ATM (2012)

Ah. Hello, American Investor. Welcome to the third and final part of my "IFC Midnight Trilogy Weekend Thingy." For the past three days I've been watching some movies from one of my favorite film distributors, IFC Midnight, and writing down my thoughts about each one. The first film, "Kill List" was an intense, tripped out crime drama that I found to be quite good. The second one, "The Corridor" would have been more enjoyable had it made a bit more sense.

For the last film, I took a look at the thriller, "ATM." Like the other two, this one was sold to me on the premise alone. All I did was read the back of the case. Other than that I had no idea what I was in for.

Reading the description I thought that "ATM" had some promise. The concept was that three people are trapped inside a walk-in ATM in the middle of the wintery night by a masked man who won't let them out. I'm sure that very concept sounds dumb to some people out there, but keep in mind that I was one of the few people who liked "Phonebooth," so you can't blame me for being slightly optimistic.

I think the thing I like about movies like "Phonebooth" is that they really tend to humanize the characters. You really get to know someone when you're trapped in a box with them for a few hours, and as long as the actor does a good job, there's some real drama to be squeezed out of a situation like that. I mean, as long as the characters are not horrifyingly stupid. I mean, can you imagine being trapped in a small space with a bunch of absolute idiots?

Wait. That sentence sounds eerily like foreshadowing. What the hell am I in for?

Well, I guess it had to happen eventually. I had a feeling that I may finally come across an IFC Midnight film that I hated in this little experiment. And well done on that, because "ATM" was freaking terrible. I hated this goddamn movie. Hated it. Hated hated hated hated it.

I almost want to watch the film again, and from beginning to end chart down and record on a minute by minute basis everything about "ATM" that pissed me off. Trust me, that could fill a novel, but most of it would be me simply typing YOU ARE STUPID as hard as I possibly could type it without breaking my keyboard, so it would get redundant pretty quickly. That and I would have to watch "ATM" again, and screw that.

Okay, so let's get this over with, because the less I have to relive the experience of watching this turd the better. The film begins with David and Corey, our two male leads. David is played by Brian Geraghty, who you may remember from "The Hurt Locker," and he's playing your "average Joe," which means he's quite bland and has no real characteristics that make him memorable in any way. Corey is played by Josh Peck, who you may remember from nothing unless you watch Nickelodeon, and he's the comic relief, which means he's the biggest douchebag you've ever had to suffer through.

God, just looking at him makes me want to put my fist through the monitor.

Just imagine if some sick mad scientist combined Jonah Hill and Dane Cook, made him a fratboy with a New York "Ey, buddy, I'm walkin' 'ere! Fowgitabowdit" attitude, then got that abomination onto the Multiverse drunk, and put him in a stressful situation where he could not physically stop talking because of nerves.

Isn't it a special occasion when you just know the next hour and a half is going to be like reeds under your fingernails after a character has been talking for less than ten seconds? And the amazing thing is that I really do believe that "ATM" wants us to like this piece of septic runoff. The movie honestly wants me to NOT want him dead?! At this rate one of us will be dead soon either way.

Don't you dare try to stop me...

Rounding out the cast is professional Nichole Kidman clone, Alice Eve as Emily, who is meant to function as David's love interest. I say "meant to" because what she actually does is provide 110 lbs of dead weight that does nothing useful at all, and simply sits in the corner, flails about, and whines "I can't!" whenever she is asked to contribute to their escape. What I love most about that is the fact that on the interview on the DVD, Alice referred to her character as "strong." Lady, your character is as useful as Princess Peach is to Mario. Don't flatter yourself. Your character sucks and you know it.

So the three of them wind up going to the ATM in the middle of the night, and we find the first dumb thing of the movie. David seems to think that at 1:35 AM, when it is literally -3 degrees outside, it's a good idea to park about 100 feet away from the ATM. He parks halfway across the damn parking lot. Perhaps he read the script and knew that would make the killer's job way too hard if the car was closer.

"Jerry, I don't see nothin'!"

"No, jus' kip lookin' dare. Does'r'sum noice crappies right in dare."

"Oh yah, Jerry, now I sees 'em. Oh yah, dem's good eatin's."

#ijustwroteabettermovie

Then, when they are all inside the ATM, the killer just stands outside. He never says a single word. I'm serious, too. Not once in the entire film do we a) hear the killer speak or b) see his face. Hell, I can't even be 100% sure that it's a "he." At no point do you get the slightest explanation as to why he's doing what he's doing. And I know what they're going for with this: the idea is that it's really scary when there's no rhyme or reason to violence. But even the most chaotic evil villains tend to have some kind of reason for it. I mean, The Joker had a method to his various kinds of madness. And when he talked about it, that's when you realized how sick and scary he was.

Imagine if The Joker hadn't said a word in "The Dark Knight?" Do you really think that scene in the hospital where he turns Harvey would have been the same if he had just handed him a gun and pointed to Harvey's coin? No, it would have been stupid. Instead we got dialogue like "Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos? It's fair." It's at points like that when we see how twisted and warped The Joker is, and that's what makes a memorable villain.

Seriously, Team Rocket is more intimidating than this guy.

There's so much stupid going on that it really becomes difficult to list it all. The most problematic thing about "ATM" is that it asks us to believe that the killer has them completely screwed when I lost count of the number of times that they could have made a break for it without the killer ever knowing. Because here's the kicker: the killer leaves all the time. On several occasions he's snooping around out back, just doing whatever, and the three doofuses just stay there like he's right outside the door. Usually they end up having the same conversation every time consisting of David and Corey switching back and forth between wanting to stay and wanting to go (seriously it's like the script flipped names at points as far as characters state of mind goes) and Emily whining and saying "No! You can't go out there! Please don't leave me!" because there's no way she's attempting to survive this, and she has to drag everyone else down with her.

These really do become forehead slapping painful to watch, especially when it's paired with dialogue like:
David: "I can make it! I'll be halfway across the parking lot before he knows I'm gone!"
Corey: "Yeah?! And what about the other half?!"

"Me and my Tin Tin hair will run like the wind!"

Ugh. Just ugh. That's all I can say to that stupidity. I mean, what do you want me to say to a guy that doesn't realize that, assuming the killer is not indeed The Flash, David will probably be out of the parking lot by then? Does Corey really think that the killer can run more than twice as fast as David? See what I mean about the whining? It's an hour and a half of this.

