Holiday in Handcuffs (2007)

Directed by: Ron Underwood

Starring: Melissa Joan Hart, Mario Lopez, Timothy Bottoms, Markie Post, Kyle Howard, and June Lockhart

Genre: Made for TV, Romantic Comedy, Christmas

Rated: Not Rated

Trudie Chandler is having a terrible day. Everything seems to be going wrong, from her Do-It-Yourself perm frying her hair to missing an important job interview. On top of that, the handsome, successful boyfriend she was bringing home for Christmas breaks up with her. In the midst of a nervous breakdown, Trudie kidnaps David Martin, a customer at the diner where she works, and drags him off to spend the holidays with her equally crazy family.

I have a soft spot for this movie, and I’m really not sure why. It’s a cheesy ABC Family Christmas movie that seems to promote Stockholm Syndrome and kidnapping as the new dating. Yet, it’s so silly, I can’t help but enjoy it.

Melissa Joan Hart is quite funny as the mess that is Trudie. The poor girl can’t catch a break, and she is sick of disappointing her parents time and time again. She kidnaps David and forces him to play along as her boyfriend, Nick, so her parents won’t think she’s a failure yet again. Her desperation does make the viewer pity her, and seeing the way her parents treat her, one can almost sympathize with her temporary insanity. Even David sees this, which is why he begins to care for her on some level.

David’s character is very sweet and charming. He’s more than just the pretty rich boy she thinks he is. It's sad to me that she kidnaps him, and he is more loving toward her than her own family is – with the exception of her brother. Her mother keeps saying Trudie is “trying to ruin Christmas” and her Dad is on her case about the missed job interview. No one has faith in her first true love – art, so they push her to marry rich so she’ll have someone to take care of her. I wanted to knock her parents’ heads together for the way they treat all three of the kids.

The highlights of the movie for me are the horny gas station attendant, David’s girlfriend’s maid, and June Lockhart as Grandma. All made me laugh with their antics. The gas station attendant giving her free fuzzy handcuffs and grumbling about how David was a lucky bastard, Maria torturing her boss and Grandma pulling a gun on the cops all had me giggling.

The ending is predictable and cheesy the way all romantic comedies are, yet I still find it cute. Trudie gets a taste of her own medicine and her family stops being jerks. Happy endings are a must for a romantic comedy.

Overall, it’s a fun little movie if you can suspend disbelief and just go with it. It does have a lot of adult humor, so it’s probably better suited for ages twelve and above, despite it being a part of the ABC Family 25 Days of Christmas countdown. It is a cute film, despite the sexual innuendo, and is a bit of light-hearted fluff to get viewers into the Holiday spirit.

6/10

12 Dates of Christmas (2011)

Directed by: James Hayman

Starring: Amy Smart, Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Jayne Eastwood, Benjamin Ayres, and Laura Miyata

Genre: Made for TV, Romance, Comedy, Christmas

Rated: Not rated

Following in the same vein as Groundhog Day and Christmas Every Day, 12 Dates of Christmas is about a young woman named Kate who is stuck in the past. She is successful in her career, but her love life is a mess. She is still hung up on a guy she dated a while ago, and can’t seem to let go of him when he has clearly moved on. Meanwhile, her stepmother has set her up on a blind date with a sweet, handsome, successful man, and Kate continues to screw it up. Luckily for her, a mystical force has intervened and she will relive Christmas Eve over and over until she gets it right.

I really did not like Kate at first. She was rude to everyone and so stuck in the past that I wanted to slap her. She was rude to her neighbor, who is just lonely and trying to be nice. She treats her stepmother like crap for no other reason than she is not Kate’s mother. Not to mention, she shows up on her date with Miles and practically ignores him for two minutes before rushing off to meet up with her ex. Eventually, she does begin to change things, and gradually becomes more likable, but that isn’t until about the halfway point, so until then the audience has to suffer through her idiocy.

Miles is the compilation of perfection that can only exist in a romantic comedy – handsome, successful, sweet, intelligent, and genuinely loving. Yet Kate turns her nose up at him time and again in her quest for perfection. She is so hooked on the idea of her ex that she can’t see the wonderful man before her.

I began to get frustrated with the plot after a while. She has the cutest date with him about sixty percent through the movie, but obviously the film can’t end there, so she has to relive another six days until we get to the end of the movie. There was so much she seemed to have to do to end the cursed repetition that it was a little overwhelming.

There were also some scenes that were unnecessary and/or confusing. I didn’t think her shopping spree on one of the days did anything for the film and could have easily been cut. She also seemed to have her ex’s dog on all of the days, even when he doesn’t show up at her apartment and give her the dog for the evening. Somehow the dog is just magically there. Also, I want to know what happens with Michael’s puppy.

What I did like about this movie was its message about trying to control the world around you. Life doesn’t work on a schedule; you cannot plan out every major event. Love happens, death happens, friends come and go; all you can do is make the most of each day. Don’t close yourself off to new relationships whether they be neighborly, friendly, familial or romantic, because you’ll never find your way to happiness. It is a very true message, and a lesson the main character desperately needed to learn.

Overall, it’s a fairly predictable, cute little romance, with some character development. It does have a few unanswered questions, and the leading lady is incredibly annoying at first. It’s a little cheesy and could have used some more editing, but it’s not a bad little movie and it has a nice message.

5.5/10

Scream Bloody Murder (1973)

AKA: "The Captive Female,” “Claw of Terror,” and “Matthew”

Directed by: Marc B. Ray

Starring: Fred Holbert, Leigh Mitchell, Robert Knox and Angus Scrimm

Genre: Horror, Thriller, Exploitation, Slasher

Rated: R

As a child, Matthew killed his father, managing to lose his hand in the process. Ten or fifteen years later, he is released from a mental institution, his hand replaced with a hook. Upon arriving home, he discovers that his mother has remarried. Angered by this revelation, Matthew embarks on a killing spree, only pausing when he meets Vera, a free-spirited artist and prostitute who greatly resembles his mother. After spending time with Vera, Matthew decides that he must have her, no matter what the cost.

