Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Killing for Company: Case of Dennis Nilsen in Books
May 19, 2021
64 of 250
Book
Killing for Company: The Case of Dennis Nilsen
By Brian Masters
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
__________________
Dennis Nilsen, who died in May 2018, admitted to killing at least 15 people before his arrest in 1983. This ground-breaking criminal study of his killings was written with Nilsen's full cooperation, resulting in a fascinating - and horrifying - portrait of the man who worshipped death.
In February 1983, residents of Muswell Hill had been plagued by blocked drains. When a plumber was called to investigate, he discovered a large blockage of biological material. To his horror, it appeared to be formed of human flesh and bones.
The next day, local resident Dennis Nilsen was arrested.
'Are we talking about one body or two?' a detective asked. Nilsen replied 'Fifteen or sixteen, since 1978. I'll tell you everything.'
Within days he had confessed to fifteen gruesome murders over a period of four years. His victims, mostly young gay men at a time when society cared little for them, had been overlooked. Killing for Company is a unique study of a murderer's mind, essential reading for true crime aficionados.
__________________
This is a seriously hard book to read and review! I grew up loving true crimes and British serial killers and a bit later American serial killers and although I knew this case as I’d read lots about it growing up I found this book hard going, not because it was poorly written but by the content and knowing Nilsen had a lot to say to Masters. I have read Masters book on Jeffery Dahmer and it was a decent retelling but to me it always seemed so far away! This however was in the UK and only 100+ miles down the motorway, he was in the army the same time as my dad and the fact he on paper seemed so bloody normal! He held a steady job and campaigned via the union for people under discrimination, he loved pets he didn’t have all the common markers as your typical serial killer! It’s only when he was on remand you start seeing how mentally ill he really was! It’s always hard to say you enjoy these types of books I tend to find them fascinating not enjoyable this one really hit home I cried and felt physically sick at several points. I want to know how it can suddenly change from being the person he was before the first murder to that monster ( the only word to describe him). Reading his reactions to how one victims parents would hopefully forgive him is chilling! Also the illustrations at the end of the book are just shocking! Worth a read and I would recommend but this left me asking so many questions!
Book
Killing for Company: The Case of Dennis Nilsen
By Brian Masters
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments
__________________
Dennis Nilsen, who died in May 2018, admitted to killing at least 15 people before his arrest in 1983. This ground-breaking criminal study of his killings was written with Nilsen's full cooperation, resulting in a fascinating - and horrifying - portrait of the man who worshipped death.
In February 1983, residents of Muswell Hill had been plagued by blocked drains. When a plumber was called to investigate, he discovered a large blockage of biological material. To his horror, it appeared to be formed of human flesh and bones.
The next day, local resident Dennis Nilsen was arrested.
'Are we talking about one body or two?' a detective asked. Nilsen replied 'Fifteen or sixteen, since 1978. I'll tell you everything.'
Within days he had confessed to fifteen gruesome murders over a period of four years. His victims, mostly young gay men at a time when society cared little for them, had been overlooked. Killing for Company is a unique study of a murderer's mind, essential reading for true crime aficionados.
__________________
This is a seriously hard book to read and review! I grew up loving true crimes and British serial killers and a bit later American serial killers and although I knew this case as I’d read lots about it growing up I found this book hard going, not because it was poorly written but by the content and knowing Nilsen had a lot to say to Masters. I have read Masters book on Jeffery Dahmer and it was a decent retelling but to me it always seemed so far away! This however was in the UK and only 100+ miles down the motorway, he was in the army the same time as my dad and the fact he on paper seemed so bloody normal! He held a steady job and campaigned via the union for people under discrimination, he loved pets he didn’t have all the common markers as your typical serial killer! It’s only when he was on remand you start seeing how mentally ill he really was! It’s always hard to say you enjoy these types of books I tend to find them fascinating not enjoyable this one really hit home I cried and felt physically sick at several points. I want to know how it can suddenly change from being the person he was before the first murder to that monster ( the only word to describe him). Reading his reactions to how one victims parents would hopefully forgive him is chilling! Also the illustrations at the end of the book are just shocking! Worth a read and I would recommend but this left me asking so many questions!
