamel) who was also the best man of her brother-in-law. However, the lead character caught him kissing another woman so she decided to go to a fountain to complain about how much she did not believe in love and steal a few coins. The owner of the coins (Will Arnett, Jon Heder, Dax Shepard, Danny DeVito) became desperately in love with her and followed her when she returned to America. The main problem with the movie was the fact that it just wasn’t funny. I quickly grew tired of it because there were too many clichés, too many slapsticks, and too many illogical reasoning. When the main character found out about the potential solution to all of her problems forty minutes into the picture, she found one excuse after another to not accomplish her goal. I simply did not believe that the decisions she made were true to her character because she started off as someone who accomplished what needed to get done in the most efficient way possible. Even though Bell and Duhamel were nice to look at and they did have some sort of chemistry, I did not really feel any sort of real tension between them and why they should ultimately get together in the end. Chances are, if one has seen the worst romantic comedies out there, one would know where “Where in Rome” was going. It offered no surprises and I got the impression that it didn’t even try to be funny, which was what bothered me most about it. I found myself trying to chuckle at some of the jokes but I couldn’t find myself to do so because the material was just not up to par. There was absolutely no confidence in the material; if it did, it would have tried to do something different with the characters or how the story unfolded. A twist within a twist would have been more than welcome because perhaps it would have been less soporific. Instead, I wished for the movie to shift its focus on Anjelica Houston’s character, the main character’s boss, because she had presence, as intimidating as she was, when she entered a room. Presence was exactly what the film needed and since it did not know what it was supposed to be, the project ended up being a mess.

Killers


Killers (2010)
★ / ★★★★

An uptight woman (Katherine Heigl) who recently got out of a relationship decided to go on vacation with her parents (Catherine O’Hara, Tom Selleck) in Nice, France and luckily met her future husband (Ashton Kutcher). He seemed to have it all: he’s charming, has a sense of humor, a great body and he genuinely wanted her despite her geekiness and flaws. He just happened to be a contract killer who worked for the government. I really wanted to like “Killers,” directed by Robert Luketic, because I have a penchant for stories involving spies and sleeper agents. Unfortunately, the picture needed to trim a lot of fat, especially the very unfunny first thirty minutes. It had a chance to establish the characters before diving into the action scenes but the dialogue was so flat, so empty, and so one-dimensional. I found that our conversations in real life were more interesting to listen to than the two characters having a dinner date by the sea. Their conversations didn’t pull me into their relationship because there were far too many giggly, awkward moments instead of two people sharing a real connection. I think this would have been far more effective if the first half was a romantic comedy and second half was a predominantly serious but occassionally funny thriller. The elements were certainly there: the close-knit suburban community which reminded me of “Desperate Housewives” with perfect picket fences and all, the quirky and sometimes annoying neighbors, the parents who were too involved with their daughter’s marriage, and the husband harboring a secret that he couldn’t hide forever. I thought it had a very difficult time juggling comedy and action so it managed to excel at neither of them. As for the sleeper agents, like the lead characters, they would have had more impact in the story if we got to know them a little bit. The battle scenes would have been more interesting if each of them had a specialty and a different style of assassination. Because let’s face it: gunning someone down with fragments of glass flying everywhere can get old pretty quickly. “Killers” desperately needed a lot of substance and a lot of edge in order to be a killer film. Heigl and Kutcher were easy on the eyes but that was about it. Be warned: there is a vast difference between the trailer and the movie–like having a crush on someone from afar because of their looks but when you really try to get to know them, it’s very disappointing because they turn out to be quite empty. Rewatch “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” instead because “Killers” was just no fun.