The first half of this movie is a slasher, while the second half is basically Matthew holding Vera captive. The first kill is pretty cheesy, but they get slightly better as the film progresses. The gore effects, however, are pretty awful, with the blood almost watery in some scenes. Once Matthew acquires a house and kidnaps Vera, the film slows down and becomes more of a suspense piece between the two of them.

Clearly Matthew has Oedipal issues that need to be resolved, something the asylum he was in as a boy must never have thought to tackle. His character is rather grating, especially his whiney voice. He is also afraid of anything sexual, thinking any man touching a woman in a sexual nature is hurting her. He goes into attack mode whenever he witnesses people showing affection toward one another. Vera is a strong, intelligent woman, despite the fact that she is a prostitute (an uncommon combination in films such as this). She seems to have a big heart, but she’s also willing to fight for her own safety.

While the tagline, “When You’re In Her Business, Sooner Or Later, It Has To Happen!” makes it seem like Vera was asking for this psycho to abduct her, the film doesn’t portray it that way. Vera is a much more sympathetic character than Matthew, and I longed for her to be able to escape his clutches. I loved that she was stubborn and resilient, despite her fear of Matthew and his psychotic rage. She spits food in his face when he tries to force feed her, and her escape attempts are honorable. Especially when, bound hand and foot, she manages to limbo out of the ropes binding her to a chair, hop downstairs, make her way to the telephone, use it to pull the gag from her mouth, then use her tongue to dial the operator for help. Some people find this scene laughable, but it’s a heck of a lot more than most damsels-in-distress do. I found the scene suspenseful and her efforts admirable.

The acting in this film wasn’t the greatest, but this is bottom-of-the-barrel grindhouse sleaze, so what do you expect? Holbert gives a decent performance as the perpetually childish, psychotic Matthew and his line delivery in a few scenes makes the film. For example, his calm, casual delivery of this line when Vera refuses to eat, “Eat, or I’ll cut your tongue from your mouth.” He ranges from this to a child-like tantrum when he brings Vera his gifts and she isn’t impressed, “See what I do for you? I get groceries and clothes and art stuff and kill people. And do you appreciate it? No!” (I can’t help it; I laughed at this line, a lot.) Leigh Mitchell kept up a strong performance as Vera, varying from friendly free spirit to fearful (but not pathetic) damsel to seductress. However, her portrayal of Matthew’s mother was very weak – though, in all honesty, so was his mother. The worst performance by far was from Robert Knox as Matthew’s stepfather – wooden and unable to express emotion, even fear. His shocked expression is almost laugh-inducing. 

This film also had its random moments, some funny, such as the dual-cane wielding old woman (whom the viewer and Matthew believed to be bed-ridden) and Matthew’s apparent ability to teleport at the end of the movie. There was an unnecessary scene where he killed the old woman’s dog – a dog that wasn’t doing anything to him. That scene felt like it had just been thrown in for shock value and could have been left out without marring the film in any way. 

There is no nudity in this flick, so if that’s what you’re looking for, you’re in the wrong place. The most you will see is Mitchell’s bare back when she’s getting ready to bathe, and even though she is supposedly naked, you can see the top of her underwear. It’s important to distinguish this from many other exploitation films of the era that dealt with rape and women held captive. Matthew kidnaps Vera because he wants a live-in companion, a friend, and a mother-like figure. He is attracted to her, but his fear of sex and the way he views her keeps him from trying anything sexual – something a little different for that sub-genre.

Overall, this was an okay flick. The performances were decent, some dialogue and scenes unintentionally funny, and the character of Vera was very likable. There was also a decent amount of suspense, despite the bad special effects and overall cheese.

5/10

Looper (2012)

Directed by: Rian Johnson

Starring: Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emily Blunt, Piper Perabo, and Jeff Daniels

Genre: Science Fiction, Action/Adventure, Thriller

Rated: R

By the year 2072, time travel will have been invented and the use of it banned. Only the biggest criminals will use it as a way of killing off their targets and disposing of the bodies. Enter Joe (Gordon-Levitt) a looper, who lives in the year 2042 and kills these people as they appear before him. However, his life of casually killing comes to an end when he encounters his future self (Willis). When his loop escapes, Joe realizes he has to find his older self and kill him in order to get his own life back.

I didn’t know what to think of this film going into it. I had seen minimal promotion for it and only had a basic grasp of the plot, which seemed interesting. Plus, I enjoy both Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as actors, so I figured it was worth a watch. I came out of it satisfied with my choice.

One of the things that struck me about this film is how even though none of the characters are really that likable, I still managed to care for them. Joe is a selfish person, driven by anger from his past, and greed. He takes drugs and kills people for a living and only slowly begins to grow a conscience as the movie progresses. Old Joe isn’t much better, as his focus on preventing something from happening in the future takes him back to the ways he’d long given up for love. Sara (Blunt) is a recovering addict trying to raise a son that resents her, which would be attractive if she wasn’t such a dishonest person. Yet somehow, Johnson has written these characters so that despite their flaws, the audience still wants things to work out in their favor. He was also able to create enough suspense that I tensed up, worried for them and wanting them to make it out of bad situations.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was an amazing lead for this film. He was able to capture Bruce Willis’s mannerisms and make me believe they were the same person. He made a believable assassin, which I never would have pictured him playing prior to this. He carried the film with ease and truly has that leading man charisma. British actress Emily Blunt was able to pull off a believable American accent. She also did very well as the troubled young mother looking to protect her child from the nastiness in the world. While Bruce Willis did a great job with the action sequences, I would have liked to see him express more emotion, such as during the scenes with his wife. (Though, in all fairness, a trained assassin probably has a very hard time doing such a thing.) Still, it would have made his character a little more sympathetic.