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Re-Animator (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
Jeffrey Combs (2 more)
Bruce Abbott
Stuart Gordan
Mad Man
Re-Animator- is frankenstien. But alot more gorer. So much gory, so much viloence, so much horror. Its different than frankenstein, but has a lot in common.
The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.
Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.
The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.
The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.
Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.
Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."
Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.
The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.
Its excellent gory film
The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.
Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.
The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.
The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.
Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.
Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."
Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.
The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.
Its excellent gory film
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Nov 4, 2018
Come for the music, stay...for the music
My musical tastes end somewhere in the late 1970's/early 1980's. Billy Joel, ELO and, especially, Queen were in constant rotation on my turntable. So it was with a mixture of excitement and nervousness that I checked out BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY, the "Queen movie".
Fortunately, this film rekindled my love for the music of Queen. I gotta admit, I was cranking Queen tunes in the car on the ride home. Unfortunately, the storytelling is weak, so I really did not gain any insight into Freddy, his family, the group, his marriage, his bi-sexuality, his drug use, the times they lived in or the AIDS epidemic of the '80's. All these items were touched upon in the movie, but not delved into, leaving a void in the part of my brain that craves a good, meaningful and touching story with my movie/musicals. It certainly doesn't help this story that I have the wonderful A STAR IS BORN sitting in my recent memory.
But the music, the musical performances and the acting performances of all involved almost make up for this void, leaving a very satisfying experience at the movies.
BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY follows young Farrokh Bulsara as he joins the band SMILE, changes the bands name to QUEEN, changes his name to Freddie Mercury and becomes an International Superstar leading up to the inevitable fall and resurgence at the Live Aid concert in the 1980's.
In the lead, Rami Malik is wonderful. He has the essence of the superstar we know down well. He is a winning, watchable presence on screen and I wouldn't be surprised if he is mentioned when Oscar nominations roll around. Joining him as members of the band are Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, Joe Mazzello as John Deacon and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All are effective enough in their roles - and believable in the musical scenes - with Lee standing out just a bit more than the others.
Also along for the ride are Lucy Boyton as Freddy's wife, Mary Austin and Tom Hollander, Mike Myers and Aidan Gillen as music execs aiding and attempting to guide Queen to the top. Only Allen Leech as Paul Prenter is unconvincing on the screen. But, I blame this more to the decisions of the screenwriters and directors for Paul is the "villain" of this piece - and a not-too-subtle villain at that.
But, Director Bryan Singer (X-MEN, THE USUAL SUSPECTS) is forgiven his lapses in content and subtlety as the music scenes are strong - and the film finishes with a 20 minute recreation of Queen at the Live Aid concert that is worth the price of admission all on it's own.
All in all, a good time at the movies. If you like Queen, you'll be entertained by this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Fortunately, this film rekindled my love for the music of Queen. I gotta admit, I was cranking Queen tunes in the car on the ride home. Unfortunately, the storytelling is weak, so I really did not gain any insight into Freddy, his family, the group, his marriage, his bi-sexuality, his drug use, the times they lived in or the AIDS epidemic of the '80's. All these items were touched upon in the movie, but not delved into, leaving a void in the part of my brain that craves a good, meaningful and touching story with my movie/musicals. It certainly doesn't help this story that I have the wonderful A STAR IS BORN sitting in my recent memory.
But the music, the musical performances and the acting performances of all involved almost make up for this void, leaving a very satisfying experience at the movies.
BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY follows young Farrokh Bulsara as he joins the band SMILE, changes the bands name to QUEEN, changes his name to Freddie Mercury and becomes an International Superstar leading up to the inevitable fall and resurgence at the Live Aid concert in the 1980's.
