Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
villiards
Reviews
An American Haunting (2005)
Hauntingly Disappointing
I, for one, am not a firm believer in ghosts. That said, however, my disbelief has never stopped me from being interested in the stories of hauntings and the people (both living and dead) who are affected by them. Among those stories, one of my favorites was that of The Bell Witch, which tormented the Bell Family of Tennessee in the early 1800's. It is this legendary well-documented tale of a haunting that resulted in a murder that "An American Haunting" uses as its source material.
Though it initially takes place in the present, the movie's plot revolves primarily around a recounting of John Bell (played by Donald Sutherland), his wife, Lucy, (Sissy Spacek), and their children as they are plagued by a malevolent, invisible spirit that seems bent on making their lives Hell. The spirit originally focuses a vast majority of its attention on the Bells' daughter, Betsy (Rachel Hurd-Wood), dragging her out of bed in the middle of the night and subjecting her to fierce beatings by unseen hands that defy logical explanations. Later, however, the spirit turns its wrath on John Bell, himself. All of this comes with dire consequences for the Bell family as they struggle to make sense of what they're experiencing.
Anyone familiar with the case would expect this to be a truly horrifying movie about the supernatural. Unfortunately, the end result is far from it. Few, if any, of the actors involved give really convincing performances. Donald Sutherland, in particular, comes across as almost being bored while on screen. Audience members may actually wonder if he's sleepwalking at times as he goes about his roll and mumbles . Sissy Spacek doesn't fare much better. She is under-utilized in this film, but when she is used, her character does little more than scream out lines.
In further detriment to the film is the directing. Much of the film is shot in such darkness that it becomes difficult for the viewer to see what's happening. Also, goofy visual effects such as seemingly random scenes shot in black-and-white scenes and shots of the actors through the eyes of the Bell Witch, itself, are pointless and prove distracting from the movie. There are some nice special effects in this film, but far too few to counter those which prove harmful to the rest of the movie.
To top off everything else that's wrong with this movie, this film is yet another example of Hollywood bastardizing a popular story or historical account (in this case, probably both). People familiar with the Bell Witch legend will notice glaring inaccuracies in the story. A number of the events surrounding the haunting are not only drastically altered in the movie, but in some cases, they are completely fabricated. Also striking are some omissions of parts of the Bell Witch story. At one time, future U.S. President Andrew Jackson made a visit to the house in what would be a disastrous attempt to rid the Bells of the spirit, and one that he would even recount during his days in office. While it seems this would be an interesting part of the story to tell, no mention of it is even made in this movie. Towards the end of this movie, it becomes obvious that many of the alterations to the story were done so that the characters of this film can eventually reach a conclusion as to why this haunting is taking place. This conclusion is not only completely inaccurate from the original accounts of the Bell Witch, but its revelation is poorly carried out and confusing to say the least. In addition, this leads to a final scene that takes place in the modern era, again. I believe was supposed to be a surprise ending, but any viewer who has managed to stay awake long enough to get to this point will see it coming from a mile away.
Overall, this movie is a disaster. People viewing this film and expecting a good spine-chilling horror movie will be sorely disappointed. Those with knowledge of the Bell Witch saga who want to see recounting of their favorite tale will fare even worse. The Bell Witch story is definitely the stuff that good Hollywood chillers are made of. Maybe in the future one will be made that actually delivers the goods, because this surely isn't it.
Backyard Dogs (2000)
Bad "Dog".... Very Bad "Dog"
Very few movies can actually make a person question their own intelligence after viewing. "Backyard Dogs" (for me, at least) managed to do just that.
"Backyard Dogs" is the story of three friends (Lee, Cole, and Kristy) who enter the world of backyard wrestling. For those who are unfamiliar with backyard wrestling, it is generally an amateur form of professional wrestling that one sees on television. It is often carried out by younger people (often times kids) with little or no training whatsoever, and the matches are held in a variety of unprofessional locations, including people's backyards (hence the name).
The movie wildly exaggerates the world of backyard wrestling as being populated by superstars, as drawing large numbers of fans and lots of money to the events. It also declares that backyard wrestling is actually "real," as opposed to being staged like the normal professional wrestling matches you see on t.v. With this in mind, Cole and Lee set out to become backyard wrestlers themselves so they can rake in the dough. With the help of a friend, they recruit Kristy to help manage the team behind the scenes. Together, the three make their way through the ranks of the west coast's backyard wrestling federations, until they catch the eye of a promoter named Z.Z. Nash who sees something in the team (though its never really made clear what) and a Japanese wrestling company called FMW. The two are then booked into some major wrestling events. This leads to Lee and Cole being placed into more high-profile matches and eventually the dramatic conclusion of the movie, which includes one last match that it seems will solidify the two men's careers.