While this is an action movie, I wouldn’t call it a typical film of the genre. There is a lot more going on than scenes of violence and explosions. Our characters do develop and relationships are formed. Despite the fact that Joe originally comes off as heartless, there’s no denying that he cares for Sara and her son, Cid, even if he acts like his only motivation is to kill his loop and get his life back.

The action sequences themselves were very well done. I thought the filmmakers did a good job spacing them out so the viewer didn’t get an action overload. This gives the audience a chance to get involved with the characters and the aforementioned relationships between them, without constantly being distracted by violence or explosions.

The one scene I found jarring was the sex scene between Joe and Sara. It felt very out of place. I know it was probably there to show she has gained a trust for him and demonstrate their budding relationship, but I feel that could have been done another way. His scenes with Cid were enough to establish the connection, as well as the conversations between him and Sara. I think the movie would have been just as good without it.

Overall, aside from the unnecessary sex scene, the film was very entertaining. The acting, pacing, and writing were great and the concept was original. I hope to see more films like this in the future. 

7/10

Beautiful Boy (2010)

Directed by: Shawn Ku

Starring: Michael Sheen, Maria Bello, Alan Tudyk, Moon Bloodgood, and Kyle Gallner

Genre: Drama

Rated: R

A once loving family has long since stopped communicating. With their only son away for his freshman year at college, Kate (Bello) and Bill (Sheen) go through their monotonous daily routine, leaning ever closer to divorce. When Sammy (Gallner) goes on a shooting spree, taking his own life and those of several classmates, they have no choice but to band together against the media and public outcry, even when their own relationship is extremely fragile.

This movie is not an easy one to watch. The subject matter is dark, and the overall film is depressing. Yet, it is a film that I feel needed to be made. With such tragic acts of violence occurring so often in our society, we often blame the parents of the perpetrators. This film was rather daring in its focus on the negative effects an event like this can have on those the shooter leaves behind. It was nice to see another side to a story like this, rather than focus on the carnage involved in these scenarios.

The film did a great job depicting the grief the Kate and Bill were feeling, as well as how they were ostracized by people they once called friends and neighbors. The press staked out their home and offices, so they had to hide out with relatives. Their lives become very rough, and the viewer can’t help but wonder why Sammy would be so selfish as to do this to his family.

The only thing I wanted after the credits rolled was more about Sammy. All we really know about him is from his parents’ perspective and the few snippets of him at school. It’s obvious he is depressed and feeling overlooked, like no one ever listened to him. The only sense of his character is given through the short story that he reads, bookending the film. A story which is beautiful, but no one seems to understand. Yet through this story, and Gallner’s brief portrayal of this troubled young man, the viewer gets a sense of desperation and an urge to hug him – despite the awful things he’s about to do, and even after he does them.

The performances in the film were all top-notch. Sheen and Bello gave honest, moving performances as the grieving parents. Their pain was almost tangible, and while I didn’t always agree with some of their actions, I understood them. I also loved Alan Tudyk as Kate’s brother, Eric, who takes them in for a while. He just comes off as such a loving, funny guy, and the brief scene where he is playing with his son is so adorable that I can’t help but smile. While Moon Bloodgood did a great job as Trish, her character irritated me a lot, and I felt she caused a lot of unnecessary drama. She could have been a little more compassionate than she was. 

This is one of those films that it is very hard not to get emotionally involved in. I can’t call it enjoyable, because, with such subject matter, how could it be? What it is is a solid story with believable, sympathetic characters, great acting, and an honest view from a new perspective. 

8/10 

Spooner (2009)

Directed by: Drake Doremus

Starring: Matthew Lillard, Nora Zehetner, Shea Whigham, Kate Burton, and Christopher McDonald

Genre: Independent, Romantic Comedy, Comedy

Rated: R

Socially awkward Herman Spooner (Lillard) is facing eviction from his parents’ house on his 30^th birthday. The closer he gets to the big day, the more he tries to stall. With a job he’s not very good at and no friends to speak of, his parents’ home is a comfort to him. Then he meets Rose (Zehetner), a pretty, goofy girl willing to go after what she wants, and he realizes he has to do the same if he wants to keep her.

This is a cute little indie romance. Both of the lead characters are quirky, though Spooner definitely is moreso than Rose. She’s carefree and willing to follow her dreams, wherever they may lead her. He has a rough time communicating with anyone and is something of a joke to his colleagues. Yet she finds his social awkwardness charming, and the audience can’t help but feel the same.

What makes this film work is the chemistry between Lillard and Zehetner. They seem to really be enjoying each other’s company, and are almost kids again when they’re together. Burton and McDonald (who also played Lillard’s father in SLC Punk!) really feel like loving but fed up parents. They want to maintain a strong relationship with their son, but feel that it really is time for him to leave the nest and get on with his life. The only unlikable characters are the knuckleheads that Spooner works with – because they are meant to be obnoxious jerks, especially his boss (Whigham).

It was nice to see Lillard play the lead in a romance for once. Back in the ‘90s, he was always a secondary character to hunks like Freddie Prinze Jr., despite the fact that he is far more talented. It was great to see him have his turn to shine, and his performance made you root for his character despite the stupid things he does. Like his parents, the audience wants to see Spooner land on his own two feet and make it on his own.