And while I realize that not everyone is capable of defending themselves in a freaky situation, I really can't get behind characters who are so disinterested in surviving. For example, I counted no less than 5 objects inside the ATM that the characters could have used as weapons to defend themselves, and many of those would have probably been pretty effective, especially if they attacked the killer together.

And before you go off thinking that perhaps they didn't have it in them, guess what? They totally kill a guy they think is the killer. Yeah, that probably needs a little explaining. About halfway through the film, a guy wearing nearly the exact same outfit as the killer walks into the ATM. Corey and David immediately jump him, beat the holy hell out of him, and David ends up strangling him to death with a cord. Now, why the killer let this guy just walk into the ATM when he'd killed two other people at that point for simply being in the vicinity I have no idea. But that's not the point.

My point is that the two of them took a guy down, and they are both clearly okay with the thought of killing the person tormenting them. And yes, they are greatly upset by this intensely stupid occurrence, but the fact remains, they have it in them to take someone out. So why don't the three of you grab that steel trashcan, that bottle of liquor and that pen and open that door, tackle that parka-wearing nutjob and start swinging, smashing and stabbing until he no longer occupies this realm of existence!

What? Did you use up all your encounter and daily powers or something?! KICK HIS ASS!!!

Oh, I'm sorry, I forget. You must not want to live. And you know what? After seeing this movie, I really was rooting for the killer, because he was doing the world a favor by killing these idiots.

And there is no scene that exemplifies that more than a scene near the back end of the film where David and Emily, as the killer is pounding on the back wall of the ATM, in other words CLEARLY in no position to know where they are, and telegraphing exactly where he is, run outside to aid Corey, who was stabbed earlier during his escape attempt. After making it to Corey, they pick him up. Now, at this point I should remind you that the killer is still behind the ATM, and does not know they're gone. There is also a functioning car not 20 feet away from them. For $10,000, what do they do?

That's correct! They drag Corey back inside the ATM to die of his wounds! Because THAT makes sense!

YOU DON'T DESERVE LIFE.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "ATM" is bad. Ungodly bad. I can't remember ever seeing a group of protagonists I hated more. This is making my "Worst of 2012" list. It's not even enjoyably bad. It just hurts. Skip it, and punch anyone you see watching it in the face.

The Corridor (2010)

This is the second entry in my IFC Midnight Trilogy Weekend Thingy. Yeah, I suppose that's what we'll call it. Once again, I'm back to talk a bit about one of my favorite film distributors, and the tripped-out, weird crap they release. Let's dive into some Midnight.

You know, I'm kind of glad "The Corridor" is the second film I looked at here for this little trilogy. I usually give decent to glowing reviews to nearly everything I see that's IFC Midnight, and someone might see that as playing favorites or just being a fanboy. I assure you, while their track record, as far as I am concerned, has pretty much been spot on up to now, that doesn't make me play favorites. I can prove that right now in fact, because the unfortunate truth of the matter is that I really didn't care too much for "The Corridor."

So while I'm a little bummed that IFC Midnight made a movie I didn't care for, at least it's not going to be three straight entries of saying "This was a good movie." After all, what fun is being a movie snob if you can't bitch a bit? That's where the fun is!

"The Corridor" can really be summed up with the following question: "What if Stephen King wrote a story about a bunch of friends in the wintery woods that wasn't "Dreamcatcher" after passing out while watching "Donnie Darko" after smoking half of a brick of weed?"

What? Don't like at me like that. I can't have been the only person to ever ask that question.

The look of a man who just blew his own mind.

Anyways, it is very Stephen King-esque, what with a group of close-nit friends on the cusp of getting old who find that they have very grown up problems now and aren't really coping with it very well. Also, one of them is an asshole, one is them is a nerd, one of them is a jock, one of them is insane, and one is the main character. And they also treat each other like total crap to the point where honestly I have no idea why they still associate with each other. Yeah, this sounds like a Stephen King story. Oh well. At least it's not taking place in Maine.

"The Corridor" starts with a rather confusing scene (get used to that phrase) where the crazy one, Tyler, is locked in a closet with a knife, and his mom is lying on the ground dead of a pill overdose, and he has gone slightly nuts. This is where the crazy thing comes in for him. I'm assuming he wasn't crazy before. The rest of the cast come in and restrain him, but not before Tyler slices the asshole's face and stabs the main character's hand. Flash forward to an undisclosed period of time later, Tyler is out of the nuthouse, and they have all gone up to a cabin to have a party/funeral for Tyler's mom.

The interaction between these guys is actually pretty realistic. The acting in "The Corridor" is admittedly quite well done, and it's a strong ensemble cast that features what I'm assuming is among the very finest in Canadian actors you've never heard of. Although the asshole, played by Stephen Gilbert was in "Saw VI." And the main character played by David Patrick Flemming looks a bit like Damian Lewis. How's that for prestige?

Yay Canada!

I did dig the performances in this, even though most of the movie consists of them being total jerks to each other. It does make sense though. I mean, if a friend of yours just came out of the looney bin after stabbing about 50% of the group, I'd be a tad wary as well, although I think their default setting is simply "TOOL." I'm just saying, maybe exceedingly harsh "good-natured" ribbing can be checked at the door at your friend's mother's funeral, especially when he's been checked out of the asylum for less than a day. But that's just me.

It makes me wonder again why on earth these guys want anything to do with each other in the first place, because they clearly don't like each other very much the majority of the time. This is made worse when the eponymous corridor is found. What the corridor is, I can't really tell you. That is the point in the movie where it really starts getting crazy weird. And just to reassure you, no, it never is really explained. Suffice to say that the corridor is bad, and makes people do very bad things.

Basically, the corridor is like a force field that is only visible when someone walks inside it. Kind of. Every time someone walks into it, it gets bigger. I think. Since the corridor can't speak for itself and the characters are just as in the dark about the nature of the corridor as we as the audience are, it's really all conjecture. And while there are several confusing scenes were one of the characters, under the influence of the corridor, start yelling and screaming about what "it" wants and what "it" means, all that winds up generally happening is that these people act like maniacs and start killing each other.

