Underbelly (2008)

MARCH 12, 2008

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, THRILLER, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

Sometimes a movie I watch for the day is sort of contrarian to the original idea of Horror Movie A Day, which is to basically “talk” about a horror movie, albeit in internet form (as opposed to a typical review). But a movie like Underbelly doesn’t quite fit the bill, because it’s not out yet. It’s just now gearing up for a festival run, and as far as I know, has no distribution as of yet. Hopefully that’ll change soon so some of you folks can check it out with relative ease.

On the flipside, the movie is actually ideal for this site’s intentions, because the film doesn’t explain or spell out a lot of its horror elements. It is open to interpretation, so everyone will probably come away with a different idea of what happened at the end and want to post their thoughts.

As this is an independent film, the actors are hardly well-known. However, they are all surprisingly good. More surprising, none of them share the same last name as the director. Likewise, the production value is good across the board – then again I’ve said before that it would actually take effort to make Texas look bad on film; it’s the most photogenic state there is! While it’s a small film, there are a lot of different locations, allowing the film to seem bigger than it is in actuality.

I say that because this is a rather slow film, with very little action. Like The Lost, it’s bookended by some top notch thriller stuff, but the middle can get a bit slow (not nearly as crippling as The Lost though). Writer/director Matt Cade made the interesting choice to follow not the “hero” of the film, but the villains instead (the film centers on 2 disappearances, the hero’s wife and the villain’s sister). They are a largely unpleasant lot, but they also have a dark sense of humor that permeates their actions. This presents some tonal problems (it’s kind of hard to laugh at a guy’s ironic joke after he’s just raped someone) but the unique point of view is enough to keep these matters from permanently damaging the film.

Aside from that, I really dug the movie’s strange tone. There are occasional musical numbers, and a full minute of the film is given to a guy beating the shit out of a cell phone (which he’s not very good at, after like 12 stomps the damn thing still looks intact). There’s also a gonzo scene where the villains visit the site of David Koresh’s cult compound and the leader waxes philosophic about his admiration for the group, while an acoustic ballad with reversed lyrics plays over the soundtrack (I plan to utilize the PS3’s handy “play sound while in reverse” function and see what the guy is saying). Fans of David Lynch will appreciate these moments.

Speaking of the music, it’s great. There are songs and score, all seemingly done by the same group of folks, and I enjoyed them all. There are a few songs that remind me of The Refreshments/Peacemakers, which is always a good thing as far as I’m concerned. If you’ve never heard the Freshies’ "The Bottle And Fresh Horses", you’re missing out on some grade A southern flavored pop rock.

Also the composer/star of the movie is a guy named Fritz Beer. That’s the best name ever.

Like I said before, the horror elements are left largely to interpretation. Discussing them would be spoiler-ish (I don’t do spoilers when it’s likely not a single reader has seen the film yet), but suffice to say that those who like everything spelled out (or even generally explained) will be frustrated by the film’s lack of answers. I didn’t mind not understanding them all, but I DO wish there was a little more tension to the plot, which would make these scenes more effective. The disappearance of the two women seems largely forgotten for a while, to the point where I was wondering if that plotline was merely a macguffin – but the fact that the climax revolves around the conclusion to this story thread nullified that as an option. Hell, one character disappeared for so long I forgot what he looked like. But, it’s rare I see a movie (especially now, when I’m watching so goddamn many) that I am still thinking about a few hours later, replaying scenes in my head to try to see if information I got later in the film gave them new meaning. Hell, I may even watch it again!

Like Return In Red, this is the type of movie where you gotta be patient and accept that it’s not going to have a big Bruckheimer-ian climax. And like that film, Underbelly more or less overcomes the limitations of a REAL independent production (I love when I look at Boxofficemojo and they point out the record breaking figures for “independent” films like Rob Zombie’s Halloween) and turns out pretty good. It’s not for everyone (what movie is?), but I enjoyed it overall, and for once it’s nice to see an indie where none of the problems are technical and/or acting related. If it’s playing at a festival near you, check it out (movie's website is HERE).