The film doesn’t follow the traditional romantic comedy formula either, which I really liked. Neither character sacrifices something they want to be with the other one, both just live their lives and hope to make it work. It’s not a typical romance, but these aren’t typical characters, and I feel their relationship is grounded more in reality than those in many other films.

Overall, this is a cute indie romantic comedy that slightly breaks tradition, with quirky likable characters and a simple plot. The performances and chemistry between the actors make this film a fun, feel-good flick.

6.5/10

Cold Sweat (1994)

Directed by: Gail Harvey

Starring: Ben Cross, Adam Baldwin, Shannon Tweed, Dave Thomas, Henry Czerny, Maria del Mar and Lenore Zann

Genre: Thriller, Erotic Thriller

Rated: R

Mark Cahill (Cross) is a family man with a beautiful wife and two healthy young boys. However, he is harboring a secret life as a gun for hire. After killing a woman (Zann) on his last job, she haunts him wherever he goes. Meanwhile, he is about to be caught in the middle of a web of betrayal when he is hired to kill his next target.

This was a pretty dull thriller. I went into it not expecting much and that’s about what I got out of it. None of the characters are really likable. The only one who is really sympathetic is Cahill’s wife Joanne (del Mar), as she has no clue about her husband’s true career or why he doesn’t seem to want to make love anymore. The rest of the characters are all rather despicable. Mark is a hit man who, up until his sudden development of a conscience, had no problem dispatching innocent people. Beth (Tweed) is having sex with every man in her life except her husband Larry (Thomas), which is almost understandable as he is such a jerk to her and everyone else around him. Sean (Czerny) is one of Beth’s lovers as well as Larry’s business partner, and Mitch (Baldwin) is her low-life former boyfriend turned lover. All of these characters have secrets and evil tendencies and no one is safe.

As this is classified as an erotic thriller, T&A abounds in this flick. Tweed is naked in at least 75% of her scenes, and both Zann and del Mar show off their breasts at least once. At least there was a little male nudity to make up for it from Baldwin and Czerny, but nothing to really get excited about.

The performances were alright for what the film called for. Cross’s performance was rather stiff as Cahill, and he really only showed some sort of emotion at the climax of the film, but not in scenes where he should. Thomas seems to have the grouchy, middle-aged, drug addicted business man down pact, and Tweed mostly just had to get naked with some attractive men. She does show a bit of talent at the twist-filled climax, however. Baldwin injects a little bit of humor into his childish hoodlum and Czerny is rather wooden. The performances fit the roles, but brought nothing special to them.

The plot is the biggest issue with this flick. Why does a man who has been killing professionally for years suddenly develop a conscience? There is nothing special about Zann’s character other than the fact that she’s cute, an overall innocent bystander, and Cross’s character witnesses her having sex with his intended victim. I don’t really see how any of these factors would make a man like him feel bad for what he’s done. Many of the people he’s been hired to kill are probably innocent too. Also, the twists and turns are fairly predictable and I saw the ending coming long before I reached it.

Overall, this is a pretty lame thriller with a problematic plot and unlikable characters, but plenty of nudity. It’s not terrible but it’s not really good either.

5/10 

See No Evil (2006)

Directed by: Gregory Dark

Starring: Glenn Jacobs (AKA: Kane), Christina Vidal, Michael R. Pagan, Samantha Noble, Steven Vidler, Rachael Taylor, Penny McNamee, Craig Horner, Luke Pegler and Mikhael Wilder

Genre: Horror, Slasher

Rated: R

A group of eight juvenile delinquents have been brought to an abandoned hotel for a weekend job of cleaning it up for renovations. It’s not long before the teenaged offenders and their chaperones are slowly being picked off.

This film has very little to offer the viewing public. There are only two likable characters – Christine and Kira - in the entire script and we barely get to know them. All of the characters are very one-dimensional, but these two appear to have some sort of back stories, which are hinted at but never really discussed. The rest include many of Hollywood’s well-known stereotypes: the blonde snotty girl, the vegetarian/eco-friendly girl, the abusive jerk, the goofball, the “nice guy” and the token black guy – with little to no personality between them. The killer might have been more interesting if they let him go on battling his conflicting beliefs revealed during the climax rather than rushing to the ending.

The plot was filled with clichés as well. The killer is the way he is due to an abusive upbringing and being brainwashed by a crazy religious zealot. He believes he is doing God’s work by killing all sinners. He also appears to be superhuman, being able to survive a gunshot wound to the head. People split up and get killed off. The kids who do drugs and have sex get killed. Both “twists” were also incredibly predictable, having been done many times before in older horror films.

The kills were boring as well. At first the eye gouging was shocking, but it just became monotonous after a while. We don’t need to see him take out each and every eyeball. We get it, that’s his trademark, move on. The only interesting death was done via an inventive use for a cell phone – which came off as rather campy. Also, the use of CGI in the final confrontation with the killer was horribly done. It would have been much better with physical effects rather than animated.

Lastly, there were three more small things that bothered me. The first is the wardrobe for the female characters – they are at this hotel as a part of a cleaning crew, yet all of them are wearing high heels. That’s a smart thing to wear when you’re going to be on your feet all day. Second, the random bees that apparently live inside the killer’s head and come flying out at random. The guy is practically a walking corpse, slowly decomposing, yet strong enough to dispatch numerous bland characters.Third, and this one is a possible spoiler so be warned: they let the worst possible character live. The one person who deserved a vicious, brutal death gets to walk out of the building with nary a scratch on him. 

Overall, the film brings nothing new to the table. The characters are bland, the plot predictable and the kills dull. The killer had the potential to be interesting, but nothing was made of the conflict he seems to be facing at the end of the movie. It could have been a fun flick if the writers had actually attempted to write a believable story with likable characters – even if it wasn’t original. 