I get the feeling that it's one of those movies that is meant to be one big metaphor, but I'll be damned if I could tell you what it's a metaphor for. Perhaps if I put on my Pretentious Cap and thought a bit I might be able to equate the corridor to man's basic dark instinct, or maybe having something to do with how society tells us to suppress those feelings which can end in violent outbursts, or maybe it's a metaphor for how we're all animals and we'll rip each other to pieces given half a chance. I don't know. I think you'd have to stretch a lot and get really snooty to try and extract deeper meaning from this. But man, there's enough obfuscation to really make you feel like you missed something.

"You fool! If we explain crap we don't look intellectual!"

Oh and someone gets crucified. I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to make an artsy film without a crucifixion. It's just common sense. 

Speaking of that, I do have to give the movie credit with some of the "shock" moments. "The Corridor" is not an exceedingly gory film, but it does have some moments of "Eeeewww," if you will. The most notable moment for me was one of the characters getting scalped, as the party holding the knife says, "for his own good." This is at the point where the corridor is completely making these guys go crazy-go-nuts, and I must admit it's pretty creepy. Most motivational speakers don't scalp you, put your scalp on another guy's head, then pat you on the back and say "I'm proud of you," all while everyone in the room is smiling and happy. That's messed up. And rather confusing.

Other than the occasional shocking moment like that, I can't really find much to recommend "The Corridor." It's not that it's a bad film necessarily, since it is well directed, has memorable scenes, and most of all is quite well acted. It's just that by the end, it just left me kind of hollow. I didn't really pull anything from this movie, even though the lead-in to it was good. The ending is so crazy and nonsensical that it really makes you feel that this journey through insanity just wasn't worth it.

There are few movies that can stand up simply on the merits of being crazy. If a movie is going to take you on a psychotropic trip, it better be for a good reason. The payoff better be rewarding in some way. Movies like "The Fountain" or "Black Swan" or "Inception" or "A Clockwork Orange" or "Donnie Darko" or even "Primer" will have your brain doing cartwheels for days because there was a lot to take in and a lot to think about. But if you get to the end of the movie and all you can say is "Well, that was weird," then what's the point? Weird for the sake of weird?

Dammit, Japan. Stop making weird things adorable.

THE BOTTOM LINE - Fans of strange, obtuse stories that might be considered vaguely metaphorical (did I just describe Sundance?) might get a kick out of "The Corridor." While I usually like weird stuff, despite the good acting, this one didn't do much for me, mostly because of the really unsatisfying, explain absolutely nothing ending. Other than that, in a change of pace for IFC Midnight, I'd skip this one.

Kill List (2011)

This is the first entry in my IFC Midnight Weekend Trilogy. For the next three days, I'll be watching three films from one of my favorite film distributors, Independent Film Channel, or IFC. Specifically, I'll be looking at my favorite label of theirs, IFC Midnight, which is their "genre channel," if you will. Basically, IFC Midnight is what they label films of theirs that are weird, creepy, scary or generally just kind of whacked out. It's no surprise then that I generally really like most anything they release with that label on it. If anything, I know I'm going to watch something unique, and they haven't let me down yet.

So join me on this rousing adventure as I reflect on the first film in my IFC Midnight Trilogy: "Kill List!"

This is a movie that's difficult to classify, although one could take the easy way out and just call it a "dark drama." I guess that would be fairly accurate, although that's not really the feeling that you get while watching it. The word "drama" just doesn't have the right gravity for a movie like "Kill List," although "weird" and "bleak" and "violent" would be good descriptors for it.

SOON.

What's notable about it is that even though it is a crime drama for a good portion of the film, there was still a weird sense of what I can only call spookiness hanging over "Kill List." I'm not sure if it was the fact that I was expecting creepy stuff to start happening because it's an IFC Midnight movie, although they may have been a factor. And to be sure, even though there are little hints of it throughout, by the end the creepiness does make itself known in an ending that is possibly one of the craziest, turn the movie on its head, whiplash inducing change of tone endings I've ever seen.

"Kill List" is a movie about Jay, a hitman who, after a botched job in Kiev, is reluctant to take another assignment. We never see or are told about what happened in Kiev, but it obviously was bad enough to make a seasoned pro want to quit. After not working for 8 months, Jay is offered another job by his friend and fellow assassin, Gal. In an effort to support his family, he reluctantly takes it. The job is to kill three people, a priest, a librarian, and a rich man.

Jay, played in a masterful performance by Neil Maskell, finds out quick enough that there is far more to the job than they initially anticipated. The men they are sent to kill all seem to know something that Jay and Gal don't, and the further into the mess they get, the more nefarious things they uncover, which usually ends with Jay going off the deep end in a rage of horrendous violence, which is in contrast to Gal's more deliberate, methodical ways. As the film progresses, this gets worse and worse until it's all Gal can do to contain Jay's psychopathic outbursts.

And then, we come to the last job. The last act of this movie is, in a word, crazy. I'm reluctant to give anything away, but suffice to say that it definitely takes on the tone of a horror film in the last 20 minutes. And it's such a shock when it happens that it seems like we've wandered onto the set of an entirely different film. At the same time, it does fit with the creepy vibe the movie had been giving off, almost as if we can finally put a reason to why the movie has been doing that the whole time.

The end of the film is most definitely one of those "make or break it" moments for the audience. It would not be a stretch at all to imagine someone complaining that the end came right the hell out of nowhere, didn't make any sense, was confusing, and was just insane, for lack of a better word. And in some ways they would be correct. This is a crazy ending that "Kill List" has, and it is abrupt, and it does make you scratch your head and say "What the crap is going on?" This is all true.

As weird as it is to say, yeah, it's kind of like that.

But that's why I loved it. Here's the thing: the end of "Kill List" is nuts, but it does make sense when you think about it. Because that's the key, you just have to let it sink in for a bit. Now, is every question answered? Oh good lord, no. There are more open ended questions at the end of this movie than there are homophobes in the GOP, but that doesn't mean it's not a good ending. Maybe we don't need to know everything about everything. "Kill List" gives us just enough hints that we are able to draw our own conclusions about the "why" of the film.

Although the ending was by far the most attention grabbing part of the film, due to its insanity, I found the rest of "Kill List" to be an intensely absorbing film. There's a fantastic sense of tension going on throughout, like a rubber band being pulled tighter and tighter, and you're just waiting for it to snap at any moment. Once the killings start happening it only gets more intense, because the violence in "Kill List" is pretty brutal, and any time they're on the job it's only a matter of time before some more is thrown your way, and the anticipation leading up to it is pretty nail-biting. It actually reminds me of a Tarantino film in that way, although Tarantino's violence tends to be more sudden. "Kill List" is a bit more drawn out, but they are both equally effective. It's also reminded me of "Drive" in that regard as well, now that I think of it.