And thank CHRIST, it’s actually an anamorphic DVD! So for those keeping score – DVD that was possibly burnt on the director’s home computer – anamorphic; Multi-million dollar movie from a major studio starring Shannyn Sossamon – non anamorphic. Fuck you, Lionsgate!

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Thriller, Weird,

{[['']]}

April Fool's Day (2008)

MARCH 11, 2008

GENRE: CRAP, HOLIDAY, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION) (for now)

Oh, April Fool’s Day, you fucking worthless excuse for a movie... why oh why do you exist?

Excluding cynicism, there are two reasons to remake a film: 1. To improve on a concept that was botched for whatever reason (studio interference, poor acting, whatever) in the original version, or 2. To introduce a once popular film to a new generation. Well, April Fool’s Day was NOT a popular film, and it’s only 20 years old, so the children of the teens that saw it in theaters when it was released are probably like 7 or so for the most part, and thus won’t really care. So does the film improve on the concept of the original?

(Note - spoilers ahead, but you'd almost have to TRY to not figure out the ending 12 seconds into the film).

No. Not even close. The original is actually a lot of fun, but it’s sort of spoiled by the ending, which reveals everything was a joke and no one’s really dead. So a remake would correct that, and have everyone REALLY die this time (or at least use AFD’s original ending and have the prank be revealed, and then suddenly a real killer shows up), right? Sadly, no one involved with this movie was that intelligent, apparently. In fact, they take their stupidity a step further – this movie actually has NOTHING in common with the original (different story, different characters, even a different setting entirely) EXCEPT for the idiotic ending!

Yes, once again, it’s all a prank. They try to sell one or two of the kills as real (one of them is an actress and thus has access to an entire Savini-style workshop, I guess), but for the most part they don’t even try. The main girl (Taylor Cole) is the only one who ever “sees” the murders, and even then she is always just stumbling on their bodies moments after they are “killed”. Maybe if you’ve never seen a horror movie in your life you will be fooled, but it’s so blatantly obvious that the killings are staged that I honestly thought for a long time that the twist would be that the killings WERE real this time around, and that the Butcher Brothers (squandering all of their promise from The Hamiltons, which wasn't much to begin with) were pulling a meta-joke on the audience – making real killings seem fake so the jaded audience familiar with the original would be surprised. Even the equally abysmal Catacombs did a better job at presenting a fake killer.

Unlike the original, this one isn’t very fun either. The characters are all completely unlikable (only Scout Taylor-Compton, queen of the unnecessary remakes, plays someone who isn’t a snooty prick) and they aren’t amusing. The original’s group had a nice repartee; I believed they were friends. These assholes don’t even seem to like each other, and while some of the girls are ridiculously hot (Cole looks like the scientifically amazing offspring of Chrarisma Carpenter and Evangeline Lilly, thus making her one of the hottest women in the world) the fact that we don’t even get to see any of them actually die just makes the movie WORSE.

Actually, there is one small exception – the character of David, played by Hamiltons’ Samuel Child. He’s an idiot running for Senate, so this results in a few Republican jokes. He also delivers one of the film’s two memorable lines when he drunkenly tells a guy “I’ll have you raped by a wizard!” for some goddamn reason.

The other good line comes from Blaine, our would-be hero, who’s also the most insufferable of them all. Most of the time he’s just being a jerk, but he takes a quick break from that winning character trait in order to deliver what HAS to be a meta line about the film itself. Scout’s character (the actress) is appearing in a bad slasher movie, and he comments “who cares about that movie - it doesn't even have any big stars!” Brilliant.

Let’s see, what else sucked? Well there’s the 25 minute prologue* that should have been 5 (it’s a year earlier and some of the characters are planning a prank. We know someone’s going to die – get the fuck to it!), nonsensical plot (the whole town seems to be in on the prank), a lengthy “Inside Edition” type news show with the fakest screen graphics I’ve ever seen in a film (note the hilarious “sports scores”) that does absolutely nothing but hint at the film’s obvious plot holes that result from some rewriting/post production editing, etc.