As Luck Would Have It


As Luck Would Have It (2002)
★ / ★★★★

“Le hasard fait bien les choses” or “As Luck Would Have It,” directed by Lorenzo Gabriele was about a closeted professor (Jean-Claude Brialy) who had the unlucky circumstance to be assigned by the law as a guardian for a troublesome teenager (Julien Bravo). Since he didn’t want the responsibility, he decided to appeal the case but in order to be deemed as an unfit guardian, a social worker had to assess his personal life. The professor had to then hide certain truths such as him being still legally married to a woman (Sabine Haudepin) and dating a much younger man (Antonio Interlandi) in order to preserve his reputation as a respected professor. My main problem with this movie was the fact that everything had to be exaggerated. The acting was painfully obvious, the story was weak and the way everything came together was very predictable. I wished that there was a character I could root for in order to make the experience more bearable but everyone only thought of themselves. I thought the wife was really annoying because she failed to recognize the seriousness of the orphan being passed around from one household to another. Instead, she was too hung up on the guy she used to date and was too busy trying to make him jealous. Out of anyone, she should have been the one that could have identified with the boy right away because she felt like no one wanted her. Her character’s lonelinesss could have been the unifyng theme of the picture but I suppose the writers and director failed to highlight that emotion. By the end of the movie, I thought she was just desperate and a classic attention-seeker. As for the professor, I understood his fears of coming out of the closet but he created his own distractions. He constantly complained about how his life became that much more complicated ever since the orphan came into his life but he neglected the fact that things in life always come up and if we don’t do anything about them, ignoring such problems won’t make them go away. For a supposedly smart character, he didn’t make the best decisions. The script lacked punch because it didn’t try to offer anything new to the table. The direction lacked sophistication. I felt like the movie was never going to end because nothing much happened on screen aside from the complaining and obvious attempts at laughter. “Le hasard fait bien les choses” desperately needed subtlety and intelligence. Even if the story was nothing new, I would have been more accepting if the characters were able to look outside of themselves and realize that their situations were not as bad as it seemed.

Legion


Legion (2010)
★ / ★★★★

I was excited to see “Legion” because the trailer took ahold of my interest, but unfortunately, it was one of those movies that mistakenly put all the good parts in the trailer. Paul Bettany stars as an angel who decided to descend from heaven to protect a pregnant woman (Adrianne Palicki) whose child was supposed to be the Messiah. A group of characters (Lucas Black, Tyrese Gibson, Percy Walker, Dennis Quaid, Jon Tenney, Willa Holland, Kate Walsh and Palicki) were stuck in a diner in the middle of nowhere as humans with weak wills were possessed by angels and tried to kill them. Basically, God lost faith in humanity so he wanted to eradicate everyone. I don’t even know where to start with this movie. While the acting was subpar at best, the writing was even worse because not only did the premise not make sense but it also failed to come together in the end. Aside from the scene with the old lady visiting the diner, there was a strange lack of tension or excitement especially for a movie about the end of the world. The experience would probably have been more bearable if there were more likable characters. All of them complained so much to the point where I just didn’t want to hear it. I couldn’t believe that their very first scenes were full of whining. They expressed so much self-pity; instead of wanting to root for them to survive against all odds, I just wanted them to die because I didn’t see another dimension to them. To me, they were just weak individuals and I had a difficult time accepting the fact that they managed to survive for so long. As for the action, I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sad with the idea that bullets could stop angels (using humans as vessel) from the job they were assigned to do. I constantly wondered why the angels just didn’t descend from the heavens like Bettany’s character and finish the job themselves? I was so confused for the longest time and it was really painful to sit through. Action sequences were happening on screen but I just didn’t care because I wasn’t invested in the premise despite the fantastic elements. Talents of essentially good actors like Bettany, Quaid and Gibson were wasted in this piece of silliness. Thankfully, I saw this movie on DVD. If I had paid $10 to see this in the cinema, I think I would have demanded my money back. “Legion,” directed by Scott Stewart, didn’t have a defined identity (perhaps it can pass as a really bad zombie picture?) and a genuine driving force to keep the momentum going so it didn’t know what to do with itself. But I know what I wanted to do: I wanted to turn the movie off. The only reason why I didn’t is because one of my rules is to give each movie equal opportunity from start to finish.