Did I mention it's kind of violent? *Urrp* Oh god...that hammer...

The cast also deserves another call out, because they were all very good. I mentioned Neil Maskell before, but MyAnna Buring, who was in "The Descent" is also outstanding. However, Michael Smiley was the standout for me as Gal, and wound up being my favorite character. He has this great Irish swagger to him which endears him to the audience, although once again, it's strange to be drawn to people who are killing other people for a living. Ironically Smiley was also in "Burke & Hare," which had protagonists with similar occupations, and like that movie, killing isn't a pleasure for them, it's a job. I'm not sure which mindset would be worse, honestly.

There isn't too much more to say about "Kill List" other than that. If you want an intense movie with some hard hitting violence and a completely insane ending, you could do far worse than this one.

But watch it with subtitles on. Unless you happen to be from the region of the UK they are from and can understand what in the crap they are saying. I never thought the Irishman would be the guy who was easiest to understand.

THE BOTTOM LINE -  I enjoyed "Kill List" a good amount, and would recommended it to anyone looking for a good, dark thriller. It's got that distinct IFC Midnight flavor that reeks of creepy. Once again, their track record is intact with me. Recommended.

Silent House (2011)

"Silent House" was sold to me on the premise that the entire film is composed of a single hour and a half long shot. I know that there have been other films that have done it, most notably Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope," but I've never seen one of them. The longest shot I remember seeing is that scene from "Hard Boiled" where Chow Yun-fat is running through that hospital shooting up like a couple hundred bad guys that seems like it lasts for a good 15 minutes. And to be honest, that bit got old after a while.

That's not to say I'm opposed to the concept of the single-shot movie. I think with the previous example it was a case of me just not liking "Hard Boiled," although the precision and craftsmanship in that scene was impressive. I think that it could be a very effective way of presenting a story, although my biggest concern would be that the gimmick of that concept might overshadow the rest of the film. I can imagine watching a movie like that and be more concerned about spotting where they could sneak in an edit as opposed to what's going on in the film.

And yes, they do sneak in edits in "Silent House." It's not actually one single shot, I'm estimating it's probably between 10 and 16, although if one weren't looking for the edits, you could easily miss them. And it is true that I did find myself saying "Edit!" out loud whenever I saw an occasion where they probably cut, usually when the camera went behind a box for a split second or something. But that aside, it was not nearly as distracting as I thought it would be. In fact, I'd dare say that it was this decision to present "Silent House" in this fashion that made it at least mildly worth watching, because as far as story goes it has little else to recommend, unfortunately.

"Silent House" is about a girl named Sarah, played by Elizabeth Olsen. She and her father and uncle are fixing up their summer home, which is boarded up and sufficiently creepy looking, and naturally the power is out. And since the movie starts in the early evening, and the movie takes place in real time, it's almost immediately lit with candles and flashlights, which become our main source of light for the film.

Let's hear it for our lighting department! Otherwise known as this lamp!

Other than this very basic lead-in, it's really just best to say "stuff starts getting weird." Once we hit the 15 minute mark or so, Elizabeth Olsen generally spends the rest of the movie at first walking extremely unnecessarily slowly around the house, and then running, trying to get away from whatever the hell it is that's going on. Since a big part of "Silent House" is really about finding out what in the crap is happening, to say much more about the plot would be pretty detrimental to someone's viewing experience of it. And not an insignificant portion of the reason for this is because the lead-in to the ending is far more entertaining than the ending itself.

I'm purposefully going to be obtuse on the ending because I have to be honest, everything leading up to the big reveal at the end is actually pretty interesting. While it may sound really lame to follow someone running through a house for an hour and a half, there is enough intrigue going on that it honestly really had my attention. It was mysterious and cryptic, and nothing was making much sense, and then it just gets balls-out crazy near the very end. I just really wanted to know where in the world they were going with this madness, and that's what kept my attention. In that regard, it was very absorbing.

And then the ending hit. You know, I was really trying to be nice to this movie up to this point, because I really wanted to like it. I love unique films, and this fits the bill. However, I can't let this go. Here's the ugly truth about "Silent House": The ending is yak excrement. And it's one of those endings that only gets worse and makes less sense the more you think about it. I know I have a problem over-thinking stuff like this, but the more I thought about it, the more the ending had me getting more ticked off thinking about the physical impossibilities that the twist needed to happen in order for it to occur.

The worst part is that I had an inkling of what was going on 25 minutes in. And I was really hoping they weren't going to go there, but hey presto, what do you know, they did. Basically, just imagine the most overused "twist" to throw in the end of a thriller/horror flick where things start getting trippy. You know the one I mean. Yeah that's the one they used. Unfortunately it's also the cliche that requires a lot of finesse to get to work relatively seamlessly. And it's so dumb that it really brings the rest of the movie down with it.

Remember kids, just because you foreshadow it heavily in the beginning doesn't mean that it will all make sense at the end. That just means you foreshadowed something that is dumb. I'm looking at you, Shyamalan.

"What if...SARAH is the house the whole time?!"

And while it's not as big of a deal as it could have been, I did have a minor gripe with something else. Essentially it all boils down to how hard it is to escape from a boarded up house. Having never tried to pull down planks of wood that have been nailed across a window, I can only imagine that it would be difficult. However, if you really wanted to escape, I mean really wanted out of a house because someone hiding inside was trying to kill you, I imagine that you'd be able to make at least a little progress out of shear adrenaline and willpower.

In "Silent House," she basically fumbles at the boards a bit, tries yanking for 5 seconds and then gives up to find another longer, scarier way out. She also conveniently forgets about the sledgehammer her dad was using not a half hour beforehand. And yeah, Elizabeth Olsen isn't exactly She-Hulk but you read stories about moms lifting cars off of their children. I'd think at the very least, she could put a bit more effort towards escaping, because I don't care if I'd have to gnaw my way out, were I in her shoes those planks would be gone, closely followed by myself.

Pictured above: Artist's interpretation of the escape.