In the lead, Rami Malik is wonderful. He has the essence of the superstar we know down well. He is a winning, watchable presence on screen and I wouldn't be surprised if he is mentioned when Oscar nominations roll around. Joining him as members of the band are Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, Joe Mazzello as John Deacon and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All are effective enough in their roles - and believable in the musical scenes - with Lee standing out just a bit more than the others.
Also along for the ride are Lucy Boyton as Freddy's wife, Mary Austin and Tom Hollander, Mike Myers and Aidan Gillen as music execs aiding and attempting to guide Queen to the top. Only Allen Leech as Paul Prenter is unconvincing on the screen. But, I blame this more to the decisions of the screenwriters and directors for Paul is the "villain" of this piece - and a not-too-subtle villain at that.
But, Director Bryan Singer (X-MEN, THE USUAL SUSPECTS) is forgiven his lapses in content and subtlety as the music scenes are strong - and the film finishes with a 20 minute recreation of Queen at the Live Aid concert that is worth the price of admission all on it's own.
All in all, a good time at the movies. If you like Queen, you'll be entertained by this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020
Direction and Lead Performances elevate a "so-so" script
The world lost a tremendous talent when 44 year old Chadwick Boseman lost his battle with cancer. Whether it was as Jackie Robinson in 42, Thurgood Marshall in THURGOOD or as T'Challa/Black Panther in the Marvel movies, Boseman's charm and charisma lept off the screen and drew you into whatever project he is in.
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Jan 27, 2018
Nicholas Cage (2 more)
Great idea
Superb dialogue
Some damn fine fun with Cage and Blair
Contains spoilers, click to show
Two people who you should be able to count on for your safety as a child are your Mother and Father. But that doesn' ring true in this amazing little film by writer/director Brian Taylor.
The film's opening sequence shows a woman in a minivan with a baby in the backseat. The radio plays some strange static and out of nowhere she looks back to the infant and exits the vehicle. Leaving the baby and the van to meet their demise via an oncoming train.
What follows is pure genius and insanity that is topped by Nick Cage doing what Nick Cage does best. Losing it onscreen with a fever that only my he can provide.
Selma Blair holds her own as Cafe's seemingly mild mannered wife who turns on a dime and joins him in the craziness with a certain flair comparable to Cages insane bravado.
The kids, played by Anne Winters and Zachary Arthur, fight their parents with some Home Alonish antics that prove to serve them well.
No one can fully say what it is that officially makes the parents around the world turn on their kids. But it has something to do with white noise and static on televisions and radios across the planet. Parents instinct to protect their young like a bear is replaced with the feeling off ultimate anger and insanity.
In one scene, Blair is at the hospital coaching her sister through birth. The the is born and handed to the mother and a monitor goes all static filled and noisy. The sister clutches the baby tightly, beginnng to cut off the airwaves and choking the child. Blair rips the newborn from her sister in an attempt to protect her. But something driving her sister forces her to stand upright and destroy the baby. She ultimately fails and is sedated.
The best performance in this film goes hands down to Nicholas Cage. Who freaks out like only Cage can. And even though his appeaance resembles a slightly bloated version of Marilyn Manson. His ability to use his expression and booming voice to command insanity is off the charts amazing.
I recall a scene where the kids are locked in the basement trying to escape their folks. And Blair and Cage are looking for a way to break down the door. Nicholas bangs on the door, shaking and screaming a line i will never forget "Your motherfucking Mother said to open this goddamn door, Motherfuckers!!!! Youre going to open this motherfucking door!!!!". Cage goes one way Blair goes another... she gets a reciprocating saw and brings it to the door. Her line, while simple, is unforgettable. "It's called a Saws all because it saws all,".
She begins hacking and at the door as Cage is upstairs looking for his gun... he hears shots and runs downstairs, finding Blair sitting on the floor nursing a fresh gunshot to the arm. He freaks out and explains the gun to his wife who quotes some stats about kids hurting themselves and others with handguns. Irony at its finest.