4/10

Cougars, Inc. (2011)

Directed by: K. Asher Levin

Starring: Kyle Gallner, Kathryn Morris, Denise Richards, Sarah Hyland and James Belushi

Genre: Drama, Comedy

Rated: R

Having been expelled from many private high schools in his four-year-career, Sam (Gallner) finally finds himself at one he enjoys. He has a fun group of friends and a “cool” headmaster. When Sam discovers that his mother can no longer pay his tuition, he is quite upset. After meeting an older woman in a bar and winding up in bed with her, Sam and his friends come up with a plan to keep him in school by creating an escort service and prostituting themselves to older women.

This film was mediocre at best. It is not my usual choice of film to begin with, but I decided to give it a shot because of Kyle Gallner playing the lead. Oh, Kyle, this crap is beneath your acting abilities. What are you doing?

Gallner’s performance is honestly the only thing this film has going for it. The other actors do their best with what they have, but their characters are so one-dimensional it really doesn’t matter. Kathryn Morris is great when she is on the screen as well, but the story is obviously centered around Sam, his friends, and Dan, the headmaster (Belushi).

The storyline could have been believable, but the writing was poorly executed. The film is supposed to depict the struggles Sam encounters as he tries to balance his business with his real life, and not allow the two to intermix. This would have been a lot easier to follow if Sam was a sympathetic character from the beginning, but he’s not. He claims all of his past expulsions were part of a string of bad luck, he’s a victim of circumstance, nothing is his fault. Somehow, the headmaster agrees with him and takes him under his wing, not even getting mad at Sam when he has every right to be. The women are all interchangeable – each one has a similar story, each one is gorgeous and willing to hop into bed with the nearest eighteen-year-old boy, no matter how nerdy looking he is. Give me a break; women like Kathryn Morris and Denise Richards could have any man they wanted, why would they select an average looking high school senior? It also irritated me that there was no positive adult female character. All the mothers in this film were depicted as laughable and practically unfit, running around with young boys and encouraging underage drinking. The dialogue also seemed forced in a lot of places, attempting to be hip and with this generation, but failing. 

The camera work was awful as well. There were times when the camera was obviously shaking when there was no need for it. As I was watching the film, I was thinking, “Has the filmmaker never heard of a tripod?” Seriously, a tripod and a dolly would have solved many of the film’s aesthetic issues.  Apparently the director was going for a “realistic” vibe, but all I got from his style was amateur, inexperienced, and shoddy.

Overall, the film was pretty bad, and beneath many of the cast members’ actual talents. Gallner, Morris and Richards are all above this inane flick. The characters are shallow, the dialogue forced and the camera work poor.

4.5/10

I Spit on Your Grave (1978) Vs I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
AKA: Day of the Woman

Directed by: Meir Zarchi

Starring: Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor, Richard Pace, Anthony Nichols and Gunter Kleeman

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: Unrated

Jennifer Hills (Keaton) is an independent writer from New York City, renting a cottage in the country to work on her first novel. Her relaxing summer getaway soon turns into a nightmare when she is attacked and raped repeatedly by four men from town. After her ordeal, she resolves to make these men pay.

This film is not for the easily disturbed. The rape scenes are very graphic and take up about a quarter of the movie. This flick is actually known to have the longest rape scene in a feature film. I wouldn’t say that is exactly something to be proud of, but it gives potential viewers a scale to measure whether they want to see the film or not. Jennifer is held down and forcibly penetrated, beaten mercilessly for fifteen minutes before being left for dead in the home she thought she would be safe in.

While the above sequence was brutal, drawn out and hard to watch, it did portray how horrific rape actually is. The revenge scenes were where things took a turn for the ridiculous. For instance, in getting back at two of her assailants, she seduces them and performs sexual acts despite the fact that she had been brutalized by these men only weeks ago. One of these men, she had the opportunity to kill out in a field where no one would notice, but decides, instead to bring him back to her house for a hot bath. Granted, this led to a much more vicious death, but it was ridiculous and not something I would think a recent rape victim willing to do. I think these scenes would have been more effective if the seduction hadn’t been a part of it. I also feel that the way she went about killing these men off was risky and left a trail leading right back to her. Maybe at that point she didn’t care anymore.

As for the acting, Keaton does a good job alternating from the carefree writer to the broken victim and, finally, to the woman hell-bent on revenge. Richard Pace is very believable as the mentally disabled Matthew, making him almost pitiable. In some ways, I do feel he was also a victim of his friends’ animalistic behavior. While it was wrong for him to participate, I do feel he was forced to a degree, and was afraid of what the other men would do if he refused. The other men are just common egotistical trash who think they have the right to invade the private parts of any woman they choose.

I didn’t like the style the film was shot in at all. To me, there were way too many wide-angle establishing shots where there should have been medium ones. I felt too far away from the characters when they were introduced for the first time at the gas station. I felt that some moments deserved to be closed in on because the multitude of extra space was simply distracting. The director used maybe three different types of shots throughout the entire film.

Overall, despite decent performances from Keaton and Pace, this film has little to stand on. The cinematography is amateur and Keaton’s behavior in the revenge sequences seemed highly unlikely and more of an excuse to show off the actress’s body. Aside from brutality, this film has little to offer.

4.5/10

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

Directed by: Steven R. Monroe

Starring: Sarah Butler, Jeff Branson, Andrew Howard, Daniel Franzese, Rodney Eastman and Chad Lindberg

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: Unrated

Young novelist, Jennifer Hills, has rented out a secluded country cabin by a lake to work on her next book. She sees this summer retreat as a great way to relax and let her creativity flow. Her summer plans are destroyed when she is attacked, humiliated, beaten and brutally raped by five local men. Leaving her for dead, these men soon discover what it’s like to be terrified when Jennifer comes back for revenge.