Or you know...there's always the upstairs windows. You know, the ones that most likely aren't boarded up as heavily. Or go to the padlocked backdoor you couldn't find the key for and get a screwdriver and unscrew the latch since you're on the inside of the house. Or just find a damn crowbar or failing that a hammer and start prying boards off. I'm just saying that because you'd only need to pry off like 2, maybe 3 boards to fit your skinny ass through the gap. Plus there are tools laying all over the place since your dad is fixing up the house. Like that sledgehammer. I'm just saying...

(Seriously, she had to have walked past that sledgehammer at least twice)

YOU DON'T DESERVE ESCAPE.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Silent House" is an interesting concept that is marred by a really dumb ending. While I praise its attempt at doing something unique, which it did well, and Olsen's performance, which was good, the gimmick is all that it's got going on for it. Recommended if the concept of a film presented as a single shot intrigues you, but don't except much in the way of story.

Total Recall (2012)

Don't despair everyone. I have the solution to our troubles. A desk, a computer, a nail gun, and a stack of paper. That's all it would take to solve the remake epidemic.

Just hire a guy to sit at a desk all day. In front of him will be a big stack of paper. On each sheet of paper would the name of a film. All this guy would do would be to sit at that desk and go through the stack one by one, and sort them into one of two piles: the "Remake" pile and the "Leave it alone" pile. Using the computer to do research, he would determine where a movie belonged according to the following criteria:

A) Is the movie less than 20 years old?

B) Is the original film rated R? And if so, is the remake going to be PG-13?

C) Is the original generally recognized as a "good movie?"

If the answers to ANY of the above criteria is "yes," it automatically goes into the "Leave it alone" pile. If the answers are all "no," than it is acceptable to put it in the "Remake" pile. However, every time a piece of paper goes into the "Remake" pile, the guy has to pick up the nail gun and shoot himself in the leg with it. That way we can be damn sure that movie needed another go around.

"Oh man. This remake of "Clash of The Titans" better be awesome!"

I understand why they keep remaking movies since you know, less work is involved because being original takes effort. There's also the built-in audience demographic that go and buy a ticket out of shear morbid curiosity, only to find out that the remake is in 3-D, so they have to shell out $15 for a ticket. That way when the votes are tallied, and everyone decides the remake is a pile of woodchuck vomit, the studios have still made their money back. Brilliant. But of course it's our own damn fault.

That brings us to the remake of "Total Recall." You know, because that was necessary. Walking into the theater, there was really only one thing going through my mind over and over again: "Why can't they stick to remaking bad movies?" It's not like the original was some masterpiece or anything, but it was good! It's probably the smartest Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ever made. What am I talking about, probably? It is the smartest movie he was ever in.

Seriously, I really like "Total Recall" and movies like it. By "movies like it" I mean any kind of movie that can have massively different interpretations depending on who you talk to. Remember when you realized that it's possible that Quaid is dreaming everything past the point where he sits in the chair at Rekal? Didn't that just blow your mind? But what's great is that it's just as likely that he's not dreaming. It's really up in the air, and you can dissect it for days and still not have a definitive answer. It's like "Blade Runner" in that regard.

And let's not forget the practical effects in "Total Recall." As unintentionally hilarious as the "explosive decompression" scenes are, those are some awesome effects that are actually happening in front of the camera. And it's not only the eyes bulging out of the head stuff, either. There's Arnold pulling the tracking device out of his nose, the exploding lady disguise, Kuato coming out of the dude's stomach, and let's not forget the immortal three-breasted hooker. "Total Recall" was really one of the last movies to really do this kind of thing to this extent.

So what's the deal with the remake? Will we see models and lots of cool makeup work, or overly-flashy fake looking CGI? I'll give you two guesses, but you'll only need zero because the answer is obvious OF COURSE THEY CGI'D THE CRAP OUT OF THIS MOVIE. But that's merely the beginning of this conga line of betrayal.

I feel ya, man.

Oh man. This freaking movie. I barely know where to start. Now, I will admit to never reading the short story "Total Recall" is based on, called "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale." I can't say whether it was more faithful to the story than the Schwarzenegger film was, but just 15 seconds into the film, I gotta tell you, I was ready to leave. This story is just plain dumb, and if that's how the original was, the changes they made in Arnie's film made it waaaaay better.

In the remake of "Total Recall," there are only 2 inhabitable places left on the planet: Britain and Australia. In what I can only assume is meant to be an allegory to history, Britain rules over Australia, or "The Colonies" as they're called. Subtle. Bryan Cranston is Vilos Cohaagen, who is either the ruler of Britain or simply an obscenely wealthy man who moonlights as a warlord, and wants to take over the world (ie - Australia). Anyways, for reasons of fast transport as well as establishing and maintaining control, Britain and Australia are connected by...oh god I can't believe I'm typing this...gah...a tunnel that has been drilled through the core of the Earth to connect the two countries. I'll let that sink in.

Ow. My brain.

Do I even need to explain to you in how many ways that is insultingly stupid? First of all, it's called "pressure" and "heat." Look it up. Second of all, who in the hell built it? And how? Did they hire Delroy Lindo and Hillery Swank? Thirdly, in the CENTURIES it must have taken to dig it, even if it were possible, which it isn't, how was it financed? That would have bankrupted the world thousands of times over. And don't tell me it's like "Star Trek" where money doesn't exist anymore because we clearly see money, which has Barack Obama's face on it now. Because they would totally have American currency since in this movie AMERICA DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

Why couldn't they just build a transport on the surface of the planet? They have hover cars and all kinds of crazy technology, and you're telling me that the best idea they had was to pull a Bugs Bunny, take a wrong turn at Albuquerque, and wind up on the other side of the planet? And I'm talking about this from a perspective of it NOT being physically impossible, which it is. I mean, heat and pressure aside, do you have any idea how fast they were traveling? We see in the beginning of the film that it takes less than 2 hours to go from one side to another. That's nearly 4,000 mph. That's quite the brisk clip, I'd say.

But lastly, as I pointed out to my friend Stephen as we watched the film, even if they could magic the damn thing into existence overnight, the whole thing would be rendered useless in under a decade. I just leaned over to him and said "Dude, Steve, continental drift."