Yes, in this news scene one of the characters (another guy from Hamiltons) has written a book about the prank gone wrong, and the reporter cryptically notes that it’s not the first time he’s been involved with a high profile murder. It’s never mentioned again. Later, the heroine is explaining why everyone is guilty of something, and mentions that David couldn’t keep his dick in his pants, which caused a problem of some sort. No idea what the fuck she was talking about there. It’s later alleged that he had an affair with the dead girl (presumably BEFORE she died), but again – it seemingly has no bearing on anything. One only needs to read the confusing screenplay credits to know that this was a script that went through a lot of hands (it’s “based on a screenplay by” both the original film’s writer AND the Butcher Brothers, and yet written by someone else entirely), and boy does it show.

Look how hot this girl is, and I’m STILL calling the movie “Crap”!

All in all, there is absolutely no reason anyone should watch this movie. The “unrated” label means absolutely nothing – this film is BARELY worthy of a PG-13 (hell, they probably got a PG from the MPAA and were embarrassed by it), there is no actual gore or nudity, the twist is obvious (though to be fair they add a little extra bit of business to it, however it’s of no real consequence), the characters suck, and they don’t even bother to give the killer a mask. Everyone was surprised that it didn’t go into theaters – having seen it, it’s more amazing that the studio ever even considered it. Even Lionsgate would probably pass on this shit. This is easily the worst remake of the current crop (and no, I haven’t forgotten Scout’s other one) – I have to go back to Psycho 98 to think of one so utterly worthless.

What say you?

*I should note that this may be the first movie tagline (“She has a killer party planned”) that only references the film’s prologue – because there is no party at any other point in the movie. Also, saying “she” would pretty much spoil the ending if they were referring to the actual movie, since there are only 3 girls – one dies early on and the other is the one seeing all the murders. Nice work.

Read more »

Crap, Holiday, Remake, Slasher,

{[['']]}

The Stuff (1985)

MARCH 10, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

“Everybody has to eat shaving cream once in a while...”

Every now and then I come across a movie that features a performance that really makes me wonder why it hasn’t been ripped off in scores of other films. Such is the case with Michael Moriarty in Larry Cohen’s The Stuff. He’s sort of like a cross between Fletch and a southern businessman, and almost everything he says is hilarious. He’s completely laid back and dry, and it’s definitely a highlight of his career (sadly, the next year he was in Troll, and didn’t get anywhere near as many moments to shine as he does here). It’s seriously worth your time to watch the film just for his scenes.

Luckily, the rest of the movie ain’t too shabby either, however I should note that it’s a bit oddly paced – the stuff is discovered in the film’s very first shot, and our requisite young hero discovers that the stuff is “bad” less than 3 minutes later, but then it’s sort of drawn out for a while. Granted, there isn’t a hell of a lot of story here, and Cohen luckily doesn’t try to explain where it came from or any possibly crippling thing like that, but it still could have used maybe a tiny bit of restructuring.

Otherwise it’s a blast. Moriarty is hilarious, Garrett Morris shows up as a chocolate chip cookie magnate, and Danny Aiello and Paul Sorvino (between this and Repo, this guy needs to make more genre films!) turn in rare non-mobster roles. The whole movie (particularly the radio station scenes) has an improvisational feel which isn’t exactly what you expect in what is essentially a monster movie. There is a wealth of great moments throughout the film; my favorite has to be the stock boy at the grocery store who dives over a pile of The Stuff in order to save it from the hero, who is destroying it all. I also like the rather odd notion that the kid hero just teams up with this total stranger (Moriarty) without any question.

And young Johnny Depp shows up!*

Also the music during the scene where they see The Stuff “swamp” sounds exactly like the Super Mario Bros “dungeon” music (Dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnn, dundundundun dun DUN DUN). And the effects are pretty good for the time – it’s mostly stop motion stuff (by the late, great Dave Allen) matted with live action footage. For a low budget, it’s impressive, though naysayers will probably balk at the poor compositing (which Cohen acknowledges on the commentary).