I never thought I’d see the day when I’d legitimately say that a modern remake is better than the original film. I especially didn’t think this would be the one to curb my usual anti-remake tirade, as I thought there was no way that this could capture the essence of the original. However, this remake is different from many I’ve seen in the past because it actually has respect for the original subject matter. The original was a bare-bones outline while this version is the flesh to fill it in.

The writing is much better in this version. The characters are more defined and have their own little quirks. Jennifer’s much stronger and smarter in this version as well. She employs many well-known tactics to try to scare off an attacker, she fights back and she tries going to the police for help. (Something that she did not do in the original, which makes her killing spree a little less justifiable.) It is only after these methods fail that Jennifer takes matters into her own hands.

The character of Matthew was even more sympathetic to me in this one than the last. Again, he is almost as much of a victim as Jennifer, herself, because he never would have done anything to her without being forced by his “friends.” He is visibly horrified by the things being done to her and powerless to stop them. His actual participation, no matter the motive is unforgivable, but it can be debated that he was raped too. He is also the only one to feel remorse when the deed is done.

The length of the rape scene is toned down from the original, abiding by the less is more ideal. The audience sees a lot more of the emotional torment and humiliation the men inflict upon Jennifer and less of the violent acts themselves. We don’t need to see each individual man take his turn to get the point that each one violated her. Cutaway shots and dialogue can fill in what the filmmakers didn’t feel necessary to show. Both this technique and the original’s drawn out sequence successfully show the horror of rape, but this film does a better job of addressing the emotional breakdown of the victim.

The revenge sequences in this film aren’t entirely realistic, but at least they’re not insulting like those in the original. These attacks are thoroughly planned out, violent and cruel, and admittedly, reminiscent of the traps in the Saw franchise, but at least she’s not seducing these men to lure them to their demise. This is no femme fatale – this is a brutalized woman, probably half-insane, hell-bent on revenge. These kills are examples of what many people believe men like this to deserve – a fantasy of what some would like to do to such offenders. They also raise the issue that violence begets violence, and the question of whether Jennifer was any better than the men who attacked her when all was said and done.

The gore in this film is extensive and as uncomfortable as the rape and humiliation scenes. The torture these men endure at the hands of this young woman is every bit as detailed as the things they put her through – many of which are twisted around and used against them. This movie really is not for the squeamish.

The acting is also well-done. Sarah Butler really gives it her all in both the scenes where she is victimized and when she is doing the victimizing. Despite her tiny size and the fact that she’d hardly be able to move these guys – at least 180 to 230 lbs of dead weight – she manages to sell it with her performance. Chad Lindberg is very believable as the mentally challenged Matthew, making him less of a source of humor and more a source of partial sympathy. Jeff Branson was incredibly intimidating as Johnny, and I was actually surprised at how believable Daniel Franzese (the lovable Damien from Mean Girls) was as the voyeuristic Stanley. It was also cool to see horror veteran, Rodney Eastman (Joey from A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 & 4) cast in this film as well.

As I mentioned above, this remake truly seems to respect the source material for what it was – an exploitation cult classic of the rape-revenge oeuvre. This version just strengthened the original story and made subtle nods to the original film, i.e. the total price of gas ringing up to $19.78, etc. I also loved that they kept the same creepy harmonica tune from the original film.

Overall, this is one of the rare remakes you will see me value over the original film. The characters are much stronger, the heroine’s motives more understandable and the overall tone creepier. I actually felt a little creeped out being alone in my house after watching this film in broad daylight. That alone earns this film points as that is hard to do. This is not a film for everyone, and I don’t recommend it unless you’re familiar with the sub-genre of exploitation film and enjoy gory revenge flicks. For being the type of film that it is, it did its job well.

7/10

Ted (2012)

Directed by: Seth MacFarlane

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Joel McHale, Giovanni Ribisi, Patrick Warburton and Patrick Stewart

Genre: Comedy

Rated: R

As a young boy, John Bennett had a hard time making friends. None of the neighborhood children wanted to play with him and he was lonely most of the time. That all changed when his beloved teddy bear came to life as a result of a Christmas wish. Fast forward twenty-seven years and Ted and John are still best friends that do everything together. John (Wahlberg) is in a serious relationship with Lori (Kunis), a young career woman who is more than a little fed up with his and Ted’s antics. It’s a story about growing up, learning how to balance love and friendships, and accepting adult responsibilities.

Before deconstructing the film for review, let me just say, if you are not a fan of any of MacFarlane’s television shows (Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show) then you should probably just avoid this film all together. If you don’t like crude humor and inappropriate jokes mixed with bathroom humor, it’s best not to give this one a watch. In fact, you should probably stop reading this review right now. However, if these things are right up your alley, please continue.

As a MacFarlane fan, I found this film hilarious. I loved the references to ‘80s television and film, the New England culture references, and the multiple cameos (most notably Ryan Reynolds). There is something to offend everyone here, but if you’re familiar with MacFarlane’s work, that should already be a given. 

Is the plot predictable? Yes. The film is part romantic comedy, part bromance – both genres are fairly formulaic. I think, as viewers, we all knew how it was going to end when we were walking in there. As soon as Donny the Creeper (Ribisi) shows up, you know he’s going to have some hand in the climax. While the humor is similar to that of Family Guy, the plot is fairly straight forward, unlike the randomness of the aforementioned TV show.

What I really liked about the film was using the teddy bear as a metaphor for that one immature friend that many guys can’t let go of – the bad influence that has never gone away. Despite the over-the-top comedy in the film, it does contain a message about growing up and taking on adult responsibilities, as well as learning to respect the different relationships people have in life.