That's right. Tectonic plates move, and there's nothing you can do about it. And I'm guessing it wouldn't take too much change in alignment to make that tunnel through the Earth unusable, especially at the mind bending speeds they're going at. One little hiccup in the line and it's good night for everyone involved. I can't be the only one troubled by this stuff, can I?

Can you believe I'm only 15 seconds into this movie? I've been ranting like a madman about this and I'm 15 seconds in. Good gravy, I'd better cut to the chase.

In all honesty, I was actually entertained by the first half hour or so of the new "Total Recall." It begins much like the original, so it isn't surprising to have that be the best part of the movie. Colin Farrell however, as much as I can enjoy him in a role, just doesn't possess the shear charisma that pours off of Schwarzenegger. As passable of a job as Farrell did, and I would call it passable, I just spent most of the movie missing Arnie.

::sigh:: "I remember when Arnold used to shoot a big gun one handed..."

The biggest problem with the new "Total Recall" is that it's just so stock. I swear, if you hadn't watched the first 20 minutes, and just walked in without knowing the setup, I really don't think you'd possibly peg this as a "Total Recall" remake. I believe you'd think you were watching "Conspiracy Laden Sci-Fi Action Movie #689." That's what was great about the original: it had a uniqueness to it that helped it stand out from the standard schlock. A lot of that came from the fantastic effects work, but it also because it played a lot more with the idea that this is almost entirely in Quaid's head.

The new "Total Recall" really kind of forgets about that whole thing pretty early on. In fact, I realized near the end that for the last 40 minutes or so, I had totally forgotten about it. It really had just degraded into a loud, dumb, explosion with no real point. It was like I was watching a Michael Bay movie with less racism. Now, there were action beats in the original that momentarily got away from the mind-screw aspect of the story, but they had laid it on thick enough in the beginning to really help it carry over through the rest, so that you were still thinking about it after Arnold got done punishing traitorous cabbies with a drill. This movie though, they didn't even try.

I asked Steve after we left the theater the question, "If you had never seen the original, would it have occurred to you at any point that the whole movie was a dream the moment after Colin Farrell sat in that chair?" He thought for a (quick) moment and said "Nope. I never would have gotten that."

About the only thing in the film that alluded to Farrell dreaming was an advertisement for Rekal on a big billboard right at the very end of the film, as Farrell smugly contemplates his victory. I thought it could have been like an end credits roll for his dream, kind of like "This has been a Rekal production." Steve thought I was probably giving the movie too much credit. Steve is a smart man.

I know you're not going to believe this, either, but I have not begun to get mad at this movie yet. Oh no. There was something in this movie that was so awful that I literally have no idea how it made it past the preproduction stage. It has to do with casting, but not for the reasons that you might initially think, even though nobody involved is a paragon of acting. I'm referring to the casting of Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale. Jessica plays Colin's love interest and Kate plays his "wife," who functions as one of the main antagonists.

Take a look at these two ladies.

Kate.

Not Kate.

Hey, "Total Recall." Want to know how to make your movie needlessly confusing to the point of unwatchability? MAKE YOUR HERO AND VILLAIN LOOK NEARLY IDENTICAL TO EACH OTHER!

To begin with, they look like they could be sisters already. Then they are given the exact same hair cut, and they both wear dark clothing which looks the same. And this isn't a situation in which they do anything with it, they just happen to be played by two actresses that look like identical twins, and nothing about it is ever mentioned. I cannot tell you how frustrating that is.

I lost count of the number of times I was momentary befuddled because I thought Kate Beckinsale had switched sides and was helping Colin Farrell. It got to the point were I was asking Steve nearly every 10 minutes "Is that his wife or his girlfriend?" The most he could say was "I have no idea." And what blows my mind about this is that it would have been roughly the EASIEST FIX IN THE UNIVERSE, and it's called "bleach." Give one of them blonde hair or something. Or a wig, if they didn't want to do that. This isn't difficult, people, for love of Crom. Hell, just CGI their hair another color. You CGI'd everything else.

The funniest part of the whole "Are you Kate or Jessica" debacle was a scene that was so gloriously incompetent while proving my point in such full, intimate, and unflinching detail that it almost made the frustration worth it. It occurs right at the very end of the movie, after Cohaagen and presumably Kate Beckinsale have both been vanquished. Ferrall wakes up in an ambulance to see Biel sitting there, saying that they won. She then kills an orderly and is about to kill Farrell, because it's not Biel, but Beckinsale.

You see, in trying to tie in things from the original, they had to put in that disguise that Arnold had (you know, the fat lady with the exploding head), only this time, it's a hologram that goes over your head. Well, Beckinsdale got a hold of one of these things and used it to get to him. But the moment that she pulls the hologram collar off her head is priceless. As Jessica Biel is choking Ferrall, she yanks it off dramatically to reveal Kate Beckinsale!

And had I not seen the rest of the movie, I would have bet $500 it was the same damn person. It would have been hysterical had it not been pissing me off for two hours at that point.

I'm just so very tired.

You know, "Total Recall" is one of those movies that just makes me more angry the more I think about it. Apart from the simple reason that it just plain should not exist, the changing of the story in such a stupid way is just insulting to a great film that was a landmark in sci-fi.

THE BOTTOM LINE - While there is some admittedly good action in the first half hour or so, the fact it devolves into a by-the-numbers explosion-fest with a stupid plot by the end makes the remake of "Total Recall" just plain bad. What's worse is that it's unnecessary, and could stand as a monument to the perils of remaking good movies that didn't need fixing or updating. Just watch the original again. Skip this crap.

Seeking Justice (2011)

Nicolas Cage time!!! Wooo!!! Once again we join our intrepid over-actor as he has another fun filled, spastic journey which will fill our hearts with joy and glee. So what is on the menu this time, Mr. Cage? A cheesy B-horror flick? An over the top gore fest? Something were you get to play a crazy person?

"Seeking Justice": noun - A 2011 film staring Nicolas Cage, who plays a teacher whose wife is savagely beaten and raped. He makes a deal with a mysterious man who will kill the man responsible, in exchange for a favor to be called in at a future time.

Oh. Well, that doesn't sound whimsical at all. That sounds...grim.
 
In all honesty, I really dug this plot. I like the thought of a exploring what a person will do in their deepest, darkest moments of despair, and I also like the exploration of the grey areas that "justice" can overlap at times. I think if you asked the vast majority of people, husbands or wives or whatever, who were in the hospital a mere hour after their spouse had been beaten and raped whether or not they wanted whoever was responsible to die, a good amount of people would say "Hell yes." Ask them again in a few days or weeks and you might get a different answer, but if you ask them right after they came out of the IC unit, I don't think most of them would be feeling too much compassion for those responsible.

