Change Your Image
Tridentmovies
Reviews
The Beast (2009)
B-movies hit the small screen.
This review is based on an early impression (episodes 1 and a small part of 2, before i switched it off) and so i realize there is the possibility of improvement down the road. Although judging by what i've seen so far, i seriously doubt the people involved with the show would know how.
Whereas the synopsis of the show sounded interesting in a "The Shield" sort of way, the execution of it is quite dire. A couple of FBI-agents, one experienced and shifty (Patrick Swayze) and a rookie (Travis Fimmel) are teamed up to work together on cases. The first two cases involved sales of weapons and drugs. There is no real point going into the plots of the episodes as they play out pretty much exactly as you would expect. There is a subplot involving internal affairs wanting the rookie, who's name is Dove, to cooperate with them in keeping tabs on the experienced agent, called Barker. It is implied that Barker might be involved in some dirty business even outside of just bending or even breaking the rules.
This show comes across as being as mediocre as you could imagine. And that's only when it tries to be good. The camera-work is horrible. Aside from being a bad student of the "NYPD Blue" school of shaky-cam, the picture often looks blurry, and depressingly under-lit or dark altogether. It is as if the producers hired an amateur and told him "give it your best shot" with a digital camera. It tries to look hard-boiled and gritty, but it just looks annoying, especially because thanks to the limits of television it simply isn't allowed to be as gritty as it may want to be. As a result it just comes off as a poseur of a show.
The show, from what i've seen, is horribly clichéd and the music score is utterly predictable in what mood it wants to set a scene in as well as when it swells up to give a scene or shot fake tension or emotional resonance. The acting ranges from mediocre (Swayze) to downright awful (Fimmel) with both of them channeling performances that have been done millions of times before by much better actors. Fimmel in particular is a twitchy, constipated-looking hybrid of Matthew McConaughey and Leonard DiCaprio, and seems selected to play the part for no other reason than to give the female audience a "hunk" to root for. The guy twitches and smirks his way through the show and we are supposed to think it is "acting".
The characters they play are as hackneyed as they get, without almost an ounce of originality in behavior. The experienced guy knows all and makes the rookie do his bidding, and the rookie apparently has no problem putting his career on the line by defying internal affairs in favor of loyalty to a guy he hardly knows, except that he in fact DOES break a large number of rules and laws, which makes the investigation by internal affairs completely logical. There is no reason whatsoever for Dove to potentially sacrifice his career for this man and yet he does. Why? Because the plot requires that internal affairs be "wrong" or mistrusted by default as they always tend to be in cop shows, and the rookie to show "loyalty" to his fellow agent as if it somehow more honorable than remaining honest as a law enforcement agent. Dove inexplicably seems to think that not the bureau but his partner has given him his job and puts food on his table, otherwise there is no logical explanation why a rookie would put his job on the line for a near-total stranger. To make a long story short: the writing, much like almost everything else, stinks to high heaven and offers neither anything fresh and original, nor anything of quality even in its redundancy. Plenty of shows offer the same thing that has been done many times before, but at least they do it with quality. "The Beast" is just a TV-version of every bad B-movie in the action-section of the video-store.
The only positive thing that could be said is that at least the action on display is adequate (i liked the RPG in the pilot) and if mediocrity is no hindrance in wasting some time i guess you could do even worse than this show.
With "Flashpoint" for instance. But that's another story.
California Taboo (1989)
Okay but missed potential
The 80s were the golden age of porn, not just because of the better acting , the plots and the unshaven ladies, but also because it didn't flinch on the taboo subject matter, whereas the recent porn adds the word "step" to be safe.
This movie is decent in the "taboo" regard, with a couple of incestuous scenes (most notably a mother/daughter lesbian scene with Nina Hartley back when she still looked gorgeous), but the sex is more of the giddy, chuckely type than the scorching hot type. Furthermore there were several missed opportunities and the 'taboo' scenes themselves are unfortunately nothing special.
It doesn't help either that the two sisters/daughters are played by girls who don't exude much eroticism and don't have much sexual charisma. A big contrast with the more well known ladies in the movie, i.e. Nina Hartley, Shanna McCullough and Jeanna Fine.
It's always a shame when a movie does not seem interested in reaching its full potential and turning every scene in the best possible scene to be made of it, but as it stands "California Taboo" is an okay 80s porner of the "taboo" variety. No more, no less.
Dood eind (2006)
Technically it's okay; but that's about it.
Oh boy, what to say about this.
Holland doesn't have a horror culture, and if this movie is any indication, it probably never will have one.
Let me get the good stuff out of the way: technically, the movie is adequate, with some good cinematography, decent music and (for Dutch standards) pretty decent effects.
But then we have to start judging the movie on its actual content and what impression that leaves. Which left me wholly underwhelmed (and i'm being kind). To summarize all the aspects: the acting ranges from decent to downright laughable (depending on the actors and on the emotion they were intended to express); the story (what little of it there is) ends up amounting to absolutely nothing the least bit interesting; the movie CRAWLED along, with most of it spent making characters sneak through dark corridors and rooms with flashlights where most of the times nothing ends up happening; the movie is repetitive in the extreme (scene: people rest in room - smoldering fire invades wood around them - people try to escape room - repeat ad nauseum); whenever something happens it is the usual annoying shocks of the "BOO" type with quick cut editing; we have characters that make NO impression whatsoever, and included a main protagonist who spent most of his time crying or making hilarious faces (supposedly representing a mix of shock , rage or crying, or all at the same time).
Put it this way, whatever tension the makers managed to build up initially went down the toilet when this viewer started quickly realizing that NOTHING scary (or gory) was going to happen. You can only have people creeping down corridors with flashlights for so long without payoff before i stop giving a hoot and thinking about turning the DVD off (which i didn't because i wanted to see if it improved).
I have to compliment the guys making the film for the technical proficiency and meaning well, but it seems as if they really thought that throwing ingredients from "Blair Witch Project", "Silent Hill" and "House on Haunted Hill (remake)" into a pot and cooking it, automatically meant the result would be a great tasting horror soup. This soup fell completely flat and tasted like nothing.
Sorry guys. You undoubtedly love horror, but loving it is different from being able to make it and doing a good job.
On a side note: some Dutch reviewers (see "reviews" on left side of IMDb page) have given the movie props for being a successful attempt. These people are obviously a bit too chauvinistic about Dutch "product" and need to regain their objectivity. You're not going to do horror's future in Holland any good by praising this movie if it really sucks. And those that think it really was good, ah well...