Speaking of the commentary, Cohen’s an interesting guy, but the track has a lot of gaps; it’s almost like he’s afraid to talk over the dialogue at times. I wish Moriarty or someone had joined him, as the film is ripe for some good natured ribbing that would likely occur with a couple participants. It also seems to have been recorded over a few sessions, that or Cohen is senile; he constantly refers to “a picture I did called Q: The Winged Serpent” as if he hadn’t mentioned it a dozen times already. Sadly, it’s the only extra of note.

Your enjoyment of the film will likely depend on how much you like Moriarty, since he carries the film, and if you don’t enjoy his style of humor he will probably just annoy the shit out of you. Your loss.

What say you?

*No, that’s not him – but the film does have a Depp connection: the room where the Stuff attacks our heroes is the same room where Tina was killed in Nightmare on Elm St.

Read more »

Cohen, Comedic, Monster,

{[['']]}

The Lost (2006)

MARCH 9, 2008

GENRE: HORROR?, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

A while back I watched The Girl Next Door, which was a pretty good movie based on a book by Jack Ketchum, whom I was not familiar with. It wasn’t a masterpiece or anything, but it got me more interested in seeing The Lost, which was also based on one of his novels, but directed by Chris Sivertson, who impressed me with his work in the ludicrous and yet totally endearing I Know Who Killed Me (which was actually shot long after The Lost, which is just now hitting DVD). And he repeats continuously that the books have been faithfully adapted into films, so I think it’s safe to say that after watching both films: the guy needs to branch out a bit.

Both are based on true stories (though Lost seems to stray further from reality than Girl did with its respective true event), and both involve mostly unlikable people doing horrible things. Here it’s a guy named Ray Pye, who looks like any hipster douchebag you might encounter at Amoeba Records in Hollywood. There was scarcely a moment in the film where I didn’t want to just punch him in the fucking neck and wipe his stupid self-painted “beauty mark” off his face. And that’s kind of a problem, because there isn’t really anyone else to identify/sympathize with, other than few supporting characters who are only given 2 or 3 scenes each and thus stink of “They were more important in the book”. No, the entire two hour film is basically Ray being a douchebag, drinking, doing drugs, and fucking women.

On that note, I should point out that this film has more nudity than any non-pornographic film I can recall, including a montage of Ray bedding at least two girls (the footage is all sped up and Avid farted to death so it’s hard to tell, there might be a third in there). And since there was nothing really “horror” going on (that’s 3 of my last 4 films! I need to narrow my standards), I began wondering if maybe there was a guy doing Porno Movie A Day, and if he was maybe watching what he thought was a porno but was really a horror movie. I also wondered how chafed he was. “I’ve been doing PMAD for 6 months now, and I haven’t missed a day... it really stings down there.”

(Note – this is what happens when a movie is more or less treading water for over an hour – the viewer begins wondering about the movie watching/masturbating habits of non-existent people.)

Anyway, the last 15 minutes finally include some truly gripping psychological horror, as Ray kidnaps a few girls and tortures them. But until that point, the only scary thing about the movie was the sight of Ed Lauter in bed with a girl at LEAST 40 years younger than him. Gah! And it’s a shame, because if they had the good sense to shave at LEAST 20 minutes or so out of the middle of the film, they could have had a really great movie here.

Luckily, Sivertson assembled a great cast. In addition to the always welcome (just not in bed with a girl who could play his granddaughter) Lauter, we get the great Michael Bowen (from, ironically, Lost), Richard Riehle, Dee Wallace, and the blond from Black Xmas. Also, the film “introduces” Robin Sydney, which shows how long it’s been sitting on the shelf, since she’s been in at least a couple movies I reviewed months ago.

There’s also some nice black humor. Late in the film, someone we thought was dead suddenly begins trying to escape. “The fuck is she still alive for?” Pye yells. “I already fucking shot her!” The guy playing Pye is actually a good actor (at least I hope he’s acting, if he’s really like that then... Christ), and there’s a few instances like this in the film that help keep the film afloat. Then again, for every line like that, there’s one like “It can’t be a wrong number, not at this hour,” in regards to a late night phone call. I’m sorry – it’s late, lots of folks are either drunk or their contacts are starting to dry out, plus it’s dark. Wouldn’t it be MORE likely to have a wrong number than during the day?