I Sell the Dead


I Sell the Dead (2008)
★ / ★★★★

A grave robber (Dominic Monaghan) on death row started to confess his adventures with his old partner (Larry Fessenden) to a priest (Ron Perlman) who could ultimately decide his fate. I heard a number of good things about this horror-comedy set in the 19th century but it failed to impress me. Twenty minutes into the movie, I started to feel bored because the story wasn’t going anywhere. I thought it had potential when Monaghan and Fessenden stumbled upon their first supernatural (somewhat funny) encounter, but it took the path of silly ordinariness instead of the path of real darkness and irony. There were too many scenes when the two leads would argue or just hang out and the audiences were left outside of their jokes. Think of it as standing next to two close friends laughing like there’s no tomorrow and you have no idea what is so amusing. It’s just awkward and it doesn’t encourage us to stick around. Neither of the main characters were worth rooting for. To me, they were just a pair of graverobbers and there was nothing particularly special about them. There was no redeeming quality despite their actions and they lacked an extra dimension, a crucial element that makes us effortlessly identify with them. A majority of this picture was obvious. Everyone voiced out what they were thinking or what they were about to do. Watching something devoid of curiosity or surprise or a slight hint of intelligence is definitely an unpleasant experience. Furthermore, the film lacked a much needed gravity or tension. For a pair of graverobbers encountering so many weird phenomena, I didn’t feel like they were shocked or excited or curious about the things that were unfolding before their eyes. If I meet a real vampire or dug up an alien corpse, I would start to question everything I was lead to believe was true. I would have some sort of a conflict within myself and it would reflect on my actions. Written and directed by Glenn McQuaid, “I Sell the Dead” was painful to watch to say the least. This was supposed to be the winner of the Slamdance Film Festival for Best Cinematography but it ultimately doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t resonate with the audiences. It was just too all over the place for my liking and it was no fun watching randomness. The movie may have only been eighty minutes long but it felt longer than two hours because I wasn’t having fun with it. Lastly, I was excited to see it because some reviewers pointed out the sharpness of its dark comedy. I don’t know what they consider as darkly comic but if I were to exaggerate, I would say the movie was a very light dark comedy. The movie lacked teeth so the ironies lacked bite.

Sex Drive


Sex Drive (2008)
★ / ★★★★

A virgin (Josh Zuckerman) decided to drive across the country using a car he stole from his hypermasculine brother (James Marsden) with his best friends (Amanda Crew, Clark Duke) to finally lose his virginity to a girl (Katrina Bowden) he met online. I expected this movie to be somewhere along the lines of “Superbad” because it essentially had the same premise and sense of humor. It turned out to be much worse because, unlike “Superbad,” “Sex Drive” was stuck in the slapstick approach and unfunny sex jokes instead of eventually telling a story that was entertaining and worth sitting through. One of the biggest problems I had with this movie was the fact that the three lead characters spent too much of their time being stranded on the road. How could a road trip be fun if the audiences were forced to watch characters doing absolutely nothing? Sure, the movie had Seth Green as an Amish person who loved being sarcastic (he was one of the two good things here along with Marsden) but other than the scenes with Green, the rest of the supposedly funny scenes fell flat. I also think that the movie didn’t take advantage of its premise. Online hook-ups are becoming more common these days (I actually know some people who participate in it) but instead of really commenting on that issue by balancing seriousness and comedy, it took the one-dimensional route of best friends finally realizing they had feelings for each other. It was like watching a rated R version of a Disney movie where everyone learned a story in the end. It wasn’t refreshing or amusing so I just wanted it all to end. Directed by Sean Anders, “Sex Drive” was definitely an effort to sit through with infuriating characters teeming with unnecessary insecurities. They had no redeeming qualities because they kept making bad decisions that wouldn’t ultimately help them become better individuals. It made me wonder if people like them really existed and if they did, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for them. I kept waiting for Zuckerman’s character to realize that everyone he knew who made fun of him for being a virgin were losers and they would always be losers. Unfortunately, he didn’t so the picture didn’t have that edge and angst I was looking for. In the end, he was just a very bland main character wh also happened to only have a one-track mind when it came to sex. While it did have funny moments with Marsden and Green, those weren’t enough to convince me that “Sex Drive” was worth seeing because it lacked heart and an iota of intelligence.