All in all, this movie never gets boring after the parents begin to try and kill their kids. It's only better when Cages character Brent's folks show up and attempt to kill him. Lance Henricksons performance as the father is extreme and awesome.
Watch this movie if you have a spare 90 minutes, i promise you it will motherfucking not disappoint, Motherfuckers:)
The film's opening sequence shows a woman in a minivan with a baby in the backseat. The radio plays some strange static and out of nowhere she looks back to the infant and exits the vehicle. Leaving the baby and the van to meet their demise via an oncoming train.
What follows is pure genius and insanity that is topped by Nick Cage doing what Nick Cage does best. Losing it onscreen with a fever that only my he can provide.
Selma Blair holds her own as Cafe's seemingly mild mannered wife who turns on a dime and joins him in the craziness with a certain flair comparable to Cages insane bravado.
The kids, played by Anne Winters and Zachary Arthur, fight their parents with some Home Alonish antics that prove to serve them well.
No one can fully say what it is that officially makes the parents around the world turn on their kids. But it has something to do with white noise and static on televisions and radios across the planet. Parents instinct to protect their young like a bear is replaced with the feeling off ultimate anger and insanity.
In one scene, Blair is at the hospital coaching her sister through birth. The the is born and handed to the mother and a monitor goes all static filled and noisy. The sister clutches the baby tightly, beginnng to cut off the airwaves and choking the child. Blair rips the newborn from her sister in an attempt to protect her. But something driving her sister forces her to stand upright and destroy the baby. She ultimately fails and is sedated.
The best performance in this film goes hands down to Nicholas Cage. Who freaks out like only Cage can. And even though his appeaance resembles a slightly bloated version of Marilyn Manson. His ability to use his expression and booming voice to command insanity is off the charts amazing.
I recall a scene where the kids are locked in the basement trying to escape their folks. And Blair and Cage are looking for a way to break down the door. Nicholas bangs on the door, shaking and screaming a line i will never forget "Your motherfucking Mother said to open this goddamn door, Motherfuckers!!!! Youre going to open this motherfucking door!!!!". Cage goes one way Blair goes another... she gets a reciprocating saw and brings it to the door. Her line, while simple, is unforgettable. "It's called a Saws all because it saws all,".
She begins hacking and at the door as Cage is upstairs looking for his gun... he hears shots and runs downstairs, finding Blair sitting on the floor nursing a fresh gunshot to the arm. He freaks out and explains the gun to his wife who quotes some stats about kids hurting themselves and others with handguns. Irony at its finest.
All in all, this movie never gets boring after the parents begin to try and kill their kids. It's only better when Cages character Brent's folks show up and attempt to kill him. Lance Henricksons performance as the father is extreme and awesome.
Watch this movie if you have a spare 90 minutes, i promise you it will motherfucking not disappoint, Motherfuckers:)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knight of Cups (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’ll just come out and say it … This movie for all it’s grandeur with its ensemble cast and it’s amazing photographic work and direction is something that should be shown at film festivals and in art house movie theaters and NOT your mainstream chain theaters. Someplace where you can order a meal and perhaps a glass of wine or a local ale. Why? If the movie has Christian Bale in its cast you know there’s going to be drama involved regardless of whether or not the movie itself is dramatic. THIS particular film is a drama that could be compared to something written by Shakespeare.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
‘Knight Of Cups’ is a romantic drama written and directed by Terrence Malick and stars an ensemble cast including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Armin Muller-Stahl, Isabel Lucas, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Imogen Poots, Teresa Palmer, and Peter Matthiessen.
“Once there was a young prince whose father, the king of the East, sent him down into Egypt to find a pearl. But when the prince arrived, the people poured him a cup. Drinking it, he forgot he was the son of a king, forgot about the pearl and fell into a deep sleep.”