The acting was decent as well. Mark Wahlberg makes his jokes so much better simply by putting them out there with a completely straight face. Still, Mila Kunis had the actual “straight man” role in this film, having to react to all the ridiculous actions of the men around her – from John and Ted, to her pervert boss, Rex (McHale). Of course, the most memorable character is Ted, the foul-mouthed, pot smoking, drunk, skirt chasing teddy bear, who remarkably has somewhat of a character arc despite his offensive nature. Donny takes a close second place though, with his creepy behavior and gyrating dance to Tiffany's "I Think We're Alone Now."

Overall, it’s hilarious if you go in expecting little more than an uncensored version of Family Guy. The cast is great, as are the jokes, and the final message of the film. Despite its predictability, it is still a very fun watch.

6.5/10

Magic Mike (2012)

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh

Starring: Channing Tatum, Matthew McConaughey, Matt Bomer, Alex Pettyfer, Olivia Munn, Adam Rodriguez, Joe Manganiello, Gabriel Iglesias and Cody Horn

Genre: Comedy, Drama

Rated: R

Mike (Tatum) is an aspiring entrepreneur – he manages a construction company, does car detailing, and longs to create his own business selling custom-made furniture. He also strips in order to finance these side-projects at a club he co-owns with his friend Dallas (McConaughey). On a roofing job, he meets Adam (Pettyfer), a struggling kid living on his sister’s couch. Mike takes Adam under his wing and introduces him to the world of male-stripping and everything that comes with it. While Adam gets sucked into this lifestyle of money, drugs and women, Mike finds it lacking and longs for something more.

Before launching into a full critique of the film, I have to warn the viewers: Despite the way the film is marketed in the previews, this is NOT fully a comedy. There is a darker storyline addressed here that killed the mood for some audience members. I went to the film to have a good time, and the darker aspects of the film took me by surprise. The story actually takes a bit of a depressing turn halfway through, taking away the fun aura that had engulfed it in the beginning.

That being said, this was not a great film – but, it being about a group of male strippers that includes some well-known Hollywood hunks, we can doubt that most in the audience are looking for some Oscar-worthy material. While the story is loosely based on Tatum’s life prior to Hollywood, it didn’t feel original to me. There was one scene between Bomer, Pettyfer and two women in a bedroom that I felt I’d seen almost word-for-word in another film.

I really couldn’t bring myself to care about any of the characters in the film. Mike is a charming ladies’ man, who seems to have other wants and dreams, but the film never really focuses on that. His charm and humor are likable, but ultimately, I really didn’t care where he ended up. Brooke (Horn) is just flat and boring as Mike’s love interest. Dallas is a sleazy, conceited former stripper with a silver tongue. Adam is likable at first, but as he gets more involved in the lifestyle, he becomes a jerk. The rest of the men in the film were really just there to look good, their characters fairly interchangeable.

Performance-wise, Alex Pettyfer probably gave the best one as “The Kid.” He had to portray the loss of innocence as he slowly gets sucked into this new world. McConaughey was fun as Dallas. Horn’s acting was wooden, and Tatum has never really struck me as anything more than a pretty face with amazing dance skills. Lastly, were we really supposed to buy comedian Gabriel Iglesias as a drug dealer? All I could think of when he was onscreen was “I’m not fat, I’m fluffy!” I love his stand-up, but this was not the role for him.

Now, for the dancing/strip-scenes:   Tatum had the best dance moves by far, but McConaughey’s striptease is the most memorable. All of the segments are well-choreographed, especially the group acts. I did feel that the writhing of the male package in the female audience member’s faces was a bit much and not sexy at all. Otherwise, these scenes were fun and enjoyable for both the choreography and the half-to-fully naked men.

On the nudity, there is definitely more male nudity than female in this film; however, Olivia Munn does bare her breasts. Fully bare bottoms include Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer and Matthew McConaughey. Rodriguez, Bomer and Manganiello rock the thongs. The eye candy is worthy of a decent rating alone.

Overall, the story is fairly unoriginal and the characters really aren’t anything special. It is entertaining in many places, but there is also a darker, more dramatic part of the story. There is great eye candy and choreography but the film isn’t a must-see.

6/10

Wish Upon a Star (1996)

Directed by: Blair Treu

Starring: Katherine Heigl, Danielle Harris, Donnie Jeffcoat, Scott Wilkinson, Mary Parker Williams, Matt Barker and Lois Chiles

Genre: Teen, Family

Rated: PG

In this take on the Freaky Friday switcheroo, the story follows two sisters, Alexia and Hayley Wheaton, who couldn’t be more different. Alexia (Heigl) is beautiful, outgoing and popular, but a bit of an airhead. Hayley (Harris) is her nerdy socially awkward little sister who would do anything to live Alexia’s life. One night while studying for an astronomy exam, Hayley sees a shooting star and makes a wish. The next morning, the girls have switched bodies. What follows is both comical and dramatic as the girls learn what life is like in each other’s lives and the true bond of sisterhood.

I first saw this movie as a kid, when the Disney channel actually played movies worth watching. It was often paired back to back with either Susie Q or the Escape to Witch Mountain remake. I loved everything about this movie, but mostly Heigl’s wardrobe. However, I did become a fan of both Harris and Heigl because of this movie and have followed the work of both actresses ever since.

Now, I still adore the film. While the concept isn’t exactly original – it has been done to death in countless versions of Freaky Friday and multiple knock offs – the writing and performances really pulled the film together. The other actors fade into the background around our two leading ladies. Danielle Harris did an excellent job of switching from the shy, nerdy outcast to the snotty, nit-picky popular girl. Heigl’s performance is a bit less convincing, but she still does a great job with the material.

What I really liked about the film was how each sister was able to find herself through living the other sister’s life. Though there is definitely some conflict in the beginning, by the end of the ordeal the girls come out with a better understanding of each other and themselves. I feel the film pushes two solid messages that every teenage girl should learn – stand up for what you believe in and always be yourself.

