Dark Watchers: The Women in Black

Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. 

Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap.


***Normally, I don't write reviews like what you see here, but this film was so bad I refuse to even dignify it by expressing my thoughts about it via anything other than the single word - stated multiple times - above.  That said, if films with no plot, bad acting, bad lighting, bad dialogue, bad cinematography, bad special effects, bad [fill-in-the-blank-because-whatever-you're-thinking-it's-bad-in-this-film], then by all means, get this.

Alien: Covenant

So I recently had a chance to view Alien: Covenant on a flight.  Without mincing words, I have to say that I was deeply disappointed by this latest entry in the Alien film franchise, and for numerous reasons.

Where to begin?  I guess we need to start where most movies go bad: the plot.

Quite often, filmmakers will have characters do something incredibly stupid in order to advance the story: a law-abiding citizen will inexplicably commit a crime; someone who hates drugs will - for no good reason - take a few puffs off a joint or sniff some powder; a person in a building with a killer will steadfastly refuse to try to leave, even with a flashing arrow on an "Exit" sign...

In Covenant, some people from Earth are traveling through space (in a ship aptly named The Covenant) with the intent to colonize another world.  Their new home has been extensively scrutinized and examined, and after careful deliberation was chosen as the site for the new settlement.  However, along the way, they come across another world that - at first blush - also seems to be a prime candidate for colonization.  But - unlike their intended destination - this other planet has never been discovered, explored, analyzed, etc.

In short, the crew of the Covenant have no idea what dangers lurk on this strange new planet that they've stumbled upon.  But, because it has an Earth-like atmosphere and could be suitable for their needs (and because it will take them years to reach their original destination), they decide to explore this new world.

Up until this point, I'm fine, with how the movie has gone. However, the minute they land, extreme stupidity seems to be required to advance the plot.

First of all, the Covenant crew knows absolutely nothig about this new planet.  But, as soon as they land, a group of them go marching off into a nearby wooded area, seemingly without a care as to what type of predators might be around.  Not only that, but - as they march through the trees - one of the crew basically says, "Hey, I want to take some readings, so I'll stay here and you guys can scoop me up on your way back." Really?  You've been on an alien world for two seconds, don't know anything about what's lurking behind the next bush or flitting through the trees over your head, and you just say, "Leave me here by myself"?

Next, one of the idiot crewmen sees an odd, bulbous plant and decides to put his face right next to it before giving it a squeeze. In essence, he's willing to breathe in some alien spores without regard for what they might do to him.  In my opinion, this is the equivalent of coming across some wild mushrooms in the forest and - without knowing whether they are poisonous or not - deciding to eat them.

Anyway, if you're at all familiar with the Alien franchise, it won't surprise you to know that a short time after the events above we have monsters bursting out of human bodies and going on the attack.  In one such instance, a person in the room when the first alien has been "born" tries to get away and slips in the blood of a dead crewmate.  In practically the same scene - maybe a minute later - another colleague also slips in  the crewman's blood. To me, this does not a good movie make.  Using the same gimmick (slipping in blood) in virtually the same scene and for basically the same effect just exhibits lame filmmaking, lack of creativity, and/or just plain laziness.

Needless to say, these are not the only instances in which the characters exhibit inexplicable behavior, with the only purpose seemingly being the need to move the plot forward. In my opinion, if you can't advance the storyline without (a) having everyone behave like an idiot or (b) improbable events, maybe this is a movie that doesn't need to get made.  (To be honest, I could have done without this one, because it really was a waste of time.)  That said, the Alien films have typically been good, and to be honest, I've actually liked most of the movies in the franchise.  However, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the next movie goes back to form and turns out to be something actually worth watching.  This one was basically crap (and that's if you're being generous with your criticism).

White Settlers

I recently had the opportunity to watch the film White Settlers.  In short, up until the what-the-fuck? ending,  it's actually an entertaining - if not terribly original - movie.  

The premise is one we've seen before: an unsuspecting couple moves to a new place, but - as time goes by - soon finds that all is not well in their new home for one reason or another.

That's basically we have in White Settlers, except there's less of a slow build-up of suspense because everything happens their first night in the house. But I digress.

I initially had a tough time just figuring out if I was watching the right movie. I streamed it via Netflix on my tablet, and when I saw the advert for it, I clicked on it. However, it took me to more detailed information on a film called The Blood Lands, with a picture of a guy wearing a stupid pig mask.  I hit the "Back" button and was taken to the page for White Settlers. I clicked the advert again; I got The Blood Lands.  I did this one or two more times before I realized that the two were the same bloody movie.  Apparently, it was released under more than one name.  (For the record, I've seen this before.  I saw a movie maybe six months back called Into the Grizzly Maze, which had apparently been released under like half-a-dozen titles.)

Anyway, I finally got my arms around the White Settlers/Blood Lands gaffe, and started watching the film. The young couple in the movie were moving from London (I think) to Scotland. First night in, the wife starts hearing strange noises outside, finds exterior doors unlocked (and standing open) and at one point - while she and her husband are upstairs in bed - hears people moving around downstairs.