Rick (Bale) is a successful writer born into a powerful family in L.A. The son of Joseph (Dennehy) and brother to Barry (Bently). After the lose of a second brother as well as his mother, Rick becomes disillusioned and loses himself in the excesses found in the ‘City Of Angles’ and nearby Las Vegas. Along this aimless journey he encounters 6 different women Nancy (Blanchett) a doctor, Elizabeth (Portman) a married woman, Helen (Pinto), Isabel (Lucas), Karen (Palmer), and Della (Poots) looking to form some sort of bond or connection. Perhaps even to discover love only to encounter more lose. He wanders from cities, to beaches, then from mountains to deserts. Searching for something meaningful, some purpose all the while trying to hold what remains of his family and his own sanity together and along the way encounters a cast of colorful characters who have their own ideas about life and their own views on how he should live his.
This film was pretty much Malick’s attempt at making an art film with a large budget and a star studded cast. That’s just the thing. He succeeded and it was just too much. From a technical standpoint, it was wonderfully directed with its landscapes and ‘not-the-norm’ angles and close-ups but it simultaneously took away from the people and the story. It was almost as though they were trying to combine a film on the Discovery Channel with a drama. The film was two minutes shy of 2 hours long. Had the director been able to shave 20 minutes from it, then I could see it given a limited run in major theaters. I have to give kudos to the actors and actresses who were on top of their game which made the film worth sitting through once. The film is rated R for scenes of violence, nudity, and language. If you’re enduring one of those days where you just need to disappear and NOT communicate with anyone for a while, go see this movie. It’s runtime and complexity will help take your mind off your troubles. I’d highly recommend though that you save the film for viewing at home. I’ll give this film 3 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated House of Wax (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
As sure as the winter season brings snow and rain, summer is sure to bring sequels and remakes to theaters across the land. With many classic horror films such as “The Amityville Horror:”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” already released and with “The Fog”, pending, Hollywood is trying to find gold from the past.
The latest remake to make the screen is The House of Wax which shares precious little with the 1953 Vincent Price classic aside from the title house and an abundance of wax figures. The story follows Carly Jones, (Elisa Cuthbert), a young college graduate who is planning to move from her small town to take an internship in New York. Her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) is unsure if he will follow her to the big city which is a source of tension between the otherwise happy couple.
Carly and Wade decide to take a road trip to a big sporting event, and have their friends Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri’chard), Dalton (John Abrahams), and Carly’s brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), along for the ride. In a true horror film cliche, the road trip becomes and overnight campout in a remote backwoods area where drinking, sex, and other youthful merriment abounds.
Of course the merriment is interrupted when a strange encounter with a mysterious truck and an unexpectedly broken car fan belt in the morning forces Carly and wade to stay behind to locate the needed part in a nearby town while their friends continue on to the game.
The local town is mostly empty, and looks like something out of the 60’s aside from numerous signs that tout the local wax museum. While exploring the empty town, Carly and Wade stumble upon a church where a service is in session, and meet Bo, (Brian Van Holt), who is the local mechanic who tells them he can get the needed part as soon as the service has ended. With time on their hands, Carly and Wade visit the local wax museum which is equally deserted, but filled with life like figures.
When Carly suddenly sees a bizarre figure lurking in the shadows the events soon unfold leaving Carly and Wade trapped in a nightmare that is out of control. As if that was not bad enough, their friends have become stuck in traffic and decide to forgo the big game and return to pick up Carly and Wade not knowing bizarre nightmare they are about to encounter.
Despite some flaws, House generally works and as horror films go, is entertaining. Sure the characters and plot are paper thin and characters seem to have a severe lack of common sense, yet despite the flaws, there are some good moments. The film goes almost 50 minutes before the mayhem starts, but when it does, the killings are some of the most brutal in horror film history. On more than one occasion during my press screener did I see a member of the audience hiding their face in the shoulder of a significant other during some of the films more intense moments.