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men


Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (2009)
★ / ★★★★

Adapted from a short story by David Foster Wallace, “Brief Interviews with Hideous Men” stars Julianne Nicholson as a graduate student who gathered varying perspectives from men about what women wanted emotionally, sexually, and physically. Or so that was what I got from the movie considering it did not bother to explicitly state what the main character wanted to accomplish. And since the lead character was conducting her own anthropological research, I saw this film as if I was reading an essay or a laboratory report consisting of a clear hypothesis, evidence which supported the hypothesis, deviance from the expected outcome, and a thoughtful discussion in the end. I thought this movie had an interesting idea but unfortunately the execution was weak and unfocused. John Krasinski, the director and the actor who played the lead character’s boyfriend, had made too many cuts just when a scene was about to get interesting. For instance, I wanted to know more about the man who claimed that there were three kinds of men in bed. I also thought that the director had too many scenes that didn’t contribute to the film as a whole. He would start a scene in which the lead character’s friends would gather and ten seconds into it, we would be on a completely different scene. Those elements were so distracting to the point where I became more frustrated with the picture as it went on. I wanted to know more about the people being interviewed such as the student with outrageous ideas about rape and how it could actually help someone’s well-being and the man whose father made it his career to hand towels in the bathroom. Most importantly, I wanted to know more about the main character. Since I didn’t get to know her much, the impression I got by the end was that she was weak and, as edgy and smart as she was, maybe she was the kind of woman who needed a man by her side. I think this is the movie’s biggest problem: it didn’t know its protagonist so the vision and focus was lacking. I think this adaptation was a missed opportunity because there were really good supporting actors such as Chris Messina, Lou Taylor Pucci, Will Arnett, Ben Shenkman and others who weren’t quite pushed to do their best or didn’t have enough screen time so the audiences couldn’t really see what they were capable of. In the end, I was left confused more than educated or inspired. And for a movie that was only an hour and twenty minutes long, it felt so long because it didn’t know what it was doing. It was like reading an essay or a lab report with so many words but so little content.

Sorority Row


Sorority Row (2009)
★ / ★★★★

Sorority girls (Briana Evigan, Leah Pipes, Rumer Willis, Jamie Chung, Margo Harshman, Audrina Patridge) from Theta Pi tried to pull off a very mean practical joke involving a fake death on a guy (Matt O’Leary) but it all went wrong when the whole thing ended up with a real dead body. This movie is one of the worst I’ve seen in a long time because it had characters so rotten, I was disgusted with what I was watching. Let me start with the practical joke: letting someone believe that that someone killed another is not only not funny, it is immoral. Since I chose to not associate myself in a Greek house, the movie made me wonder whether these kinds of “practical jokes” happens in real life. If it does, I’m at a loss for words because it’s just so wrong to me. This movie also contained the dumbest characters I’ve ever seen on screen. The way they talked, the way they carried themselves and the way they weighed what was important in their lives was very insulting, not just to the audiences but specifically to women. There was also a plethora of degrading scenes of breasts being flaunted everywhere for no apparent reason. If the writers of this slasher flick spent the same amount of time planning out the story and actually giving the script some depth as they did planning to strategically place the camera to get a peek at naked women, they would probably end up with a good movie. Instead, everything was so obvious and played out that I was just annoyed, angry and tired of it twenty minutes in. It had no element of tension; it was just one party scene after another. Was it too much to ask to see these characters actually going to class and trying to learn something? The people I know who are part of a Greek chapter certainly do. For me, “Sorority Row” was a very, very weak attempt to recapture the glory days of “I Know What You Did Last Summer” and its sequels. Don’t even get me started with the identity of the killer. It tried to justify itself but the reasoning was devoid of intelligence. Again, I found the whole thing insulting and almost laughable if it weren’t so pitiful. Directed by Stewart Hendler, I say do yourself a favor and do not waste an hour and forty minutes of your life digging through this heap of garbage. I have no idea how this movie received a green light. I end up detesting movies like this because it did have an opportunity to take advantage of the Facebook generation without sacrificing wit, intellect, satire and genuine scares–kind of like what “Scream” did to the 1970s and 1980s flicks and their sequels. Instead, it settled for less than mediocrity. But that doesn’t mean that you should, too.