The disc’s extras are largely worthless. There are some outtakes, many of which are just more of the same type of stuff that there is too much of in the movie to begin with, though there’s a pretty funny beer “buying” scene that’s worth a look. The scenes are presented entirely out of order in relation to the film, but it’s not too hard to figure out where most of them would go. There’s also some audition footage (an extra I never quite understood the appeal of – I’d rather see the actors who DIDN’T make the cut) and a storyboard thing.

The worst is the commentary track though. It’s Ketchum and another novelist named Monica O’Rourke. Over 119 minutes, they discuss things that pertain to this actual book/movie for maybe 10. The rest of the time, O’Rourke is simply asking Ketchum about his other books, what he’s working on, what he was like as a kid, where he was on 9/11, etc. I swear to Christ I thought she was eventually just going to ask him what he was having for dinner or if he saw the game last night. And while he drones on (the guy is certainly not against talking about himself), she says “Right” over and over and then he punctuates every anecdote with “Yeah.... yeah...” I’m sorry, but when I watch an audio commentary for a film, I want to learn more about the film (or if it’s a Kevin Smith film, lots of jokes at the expense of Ben Affleck). And certainly there was a wealth of material he could have drawn from – the real life case, changes from the book, how he felt about casting decisions vs how he pictured the characters in his mind, etc. but he sadly barely touches on any of that, resulting in a track that should have been presented as a highly edited interview with Ketchum. But hey, if you ever wondered what kind of car Monica O’Rourke drove when she was 19, this is the commentary for you!

All in all, a decent film that could have used another edit or two, coupled with extras that only die hard fans of the film (or would-be Ketchum biographers) would enjoy. Girl Next Door was much more enjoyable and much more gut wrenching – even though the violence here is actually more disturbing out of context, the film’s endless middle section coupled with the fact that none of these people are likable (at least the kids in Girl had some moments of innocence) sort of counteracts the ending’s intention – it’s supposed to shock, but by that time I was actually just “excited” something different was happening.

(I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that I am in the minority here – this film has cleaned up at festivals and won acclaim from several critics/sites, including Bloody Disgusting. And again, it’s not a BAD film, just a missed opportunity to be a great one).

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Horror?, Psychological,

{[['']]}

Tara McKelvey's "Monstering"

Tara McKelvey is a senior editor at The American Prospect and author of Monstering: Inside America's Policy of Secret Interrogations and Torture in the Terror War.

In June 2007 she applied the Page 69 Test to Monstering. Here she puts the book to the My Book, The Movie challenge:

My book Monstering is about Abu Ghraib, which is not a topic that an American moviegoing audience would naturally gravitate toward. But Abu Ghraib, and the use of so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques, is an important subject, and I think Americans should have a chance to talk about these issues In fact, it seems that Americans are ready to examine the subject of torture and to look at this dark chapter in our history, especially since a documentary film on the subject, Taxi to the Dark Side, has just won an Academy Award.

Here are the actors I would like to see in the film version of Monstering. Angelina Jolie. She is gorgeous, and fascinating, and she has even been to Iraq. Or Embeth Davidtz. She starred in June Bug, and she plays Amy in the HBO show In Treatment. I met Davidtz long ago while she was promoting the Steven Spielberg film Schindler's List (she played a Jewish maid who was saved by Schindler). Davidtz is smart and sophisticated, and she speaks eloquently about things like the nature of evil. Or Salma Hayek. I spent the day with her in Washington, DC, in 2002 when she gave a speech at a march against domestic violence on Capitol Hill. (I even wrote her speech!) She is passionate about human rights, and she is something of a perfectionist in her work, and she would be great in the film.

Read more about Monstering, including excerpts, reviews, and interviews, at Tara McKelvey's website.

McKelvey is a frequent reviewer for the New York Times Book Review and a contributing writer for Marie Claire. She is also a research fellow at New York University School of Law’s Center on Law and Security. She has edited a collection about female soldiers and torturers called One of the Guys.

The Page 69 Test: Monstering.