The film also has a good villain that while not well defined, is nevertheless chilling and projects menace very well. The cast works well with one another given the limitations of the genre, and the pacing of the film by first time director Jaume Serra is effective in adding a bit of tension yet keeping the adrenalin moving during key parts.
My biggest issue with the film would be the ending that I thought took the Hollywood way out, with a big effects spectacle instead of staying focused on the characters and their plight, That being said, as mindless Summer thrills The House of Wax is a decent if albeit at times lacking film.
The latest remake to make the screen is The House of Wax which shares precious little with the 1953 Vincent Price classic aside from the title house and an abundance of wax figures. The story follows Carly Jones, (Elisa Cuthbert), a young college graduate who is planning to move from her small town to take an internship in New York. Her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) is unsure if he will follow her to the big city which is a source of tension between the otherwise happy couple.
Carly and Wade decide to take a road trip to a big sporting event, and have their friends Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri’chard), Dalton (John Abrahams), and Carly’s brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), along for the ride. In a true horror film cliche, the road trip becomes and overnight campout in a remote backwoods area where drinking, sex, and other youthful merriment abounds.
Of course the merriment is interrupted when a strange encounter with a mysterious truck and an unexpectedly broken car fan belt in the morning forces Carly and wade to stay behind to locate the needed part in a nearby town while their friends continue on to the game.
The local town is mostly empty, and looks like something out of the 60’s aside from numerous signs that tout the local wax museum. While exploring the empty town, Carly and Wade stumble upon a church where a service is in session, and meet Bo, (Brian Van Holt), who is the local mechanic who tells them he can get the needed part as soon as the service has ended. With time on their hands, Carly and Wade visit the local wax museum which is equally deserted, but filled with life like figures.
When Carly suddenly sees a bizarre figure lurking in the shadows the events soon unfold leaving Carly and Wade trapped in a nightmare that is out of control. As if that was not bad enough, their friends have become stuck in traffic and decide to forgo the big game and return to pick up Carly and Wade not knowing bizarre nightmare they are about to encounter.
Despite some flaws, House generally works and as horror films go, is entertaining. Sure the characters and plot are paper thin and characters seem to have a severe lack of common sense, yet despite the flaws, there are some good moments. The film goes almost 50 minutes before the mayhem starts, but when it does, the killings are some of the most brutal in horror film history. On more than one occasion during my press screener did I see a member of the audience hiding their face in the shoulder of a significant other during some of the films more intense moments.
The film also has a good villain that while not well defined, is nevertheless chilling and projects menace very well. The cast works well with one another given the limitations of the genre, and the pacing of the film by first time director Jaume Serra is effective in adding a bit of tension yet keeping the adrenalin moving during key parts.
My biggest issue with the film would be the ending that I thought took the Hollywood way out, with a big effects spectacle instead of staying focused on the characters and their plight, That being said, as mindless Summer thrills The House of Wax is a decent if albeit at times lacking film.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Thoughts on Child’s Play
Characters – Andy is a young teenager that has just moved to a new city with his mother, he hasn’t made any friends, turning to his phone to keep him busy, he does have a hearing aid, but it is never clear how bad his hearing is, he gets a Buddi doll that will keep him company as he starts to become friends with the doll. Once he learns of the evil inside the doll, he does all he can to make sure his loved ones are safe, as he starts to make friends away from the doll, he never seems to go to school though. Karen is the single mother that is working double shifts to keep Andy happy, she starts dating a new man, which doesn’t please Andy and does all she can to put Andy first when things start getting out of hand. Chucky is the Buddi doll that has been unleashed from his safety restrictions, he is constantly learning from watching people, which brings out his violent side, which will see him going on a killing spree targeting anyone that hurts or tries to replace him as a friend to Andy. Detective Norris visits the apartment building where his mother lives for dinner once a week, he does notice Andy around the apartment building making sure he is safe.