Of course, us being the audience, we know that it's not the best idea to get involved with people advertising free murder (in exchange for...oh I don't know...a "little favor" in the future). We've all seen these movies. But it does make sense in context. I can't really blame the character for doing something stupid like that, or getting involved with really shady people. I'm not sure I wouldn't do the same thing in that situation, honestly. And despite what you're saying, I'll bet you'd think seriously about it too. Not saying it's smart, but there you go. Not everyone thinks clearly during their moments of despair.

"Hello? Listen, my dog just died, can it wait? What? I won a cruise? Well, I suppose I have time to answer a few questions for a cruise..."

So obviously, the favor gets called in, it escalates into something more than Nicolas Cage bargained for, and he tries to get out of it. Guy Pearce plays the mysterious "Simon," the man behind everything, and in a nice change of pace does a job that isn't straight "C average." I mentioned in my "Lockout" review that Guy Pearce is the definition of an "average" actor for me, and I'm seldom impressed with him but in "Seeking Justice" he was pretty good. He's no Nicolas Cage (shut up, he's a good actor) but he does a passable evil jackass.

Here's Guy going undercover as Timothy Olyphant.

The rest of the story really isn't anything overly special. In fact the plot is fairly predictable most of the way through. However that isn't to say that it's bad. "Seeking Justice" is well directed, well acted, and well paced. Despite the fact that it isn't going to blow your mind or reinvent the genre for you, that doesn't stop it from being a passably fun use of an hour and a half of your time.

I think the weakest link is honestly the ending. This isn't because it's necessarily bad, but because it's probably the most stock section of the film. While some sequences of "Seeking Justice" did contain some elements of "twists," with varying degrees of success, the ending is pretty much going down exactly how you figure it's going down. You'll be able to guess how it's all wrapping up and probably be pretty spot on about 20 minutes before the end credits roll is what I'm saying.

"Remember, feet shoulder width apart. Bend slightly forward. Relax. Look down the sights, make sure to line the barrel straight up with the foreshadowing and squeeze the trigger. Very good."

Speaking of "twists," that's another thing that "Seeking Justice" did pretty well...up to a point. The "twists" pretty much boil down to the question "Who is involved in this shady organization that kills bad people?" The answer winds up being "Nearly everyone." Well, that's not true, there are plenty of characters who aren't involved, but there winds up being just a few too many characters who are. Had it been just one other character who winds up in it, that would be one thing, but the movie gets a little slap happy with the idea.

So what about my Nicolas Cage fix? Did I get to see one of my favorite actors going insane? Unfortunately for me, but most likely fortunately for everyone else, not really. Cage plays it pretty straight this time out. There's no high pitched wailing "He's scratching at the DOOOOOOR!!!" or punching ladies while wearing a bear costume in this. Although that is to the film's detriment. If anything I think Cage plays it a little too dialed back. Perhaps he was trying something new. However, as much as I prefer my Cage's to be crazy, this might help sway people into seeing him for the decent actor he is.

For example, the scene where he visits his wife, played by January Jones, at the hospital was kind of weird for me, but at the same time was a really nice moment of acting from Cage. I was expecting a full blown meltdown, but instead, as he's walking down the hallway into the room, he barely has any expression at all. As he's standing next to her, he just kind of looks borderline sad. I was actually getting a tad annoyed and thought "How could they get such a boring performance from him?" But then everyone leaves him alone in the room with his comatose wife, and he starts cracking a bit.

What I liked about it was that it was less of an explosion and more of a barely controlled implosion. I saw a guy who was so overwhelmed that he really didn't know what to do. I guess it makes more sense, because people don't always throw an Al Pacino-esque tirade whenever they're upset. Sometimes you just don't know what to do with yourself, and it's all you can do to just stand there and try to keep your brain from falling out of your head. It's a nice bit of acting from a guy who doesn't get nearly enough credit. Remember, he is a "Best Actor" Oscar winner.

So overall, I'd liked this flick. It was pretty good. It's also nice to see Xander Berkeley in something again. I really don't know why that guy isn't better known. He's a pretty prestigious supporting actor, and not only in little movies, either. Remember "Air Force One?" He was the turncoat Secret Service agent who shoots William H. Macy. He was John Conner's step-dad in "Terminator 2." Has was on "24" back in the first couple seasons when it was good. It was also nice to see Harold Perrineau in something were he wasn't screaming "WAAAAAALT!!!" over and over again. Seriously, screw "Lost" and Michael. And Walt. And Jack. And Locke. And Kate. Oh, especially Kate! That stupid, selfish piece of crap character needed to be thrown off the first sizable cliff they came to. And you know what? Screw Sawyer, too. I liked him until he kept going after Kate. What the crap does he see in her? Is it because she's hot? Because she's a criminal? Because she's a worse sociopath than he is? Why?! OH! And don't get me even STARTED on what they should do to Ben Linus!

What was I talking about again?

Sorry. "Lost" takes me there.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Seeking Justice" is a passable revenge drama with a little bit of action thrown in. It's not the over the top Nicolas Cage that I love, but as always, he's pretty entertaining. It won't blow your mind, but I've seen waaaaaay worse than "Seeking Justice." Recommended.

The Room (2003)

There comes a time in a person's life when they are forced to stop and take stock of what the implications of their existence are. Sometimes this comes from a religious epiphany. Sometimes from a life changing event. Sometimes it's from a whole bunch of LSD. But no matter the causation of this thought process, the end question still remains: "What is the nature of life, and why are we here?"

When faced with the question, there can be many interpretations. A religious person would say that the point is to serve a higher power. Perhaps Richard Dawkins would say that there is no point of existence expect to exist. An anti-realist would say that nothing exists outside the mind at all. The late great Bill Hicks might say "There is no such thing as death, life is just an illusion, and we're the imagination of ourselves."

I have had my world, and the very Universe torn open in front of my eyes in what addicts call a "moment of clarity," making me question if my very being is merely an illusion. Perhaps I only exist as long as I continue to believe I exist. Perhaps our Universe is merely a speck on a dust mote floating in the living room of a whole other unfathomably large world. Perhaps I am merely dreamt up by the maddest of unspeakable Eldrich demons in swirling cosmic voids.