Her husband pooh-poohs her fears, but after a while it starts to grate on his nerves.

Needless to say, the wife is eventually proven right, as their home is invaded by a bunch of thugs wearing pig masks.  There follows a bunch of hiding, chasing, and son on, but eventually the husband and wife are captured.  They are then tied up and have bags placed over their heads. Ordinarily in a horror movie, this is the point where you expect guts to spill and heads to roll.  That doesn't happen, my friend.  Instead, our hero and heroine, still bound and bagged, awaken in what looks like a park area on a busy street.  Apparently, they were simply taken back to London. (And in another scene, seemingly at the same time, there's a large family gathering at the house they bought in Scotland. The End.

Basically, I didn't know what to make of the ending. I had to peck around until I found out that basically it was a political message, telling the English to stay out of Scotland. (To quote Mel Gibson, "Scotland is free!")  So, a horror movie with a political subtext. You don't come across that every day.

Thankfully, the film wasn't that bad.  However, I mostly watched because the female lead was played by Pollyanna McIntosh. I loved her in Let Us Prey, because her character in that movie was completely bad-ass and I felt she brought a certain amount of fire to the role.  (It's too bad that the ending in Let Us Prey doesn't lend itself to a sequel, because I wouldn't mind seeing McIntosh's character again.)

Anyway, the main problem with White Settlers, as you might say, was the ending.  Maybe it's obvious to people in the UK, but I think the meaning will get lost on a broader audience.  (I was certainly in the dark about what was going on, and rewound the film because I was certain that I had missed something crucial that would explain everything.  Didn't happen.  I was clueless, as I said, until I did some research and found out what the ending was supposed to convey - although it didn't even do that in a straight-forward manner.)  

In short, the film just left me with way too many questions at the end, and that's the last thing you want in a movie.  We go to the movies for escapism most times - not to be forced to put on our thinking caps and figure a bunch of shit out.  Or maybe I just wasn't the audience this film was intended for (which, oddly enough, seems more and more likely the more I think about it).

Blunt Force Trauma (2015)

I'm a movie buff (something the title of this blog probably hints at), and as an outgrowth of that I've become a Netflix junkie. Honestly, I'm not sure what I did before that movie service came along, because it satisfies this insatiable craving I have for films.  

One of the things that I love about Netflix is that it not only lets me sample blockbusters, but also gives me access to smaller films that I might otherwise have never come across.  Some of those movies I end up completely despising, like a pile of dogshit that you accidentally step in. Others, however, end up being something of a guilty pleasure. Blunt Force Trauma is one of the latter. 

First of all the movie has a very interesting premise: there is an underground duelling society where people put on bulletproof jackets and then shoot at each other at close range. You basically win the duel by shooting your opponent enough times - in his vest - that he can't go on.  (The name of the movie comes from the fact that, even though though a bulletproof vest prevents a fired round from penetrating a person's body, they still suffer severe blunt force trauma from the impact.)  Hitting your opponent anywhere other than the vest is an automatic loss - although I can't imagine that's much consolation to the guy who gets his head blown off.

The main character (played by Ryan Kwanten of "True Blood" fame) is one of the insane assholes participating in these duels. He's actually one of the most proficient at it, and has quickly reached the point where he's having difficulty finding challengers. His goal, however, is to face off against Zorringer, who is universally acknowledged as the best of the best in this "sport."  However, a challenge to the mysterious, never-seen Zorringer is by invitation only.  Moreover, there's a buy-in, meaning that you have to pay up in order to face the big dog.  Last but not least, none of those who have accepted the invite have ever come back.  

Needless to say, this isn't your average movie. I mean, the premise alone was worth the price of admission in my book. There are plenty of "underground-fight-club" type movies, but a duelling club? That's a little outside the box, and I like it. The film was well-scripted and managed to combine a lot of different elements: action, romance, crime, revenge, and more. With all of that, the movie had the potential to be a mess, but it actually comes together quite nicely into a cohesive whole. 

As I watched the movie, it occurred to me that Blunt Force Trauma was eerily similar to a film I saw many years ago called Circle of Iron. Starring the late David Carradine (who rose to fame starring in the hit series Kung Fu), Circle of Iron is a somewhat mystical tale of a martial artist who embarks on quest for enlightenment. In this instance, however, enlightenment can only come by finding and defeating a wizard known as Zetan. Along the way, he has to pass certain trials (which usually involving fighting someone) before finally learning where to find Zetan.

In retrospect, BFT can almost be seen as an updating of CoI, which was based on a story by the legendary Bruce Lee (who had intended to star in it before his untimely death).  I enjoyed both movies very much. 

Despite the unusual premise, there were only two things that I found odd about Blunt Force Trauma:  (1) Despite what I said above, no one ever got their head blown off - at least not in a duel.  You'd think that it would be likely to occur, but the most that ever happens is somebody gets winged.  (2) I had to watch the end of the movie several times before I got a hint of how it concludes, because it's not especially clear.  I certainly won't give it away here (I know, after spoilers galore above, right?), but I'd be curious as to whether anyone else who saw it reached the same conclusion that I did.  Regardless, this was a good movie in my opinion, and not one that necessarily needed to be made better.