There is so much wrong with this movie that I scarcely know where to begin, but I'll start with the acting, which is horrible. None of the people in this film are even remotely convincing in their roles as they bumble along with their lives. Particularly annoying is the character of Kristy (played by Bree Turner). She is supposed to be smart, computer savvy, and good at promotions, yet she often comes across as nothing more than an annoying cheerleader with really bad ideas. An excellent example of this involves her inspiration for naming the team of Cole and Lee the "Backyard Dogs." She steps in a pile of dog droppings, and hence the name "Backyard Dogs" is born. Some of her other ideas are so insanely bad, that the audience may even question if she's trying to help Cole and Lee achieve stardom or make them look like two of the biggest goofs on Earth. Turner's entire performance seems wooden and forced, and makes me wonder how she ever got roles in later films.
None of the other actors are much better. Scott Hamm, who plays the part of "Cole," sometimes sounds as though he's reading his lines directly from a cue card, and Walter Emanuel Jones, who plays "Lee," gives a performance that seems almost as forced as Bree Turner's.
To be fair to the actors, they aren't given much to work with. The movie's story is as ridiculous as it sounds and riddled with plot holes. The dialog is horrible, and full of clichés and goofy lines that make no sense. There's also hardly any character development. Kristy got in trouble with an internet site she was running, and a romance blooms from out of nowhere between her and Cole, but that's about it. The two-dimensional characters go about their business, and the audience is simply along for the ride, but with little reason to care.
And then there's the "wrestling" action. While all of the action isn't supposed to look like what you see on television (remember, this is being done by amateurs, and its supposed to be "real"), what it does look like is complete garbage. There is nothing convincing about the fights, which often involve no "wrestling" and just a bunch of thugs in costumes pretending to hit each other with chairs, clubs, bricks, and anything else you can think of. The action is so bad, that its impossible to imagine that anybody in their right mind would want to see fights like this, let alone pay money to do so as the movie suggests is happening.
There have been a number of movies about professional wrestling made in the past, but none have required the audience to suspend their disbelief as much or as long as this one does. Non-wrestling fans will either laugh themselves silly at this predictable and ridiculous story, or go back to the video store to demand their money back.
Actual fans of professional wrestling (at least those above the age of 16) will most likely be equally as disappointed, if not more so. I include myself in this latter group. I have been a fan of professional wrestling since I was in third grade, and I continue to watch it more-or-less faithfully to this day (as of writing this, I am currently 31). I enjoy many different styles of pro-wrestling, including lucha libre, the standard American style such as WWE promotes, and (my favorite) hardcore/extreme wrestling. With that in mind, I tell you that this movie disappointed me on so many levels, not only because of how bad it turned out to be as a whole, but because of how it portrays wrestling and its fans.
Overall, this movie is a disaster, and (while not as bad as such monstrosities like "Manos: Hand of Fate" and "Battlefield Earth") clearly deserves its spot on this site's Worst 100 Movies list.
Hulk (2003)
Good start; bad finish!
Ang Lee tends to be quite good at directing action movies, but his efforts fall short in "Hulk." Based on the long-running Marvel Comics series "The Incredible Hulk," Lee presents us with the story of David "Bruce" Banner (played by Eric Bana), a genetic scientist who's life is dramatically changed when he is exposed to a large dose of gamma radiation. As a result, whenever Banner becomes angry or feels threatened, he morphs into a gigantic, green monster known as the Hulk. As the Hulk, Banner is completely ruled by his own rage, and capable of destroying practically anything in his path. He is seemingly indestructible and unstoppable, until his anger fades away, and he reverts back to his normal, human form.
The Hulk is not without his enemies. Once his new found alter-ego is discovered, Banner finds himself continually hounded by a decorated Army General (Sam Elliot) who wants to use the Hulk as a weapon, a jealous reporter who is fighting for the affection of David Banner's love interest, and Banner's own estranged father (Nick Nolte) who has his own sinister ideas for pursuing the Hulk.
In the beginning of this film, Lee gives us a good story. While the characters never really develop into anything fantastic, viewers can actually find themselves feeling sorry for Banner as he struggles to make sense of his life, which is now turning upside down with the addition of the Hulk and the return of his real father. Both of these events bring up issues from Banner's past which he has repressed, and seemingly must confront if he ever wants to control the beast the rages inside of him.