All I know is that I can't be sure of anything about the nature of my existence anymore. And I owe this shaking of my perception of reality to one man: Tommy Wiseau.

 Ohai.

You see, Tommy Wiseau was a guy who wrote a play. Then he tried to make it into a book. Nobody would publish it. So he said "Hey, I should just make a movie." So he did. Like any innovative, driven individual, he went out and made it happen. He wrote, produced, directed and starred in a little movie called "The Room." It played for 2 weeks in a grand total of 2 theaters, making less than $2,000. And so one would think that's where the story ends.

But oh no. It doesn't end there, my friends.

There is more, because in making "The Room," Tommy Wiseau had created...some thing. Something so mindbendingly bad that it defies explaination. The Lovecraftian horrors that had been seared into the film stock with unholy fire and had then been arranged in the blasphemous sequence which gave us "The Room" were enough to bring even the staunchest of strong willed individuals to their knees as the film ripped out their minds and feasted upon the still steaming viscera, driving them mad even as it engorged itself upon their souls.

It's kind of like that.

And it is quite possibly the most entertaining thing I've ever seen in my life. "The Room" is a goddamn masterpiece.

It's such a weird film to even talk about, because it's not really a "movie" in the way most people would think of one. No, "The Room" is an experience. I think even if you went into this thinking that you were going to simply see a bad movie and laugh at it, that still wouldn't prepare you. In fact, I'm not sure if anything could prepare you for "The Room." You really just have to brace yourself and dive in, hoping your brain will still be intact by the end.

Ok, ok, so what is "The Room" anyways? Well, it's about a guy named Johnny. He's a great person. We know this because everyone constantly reminds us. He's engaged to Lisa. She doesn't love Johnny anymore. We know this because she constantly reminds us. Mark is Johnny's best friend. We know this because everyone constantly reminds us. Lisa is secretly in love with Mark. We know this because she constantly reminds us. And as Johnny famously informs us, Lisa's actions are tearing him apart.

With ACTING!!!!

You may think I'm oversimplifying here, but seriously, that's all that's going on in "The Room." That's it. It's a standard love-triangle plot ripped straight from a soap opera. Somehow, that is stretched into 99 minutes. The main reason for this is because "The Room" contains some of the most circular, go-nowhere, repetitive  dialogue you've ever heard. Nearly every conversation between the main characters can be summed up like this:

"I love Lisa so much."

"I AM EVIL!!!"

"You should marry Johnny."

"Johnny's my best friend! I can't bang Lisa!" ::bangs Lisa::

"It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again."

Just loop this dialogue and play it for an hour and a half. There's your content.

There are also several plot threads that come out of absolutely nowhere and are dropped nearly instantly, the most famous of these are the absolutely hysterical "breast cancer scene," which is more like the "breast cancer line," and the riveting Denny/Chris-R drug scandal. Characters show up at the end of the film whom we've never seen before, talking like they've been there the entire time. Pregnancy is lied about because "it's interesting." Tuxedos are worn for no apparent reason. Footballs are thrown at random. And then footballs are thrown while the guys wear tuxedos. Because that's what guys do.

It's all thoroughly confusing,

Still a better love story than "Twilight," though...

But that's not what makes "The Room" as notorious as it is. What makes "The Room" decimate your mind is the acting. Oh god. The acting in this movie is gloriously atrocious. Now, before I go any further let me make one thing clear, because you may have heard some things that are not true. Let me enlighten you.

Tommy Wiseau has gone on record saying that "The Room" was always meant to be a dark comedy. Don't you believe it. That is impossible. The reason it is impossible is because I don't believe that a human being has it in them to be that bad at acting on purpose. And by extension, I don't believe a human being could be that funny while knowing what they were doing. That kind of terrible can only come from pure incompetence.

Unless this is all some kind of elaborate ruse by Wiseau that's been going on for the past 10 years, which would make it the most amazing bit of character acting ever recorded in history. Remember when Joaquin Phoenix did "I'm Still Here" and basically tanked his career in real life, and made a jackass out of himself on Letterman, just to make a movie nobody wound up seeing...better I suppose? Anyway, that would have to be the level of commitment we're talking about here, only on a far grander scale. I mean, if Wiseau drops the act a few years from now and says we've all been duped, I'll be first in line to congratulate him.

But somehow I doubt that's what's going on...

The acting in "The Room" is, to put it simply, among the worst you'll ever see. And that's across the board. These people are all terrible. But it's the unfathomably bizarre dialogue that Wiseau has them saying that turns what would normally be painful into something that's quite frankly shockingly entertaining. And when paired together with Wiseau's impossible to pin down accent, there are scenes that are enough to have you laughing close to tears.

"I deed nawt hit hurr, iz nawt true! Iz bullsheet! I did nawt hit hurr! I DID NAWT."

So how could this mess, this absolute train wreck turn out to be a fantastic time? Easy. Get your friends, especially if they've seen it before. Get some booze. Schedule a party around it. Press play. It will be some of the most fun you'll ever have watching a movie with a group of people. Look up drinking games online to play while you're watching it. There's also "audience participation" scripts I've seen that are a lot of fun, too. Yell back at the movie. It's best to think of this as an event rather than a "movie night."

As far as the rest goes, there's not much more I can say that would do it justice. You really just have to experience "The Room" for yourself because it is just incredible. It may be notorious as one of the worst films ever made, and Tommy Wiseau has been rightly compared to Ed Wood, but I've sat through some truly abominable films and none, I repeat, NONE of them has come anywhere close to being as flat out entertaining, or transporting me to another plane of existence like "The Room" has. This movie has a certain power, for good or for evil, I cannot say. But to deny is to be a fool.

So yeah. "The Room" is probably my favorite bad movie. It's the perfect storm of crap. It's so ungodly bad that it loops itself to become one of the most entertaining things I've ever seen. That being said, do NOT watch it alone. It would be your ruin. "The Room" is too powerful for one person to tackle by themselves. But together, you and your friends will have a riot.

So anyway, how's your sex life?

THE BOTTOM LINE - I love "The Room." If you can get some willing individuals and a lot of booze together, there are few movies as fun as Tommy Wiseau's magnum opus. Highly Recommended.