--Marshal Zeringue

Read more »

{[['']]}

Nightmare Detective (2006)

MARCH 8, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

If there’s one thing I hate about movies with dream sequences, it’s that the dreams are always designed to try to be passed off as real, so that it’s a surprise when they wake up. But if you think about it, this means that the people are having the most mundane fucking dreams in human history. When I dream, absolutely nothing about it makes any logical sense, which is kind of the appeal of dreams. So it’s nice to see a movie like Nightmare Detective (aka Akumu Tantei), because they are not crippled by this filmmaking cliché, and thus the dream sequences actually resemble real dreams.

For example, one guy is killed in a room that is jampacked with bicycles. There’s at least a thousand of the damn things all around him, piled together. THAT’S a dream image! And then he’s killed by a lightning quick monster straight out of Clive Barker’s Tortured Souls toy line.

That kill is one of the many gore/makeup highlights in the film, all of which are highly impressive and more than make up for the fact that the movie doesn’t make a lick of sense, even by J-horror standards. Couldn’t tell you what was going on at any point during the last half hour, but I was still highly entertained and impressed by the technical side of things.

My only complaint is that director Shinya Tsukamoto films everything tight. This is fine for the most part, but some scenes it makes it impossible to tell what is going on. There’s a scene in the climax where the title character saves the heroine, and I haven’t the slightest clue where he even came from! I also can’t tell what exactly he is doing to help. Zoom out, brother Tsukamoto!

Speaking of the “title character”, I’m surprised how little he is in the film during the first half. Most of the time we are with Keiko (the beautiful Hitomi). She’s kind of interesting, but not as much as a guy who can enter nightmares (he doesn’t really do any detective work either, but that’s OK). Hopefully in the sequel (which is already complete) he takes more of a central role throughout the film, not just the climax (incidentally, earlier today I watched Dr. No, aka the first Bond film, in which the character of Dr. No only shows up in the final 20 minutes).

I also got a few laughs during the film. The opening seems to be making fun of other J-horror movies (a guy has a nightmare about long black/wet hair, and it is dismissed), and there’s a scene where the Detective attempts to enter a dream by doing this sort of hypnotic suggestion thing. “There’s a polar bear on a bridge, eating a bowl of grasshoppers,” he says to the sleeping guy. He then adds: “It’s annoying.” Hahahaha. I dunno, I think if I saw a polar bear eating a bowl of ANYTHING on a bridge, annoyance wouldn’t be my first feeling. I’d probably just make Lost references (and thus annoy everyone around me).

Like just about all Asian horror films, it’s about 10 minutes too long (seriously guys, do you have some sort of phobia for 95-ish minute running times?), but it’s quite visually stunning and pretty original. Definitely recommended.

What say you?

Read more »

Asian, Serial Killer,

{[['']]}

Premonition (2007)

MARCH 7, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: BLU RAY (STORE RENTAL)

Anyone who’s ever moved cross country (east to west) has probably noticed that they will receive text messages from east coast friends 3 hrs “before” they were sent, due to the time zone difference and small technical... technicalities. Anyway, the first time this happened to me, I thought I had just received a text message from the future. I then got an idea for a movie where a guy gets a “I’m about to die!” message from his girlfriend and has 3 hrs to save her. My twist? She dies because he distracts her during his ‘rescue’ attempt, and had he just left her alone, she’d be fine. I thought of this while watching Premonition, because not only does it have a similar premise, but the ending is also straight out of my vague plot outline.

(NOTE – This review will spoil the ending of the film.)

While the trailers made the film look like a linear sort of Groundhog Day retread, where Sandra Bullock (starting to age, sadly. Why can’t she use whatever Madeline Stowe or Courtney Cox use to look HOTTER as they age??) is told of her husband’s death and then has a week to figure out how to prevent it, it’s really more like Memento. The film takes place over the course of a week (Sunday to Saturday), but the death is on Wednesday, so half the time she is dealing with the loss and the other half she is trying to stop it from occurring at all. And while everyone else seems to be living the week in order, Bullock experiences it on shuffle – Thursday, Monday, Saturday, Sunday, Friday, Tuesday, Wednesday (or something like that). The theme is that as you get older you start losing track of time (yes, this is essentially a filmed version of “All day Wednesday I kept thinking it was Thursday”), and it’s actually pretty solid. Rewatching the film with the commentary, I saw how well it was constructed, and with only minor quibbles with the “time traveling” aspect that would be too difficult to explain here (the short of it – on say, Saturday, her family and friends should have remembered her crazy behavior from Thursday).