Aftershock (2013) - Too Long Getting to the Plot

I'm a fan of crime dramas, and there's a certain movie in that genre that I keep telling my DVR to record so I can watch it.  However, what I get each time it's recorded is not the crime drama I expected, but another movie - with the same name - about the sexcapades of two women that comes up just shy of being full-blown porn.  In short, I keep ending up with a different movie than the one I expected to see (not that I'm complaining).  That's exactly how I felt about the film Aftershock (2013) (although in the latter instance, I am definitely complaining.)

According to the description, this movie is supposed to be about the horrific civil unrest that follows a massive earthquake in Chile. Sounds like it could be interesting, right? Wrong!

First of all, the earthquake  - a seminal part of the movie - doesn't actually happen until about 40-50 minutes into the film (which is only about 90 minutes long).  Yes - the event that drives the plot doesn't occur until the movie is about halfway over.  (Frankly speaking, this is what led to my confusion in large part, and had me wondering if I was watching some other movie with the same name as the earthquake film.)

To be honest, up until the earthquake actually happened, I truly thought I was watching some kind of romantic comedy.  (The film basically has three guys bumping into three girls, and they all end up hanging out together.) Even worse, the film probably would have worked better as a rom-com, because the plot really seemed to be leaning in that direction. (I really thought I had the wrong movie thanks to a cameo by Selena Gomez, whose presence I interpret as meaning that she either owed someone a favor or her agent/manager sent her the wrong script.)

Next, because the quake came so late in the film, the major conflict in the movie is also rather tardy. The result is that the entire premise of the movie has to get crammed into the last half of the film, and it's not a good fit. The remainder of the movie feels rushed - as if the director is trying to get in the the Guinness Book of World Records for how much disjointed, violent shit he can shove on-screen in 30 minutes.

It almost goes without saying that this was a low-budget film, but that didn't bother me.  You can make great movies without budgets the size of some countries' GDP, and low-budget movies - in particular, low-budget horror - can be enormously profitable.  This movie, however, just missed the mark on so many levels I'd be hard-pressed to name them all.

As to how this movie could have been better: first of all, the earthquake needed to happen a hell of a lot sooner than the halfway mark.  Maybe the director was going for the slow build, but this wasn't the type of movie where that was likely to work. This was like watching a murder mystery, where the murder doesn't happen  until almost 2/3 of the movie is over.

Next, the movie was pretty uneven. It really leaned towards being perhaps some kind of romantic comedy before suddenly switching gears and becoming something else entirely.

Finally, it was difficult to invest in any of the characters.  In most films, there should be someone that you root for: there's the guy that you want to get the girl, the detective you want to catch the killer, etc.  In this movie, you just really didn't care - you just wanted it to be over.

In short, this was a movie that probably had potential, but those who made the film simply didn't know how to capitalize on it, and ended up instead with a movie that was something of a mess.

The Hollow (2015)

Okay, the movie that will have the dubious honor of being the first that I talk about on this blog will be The Hollow (2015).

The Hollow is a horror movie (which you can probably guess from the movie poster). The premise concerns three young sisters, whose ages seem to range from early teens to early twenties, who are moving to an island to live with their aunt following the death of their parents. (I don't think it's ever made clear, but if I had to guess I'd say the island was off the coast of New England.)

Unbeknownst to the sisters (and their aunt), the island is cursed. Without going into detail, every hundred years a powerful storm strikes  the place, bringing with it a demonic creature that either kills everyone it finds or captures them to be part of a ritual sacrifice.

The one thing that The Hollow has going for it is that it shows the monster right off the bat; we get to see the creature within the first few minutes of the film. Moreover, unlike most horror moves, where bodies just pile up within being seen until the protagonist stumbles across them in the last five minutes of the film, here the bodies are often in plain sight and the creature is quite often witnessed going about its bloody work.  It's actually quite refreshing, to be honest, to see these kinds of movie tropes turned on their head.

Now, of course, we turn to our reason for being here, for this blog: what's wrong with this movie. In my opinion, one of the major flaws related to an issue that I seldom complain about - the acting. There were essentially two female leads, and one of them couldn't act, while the other spent the entire movie overacting. The end result was a product that made it difficult for me to engage in the suspension of disbelief necessary for a film like this; the bad acting just kept being reminding me that I was watching a movie where the producers obviously didn't believe in spending money for talent.

Of course, another flaw had to do with characters exhibiting incredibly stupid behavior (although that's not uncommon for horror movies). For instance, even after it became clear that the creature would investigate any suspicious noise, the characters practically walked around with cowbells on. (Following which, their attitude would be something like, "Oh no! It found us again!") Frankly speaking, I'd much prefer it if moviemakers would put a little thought into the project and try to find a way to advance the plot without having the characters act like morons.

There were other issues as well (eg, dialogue that felt unnatural, lack of context, etc.), but it's hard to know in a lot of instances where to place the blame: the screenwriter? The director? Who?  All in all, The Hollow wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen by a long shot. The problem is that there were a lot of ways in which it could have been better.