About half-way through, however, the pace quickens and the movie quickly starts to degenerate into a mess. The Hulk goes on a rampage to avoid being captured by the military, and eventually ends up having to face a super villain, which is actually Banner's father, who has exposed himself to gamma radiation in order to gain super powers similar to his son's. For as good, and interesting the first part of this movie is, the latter part has the feel of watching someone play a video game. Its filled with little more than a bunch of extended scenes that feature the Hulk demolishing tanks and planes, jumping over canyons, and eventually beating up a giant monster at the end. Now, while I will acknowledge that this is what the Hulk commonly does in the comic books (smash and break things, that is) and that this is probably what everyone in the audience was waiting for, it still could've been done much better and in a way that helps enhance the story. As it is, these later scenes of destruction go way too long, and sometimes comes across as being meaningless and over-the-top.
This film has some good actors in it, but the characters never really develop very far, and none of the actors ever seem to truly get into their roles. Eric Bana doesn't do a bad job of playing David Banner, but something in his performance is still lacking, and he fails to fully convince viewers of what his character is thinking or feeling. Really, about the only actor who seems to do really well in his role is Sam Elliot, but playing a grizzled Army tough-guy is nothing new for him, so that's pretty much expected.
It was a good try at a making a movie about a popular comic book, but overall, its not very satisfying and could've been done better. Fans of the comic book and the 1980's television series will still enjoy this film, but many of them will probably feel as though something is missing, too.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Potentially one of the finest movies of all time
The Shawshank Redemption (based on the short story "Rita Hayworth & the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King) is quite possibly one of the greatest movies ever to grace the big screen.
Set in the mid-1900's, "The Shawshank Redemption" is tale of Andy Dufrasne (played by Tim Robbins), a man recently convicted of a double homicide and sentenced to life in Shawshank Prison. Once there, he meets "Red" (Morgan Freeman), a fellow inmate at the facility who is serving his own sentence, and who tells Dufrasne's story as narrator through his own eyes. The two eventually form a close friendship as they serve out their terms, and yet deal with their circumstances in different ways.
As the story goes on, the audience is treated to a culture and lifestyle that few have ever experienced, or probably even thought about. The movie goes into detail the dark side of the prison world, including corrupt guards, violence between the inmates, and even worse issues, but also shows some of the bright spots which seem to make the dreary existence of the prisoners tolerable.
The acting in this film is fantastic. Both Robbins and Freeman do magnificent jobs in their respected roles, and the inclusion of Freeman narration of the story adds a touch of credibility, as though this tale may actually be true. The movie engages the audience from beginning to end with the perfect blend of humor, sorrow, and even suspense. One moment a viewer will find themselves chuckling at a joke between the inmates, and the next cringing at the unsettling events unfolding before their eyes.
Overall, a magnificent cinematic masterpiece, and a must see for any serious movie buff.
Mystic River (2003)
A welcome departure from the normal tripe in Hollywood
In a year that seemed littered with stereotypical romantic comedies and comic book heroes, Mystic River was a welcome change from that norm, and absolutely stood out as one of the best movies in 2003. Clint Eastwood directed this highly-engaging tale about three childhood friends that share a traumatic past, who are brought back together for different reasons after a young woman's murder.
One of the main reasons for this movies success is the acting, which is superb, and with a cast that includes Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Lawrence Fishburne, and Marcia Gay Harden, it should be.
Sean Penn does a magnificent job portraying a Jimmy Markum, a reformed mobster who is devoted to his wife and daughters. When his oldest daughter, who is from a previous marriage, is killed in a seemingly senseless murder, Penn's character struggles to hold himself together as he reverts back to his gangster-like ways in an attempt to find out who killed his daughter. Penn does an award-winning job of displaying his wide range emotions of his character experiences, from the heart-wrenching ordeal of having to identify her body at a local morgue, to his quest to take revenge on his daughter's killer.
An equally compelling performance is delivered by Tim Robbins, who plays Dave Boyle, one of Jimmy Markum's childhood friends and potential suspect in the murder. Robbins elicits a unique blend of suspicion and sympathy from the audience as his character deals not only with the current murder, but with his own personal demons from his youth. Viewers feel sorry for Boyle as the tragic events of both the past and present drag him deeper and deeper into a dark and depressive state, yet still wonder about his true involvement in the murder since you never get the feeling that he's telling the whole story, and occasionally gets caught in small lies.
Kevin Bacon offers a strong supporting hand as Sean Devine, another buddy of both Markum and Boyle's, who has made a life as a cop and is called in to investigate the murder. Devine is a dedicated cop who, at times, seems torn between his two friends: Markum, because he needs to bring his daughter's killer to justice, and Boyle, because he doesn't want to believe that this old friend is the young woman's killer. His faith in Boyle sometimes brings him into conflict with his partner, (played by Lawrence Fishburne) who is almost entirely convinced of Boyle's guilt. He's also occasionally distracted from his job by brief, occasional calls from his recently estranged, which give us small, yet interesting glimpses into his own personal struggles.