Performances – Aubrey Plaza as the single mother is strong in her role, she does bring added character to a character that could have come off plain. Gabriel Bateman is great too because he shows us the isolation that he is going through during the film. Mark Hamill does voice the character of Chucky well giving us an entertaining character that get plenty of laughs. Brian Tyree Henry does bring comedy to his role, which is usually a more uptight figure in the film.
Story – The story here follows a boy that given a Buddi doll which soon starts to go on a killing rampage after learning from the technology around him. I do have conflicting feelings about this story, on one side I am disappointed we have scrapped the serial killer trying to get his soul into another body, which I feel is the main part of the franchise. On the positive side we do get to dive into the world where people are letting themselves are being controlled by technology, connecting everything to one source where an error could break everything. seeing Chucky learn is interesting to see too because we see how he processing each clip, line and environmental side of the world. it does borrow from a lot of different films from the past which can be picked up on. This des come off very fun, only it could have been its own new doll instead of just using Chucky showing the lack of originality coming out of the Hollywood.
Horror – The horror in the film is mostly slasher material, we see Chucky getting kills with plenty of blood splatter, with some original kills along the way.
Settings – The film keeps the settings looking very similar with the apartment building showing how hard up the family is, the department store does bring us a great showdown location too.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are strong with the Chucky doll being both creepy and moving in a robotic motion which seems nature.
Scene of the Movie – Chucky has a present for Andy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No Serial Killer side.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror that does get laughs and blood splatter, it does frustrate though by having to use the Chucky doll for what is a completely original idea.
Overall: Blood Splattering fun.
Characters – Andy is a young teenager that has just moved to a new city with his mother, he hasn’t made any friends, turning to his phone to keep him busy, he does have a hearing aid, but it is never clear how bad his hearing is, he gets a Buddi doll that will keep him company as he starts to become friends with the doll. Once he learns of the evil inside the doll, he does all he can to make sure his loved ones are safe, as he starts to make friends away from the doll, he never seems to go to school though. Karen is the single mother that is working double shifts to keep Andy happy, she starts dating a new man, which doesn’t please Andy and does all she can to put Andy first when things start getting out of hand. Chucky is the Buddi doll that has been unleashed from his safety restrictions, he is constantly learning from watching people, which brings out his violent side, which will see him going on a killing spree targeting anyone that hurts or tries to replace him as a friend to Andy. Detective Norris visits the apartment building where his mother lives for dinner once a week, he does notice Andy around the apartment building making sure he is safe.
Performances – Aubrey Plaza as the single mother is strong in her role, she does bring added character to a character that could have come off plain. Gabriel Bateman is great too because he shows us the isolation that he is going through during the film. Mark Hamill does voice the character of Chucky well giving us an entertaining character that get plenty of laughs. Brian Tyree Henry does bring comedy to his role, which is usually a more uptight figure in the film.
Story – The story here follows a boy that given a Buddi doll which soon starts to go on a killing rampage after learning from the technology around him. I do have conflicting feelings about this story, on one side I am disappointed we have scrapped the serial killer trying to get his soul into another body, which I feel is the main part of the franchise. On the positive side we do get to dive into the world where people are letting themselves are being controlled by technology, connecting everything to one source where an error could break everything. seeing Chucky learn is interesting to see too because we see how he processing each clip, line and environmental side of the world. it does borrow from a lot of different films from the past which can be picked up on. This des come off very fun, only it could have been its own new doll instead of just using Chucky showing the lack of originality coming out of the Hollywood.
Horror – The horror in the film is mostly slasher material, we see Chucky getting kills with plenty of blood splatter, with some original kills along the way.
Settings – The film keeps the settings looking very similar with the apartment building showing how hard up the family is, the department store does bring us a great showdown location too.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are strong with the Chucky doll being both creepy and moving in a robotic motion which seems nature.
Scene of the Movie – Chucky has a present for Andy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No Serial Killer side.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror that does get laughs and blood splatter, it does frustrate though by having to use the Chucky doll for what is a completely original idea.
Overall: Blood Splattering fun.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one