Unfortunately, there are two problems. One, despite it’s attempts to make it look like one, it’s not really a horror movie, but a romantic drama with light thriller and psychological elements. Of course, by adding in horror elements, the film would become more ludicrous (a la The Forgotten) so I guess it’s a good thing. And per my rule, IMDb classifies it as horror, and there are a few “only in horror movie” shots, such as when her daughter runs through a glass door and mangles herself badly. There’s also an unintentionally hilarious bit where the husband’s casket falls out of the hearse, and then his disembodied head falls out of the casket. Have you ever seen a head roll around the street in a PG-13 movie (one without Leslie Nielsen anyway)? A+!

The other problem is that Bullock actually causes his death in the first place! In the end, she doesn’t save him, but their renewed love resulted in her getting preggers. That’s nice and all, but it doesn’t change the fact that if she didn’t make him turn his car around on the road, he’d be alive. The themes and point of the film would have been much more meaningful and “awww”-worthy if they had come up with a way to kill the poor sod in a manner that would have occurred even if Bullock wasn’t there at all. Hell, even if she simply called him and his distraction made him forget to look where he was going, it would be fine. But he’s on the side of the road, completely out of danger, and she tells him to do a U turn on a major road. He does, the car stalls, and then he’s hit by a truck that would have simply driven by him had he never moved. Nice work, Sandy!

Still, I actually liked the film. I’m a sucker for sentimentality, and damned if the scenes of the two of them all lovey dovey while Klaus Badelt’s incredibly good (read: perfectly manipulative for folks like me) score plays didn’t make me a bit sad. And I really liked how well the chronology was implemented; once you buy into the sort of fantasy idea that Bullock isn’t REALLY living her days out of order, but that they are simply glorifying the “I don’t know what day it is” feeling people get once their lives become routine, it really works well. The cast is also quite good; Julian McMahon plays a non asshole for once, and he’s actually bearable (I hate Nip/Tuck, and his performance as Doctor Doom is pretty much the bane of all comic book movies). Amber Valletta (who also appeared in the underrated Dead Silence, which was released the same day as this movie) manages to get some sympathy for her ‘other woman’ character, and the great Peter Stormare shows up as a psychiatrist. This is actually a bit manipulative from a casting standpoint – you see Stormare and you automatically begin thinking he’s the “bad guy”; that Bullock’s confusion is a result of him trying out some new drug on her or something. Nope, he’s just a regular shrink. Awesome. I wish he was in it more though, his entire role occurs over a 10 min segment in the middle of the film.

The DVD has a nice collection of extras, and because this was Blu-Ray, I had to watch them all at home (I usually watch my extras at work), making it the first time I have watched a commentary track from my couch in about 3 years or so. The track isn’t particularly exciting, though there’s some nice trivia to learn. The best extra is director Mennan Yapo summarizing the film in sequence (from Sunday to Saturday). Here you can really see how well the supporting cast develops over the course of the week, not to mention how hard it must have been for Bullock to keep track of her character. The deleted scenes are mostly useless, though there’s another one of Bullock’s character smoking, which is significant because how often do you see a non-villain character smoke in a film anymore? Never. Also included is an alternate ending, which was thankfully not used as it makes the film MORE horror-ish, and thus kind of stupid (they don’t show him, but you get the impression that 6 months later he’s suddenly alive again). There’s also a 45 minute doc on real people with premonitions, which I didn’t watch, because, well, come on. I got games to play.

All in all, it’s not going to be a favorite among horror fans, but those who like a nice little character drama with thriller elements should check it out. It’s the type of movie you might be a bit bored/baffled by while watching it, but will stick with you.

And again, you get to see Dr. Doom’s fucking head roll around in the street while his entire family looks on. Amazing.

What say you?

Read more »

Psychological, Supernatural,

{[['']]}