Perhaps the most under-rated acting in this entire cast comes from Marcia Gay Haden, who plays Dave Boyle's wife. Haden plays the character as being confused and at times scared as her husband descends into a state of almost madness. We see her visibly become more and more shaken by his words and actions, eventually to the point where she seems to even question his innocence.
Aside from the incredible acting, the movie as a whole is magnificently done. The story is wonderful and compelling, the camera work is fantastic, and the whole film is a winner. People who watch this show will not be able to tear themselves away from it, until the whole tale has been played out and the credits finally roll. It was definitely deserving of the Oscar Awards and nominations it received, and should be considered on of Clint Eastwood's greatest cinematic accomplishments as a director.
Suspect Zero (2004)
Disjointed & disappointing (may contain spoilers)
I'll come right out and say this: I am not a believer in such paranormal subjects as space aliens, ghosts, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, ESP, and so forth. I haven't read, seen or heard anything strong enough to convince me that some woman 2,000 miles away can read my mind, or that martians are implanting chips in our brains while we sleep. That said, I still enjoy seeing movies based on some of these myths and legends as they usually provide for some interesting and suspenseful/action-packed experiences.
"Suspect Zero" is supposed to fall into this category of paranormal-movie-subject matter as it deals with a process called "remote viewing," in which someone trained in this art form goes into a trance and allegedly witnesses events as they occur that may be thousands of miles away, or even witness events that are occurring in the past or future. While this premise may seem like it would be a great idea to base a movie around, "Suspect Zero" fails to do so.
For much of the first half of the movie, the audience follows Tom Mackelway, an F.B.I. Agent with a troubled past (We're given clues as to what happened, but the details are sketchy... even when the movie tries to make sense of them at the end), from crime scene to crime scene as he tries to link a series of murders together. As we watch Mackelway and his partner, we are also introduced at points to Benjamin O'Ryan, a man who (through his psychic powers) seemingly has insight to not only the murders that Mackleway is investigating, but other crimes, as well. For reasons that are initially unknown, O'Ryan is also fixated on Mackelway and his investigation, and contacts him via cryptic faxes and letters. And, through it all, we are also exposed to O'Ryan's theory of Suspect Zero, which states that a serial killer can move across the country without getting caught, as long as he has no pattern to his crimes.
The movie takes many twists and turns as Mackelway tries to make sense of O'Ryan and his involvement in a nation-wide assortment of kidnapping-murders, all of which appear to be unrelated. All of this makes Mackelway wonder if O'Ryan isn't the theoretical Suspect Zero, himself.
Does all this sound confusing? Trust me, it is. The film jumps around in an almost aimless manner as it tries to tie the murders, kidnapping-murders (yes, there is a difference), Mackelway's past, O'Ryan's visions, Suspect Zero, and a couple other loose ends together. Unfortunately, they do a sloppy job of it. The audience is left confused and trying to piece together the disjointed parts of the plot.
None of this is helped by the fact that its quite hard to relate (or even really care about) any of the characters on the screen. Mackelway and O'Ryan are the best developed characters, but even they come across as two-dimensional. As for all of the other characters, even Mackelway's partner, Fran Kulock (who seemingly has both an on and off duty relationship of some kind with Mackelway), lacks any real depth.
Over-all, I give the people who created this movie credit for trying something different. The basic concept of the film is intriguing. "Suspect Zero", however, fails to deliver any real suspense or action, and will probably bore or confuse most audiences. It does (eventually) give the viewer a brief insight into what "remote viewing" is, but that in itself is not enough to make this movie worth watching.
House of Wax (2005)
Ummm.... Mr. Theater Manager.... Could I have my money back?
This movie is just sad, sad, SAD!!! Elisha Cuthbert has proved that she's a decent actress in "The Girl Next Door," as well as the hit television series "24." Why she felt the need to do this utter pile of garbage is beyond me. "House of Wax" is just another in the long line of generic "horror" flicks that features stereotypical, angsty teen-agers who stupidly end up confronted with a twisted killer, who probably doesn't have the mental capabilities to drown a sack of kittens. The movie's story is slow and predictable. When something frightening finally does happen, it usually doesn't "scare" viewers as much as it grosses them out with over-the-top special effects.
In addition to all of this, we have Paris Hilton. Despite being good for one or two lines that poke mild fun at her, she is more of a detriment to this film. Her acting abilities are pain-stakingly bad and completely unconvincing, even though the character she plays isn't much of a stretch from her person in real life (if you believe the grocery store tabloids, that is). Fortunately, her role in the film is small.
Overall, I feel this film was a major waste of my time and money. Paying the full price for this over-hyped wasted of film just isn't worth it. If you really do want to see this film, wait for it hit the discount theaters. That way, when you walk out half-way through the flick, you'll at least be able to take your popcorn with you as you leave.