Overall, a fun body-swapping flick with a few positive messages built in. I first saw this when I was about ten years old, and I love it just as much at age twenty-three as I did then.  

8/10

Prometheus (2012)

 

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Starring: Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshall-Green, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron and Guy Pearce

Genre: Science Fiction / Horror

Rated: R

The film begins with Elizabeth Shaw (Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Marshall-Green) and their team discovering an ancient cave painting in the hills of Scotland. Two years later, Shaw and Holloway are a part of a group of scientists embarking on a mission to find the alien beings depicted in the painting. Shaw has dubbed these otherworldly creatures as “engineers” and believes them to be the ones who created us. As the crew lands on a moon, they find what they’re looking for and more danger than they could have imagined.

The first thing that must be stated about this film is that the visuals are absolutely amazing. While some are clearly computer generated, this is CGI done right – which is a rarity. The space travel, aliens and action sequences are very well done and enjoyable. There isn’t an obvious fakeness to them that detracts from the intensity of the scene.

The gore and death scenes are uncomfortable to say the least. The scares worked well – depicting people being penetrated by alien creatures, being confined in small spaces with them, or having them extracted from the human body. For example, a self-inflicted cesarean operation is drawn out in gory detail.  

The acting is very well done, even though some of the characters are barely used to their potential. Noomi Rapace brings Shaw to life and makes her a character to root for and care about. Michael Fassbender as the android David is remarkable as well. He is able to convey multiple characteristics and show minute emotions that go undetected by the rest of the crew. Marshall-Green’s Dr. Holloway is likable at first, but slowly becomes more and more annoying, taking unnecessary risks and getting drunk the first night after investigating the moon’s caves. Both Charlize Theron and Guy Pearce are completely underutilized and their characters feel hollow to me.  I would have liked to know more about them.

Some of the actions of the supposed scientists make little sense to me. Like why an experienced biologist would try to touch a living alien life form without taking any necessary precautions. You’re just asking to get picked off that way, buddy. This is even more bizarre when you think about how, just moments before, the same biologist ran from the carcass of a much larger, decapitated alien. If he were afraid of the dead, why try to interact with the living?

The ending, while a fun ride, feels a bit rushed. Everything happens in rapid succession and then the film is over. I would have liked to see a longer fight scene at the end between the surviving character and the Engineer, but I’ve heard the DVD/Blu Ray is going to be an extended director’s cut, so maybe that will contain the action I long for.

Overall, not a classic film, but a fun one. Worth a watch for Ridley Scott fans or fans of Sci-fi in general. The visuals and violence scenes are top notch and the performances of Rapace and Fassbender give us at least a couple characters to enjoy. There’s plenty of action and scares for everyone.

6.5/10

I Saw What You Did 1965 Vs I Saw What You Did 1988

I Saw What You Did (1965)

Directed by: William Castle

Starring: Joan Crawford, John Ireland, Leif Erickson, Andi Garrett, Sara Lane, and Sharyl Locke

Genre: Horror/Thriller

Rated: Unrated

Based on the Novel Out of the Dark by Ursula Curtiss

When Libby’s (Garrett) parents go away for a night, she and her friend Kit (Lane) are left in charge of little Tess (Locke). As the evening wears on, the girls get bored and decide to prank calls to entertain themselves. They decide to call random numbers and say, “I saw what you did, and I know who you are,” to whomever answers the phone. Unfortunately for them, they wind up dialing Steve Marak (Ireland) who has just killed his wife. Suspense and murder ensue.

I really liked the premise for this film. There is something terrifying about someone thinking you know too much and that you must be silenced. However, Marak never would have known who was calling him if the girls hadn’t decided to drive by his house to get a look at the “man with the sexy voice.” I found this part of the story ridiculous because I couldn’t believe the girls to be that foolish. Still, it served its purpose and provided a nice suspenseful moment between Libby and Marak.

There are two other complaints I have about this film: 1.) Joan Crawford’s irritating character and 2.) the musical score. Joan’s character of Amy, the lonely next-door neighbor and mistress of Steve, oozes desperation. She is willing to be with him no matter what and will do anything to ensure that they are together. She throws herself at him again and again, promising to take care of him in ways his wife could not. It was really quite pathetic and I felt the urge to reach through the screen and slap her.

The musical score was terrible. It did not match the tone of the film at all and often ruined what would otherwise be very tense scenes. The music was bouncy and almost cheerful while people are being stalked and/or killed. The viewer is supposed to sense danger is lurking and fear for the characters, but that tension is reduced greatly by the mismatched score.

What I did enjoy about the film was the cinematography. I loved the use of shadows in several of the scenes – it created more suspense and a darker atmosphere. The shot where Libby can be seen peeking through the window in a mirror near Steve Marak was also a nice touch. The best scene in the entire film has to be what I call the “reverse Psycho” within the first twenty minutes of the film.

The acting was also decent for a low-budget B-movie. Ireland was very creepy as the desperate, murderous Steve Marak. Crawford made Amy believable despite her sickeningly pathetic adoration of Marak. Garrett and Lane seemed like regular teenage girls of the period – despite the scripted drive to see the man they’d spoken to on the phone.

Overall: The film was a decent little B-movie with some nice cinematography but annoying music and character behavior. It’s worth a watch if you can get your hands on this rare little flick, if only to say you’ve seen it.

6/10

I Saw What You Did (1988)

Directed by: Fred Walton

Starring: Shawnee Smith, Tammy Lauren, Candace Cameron Bure, Robert Carradine and David Carradine

Genre: Horror, Thriller, TV Movie

Rated: Unrated

Based on the novel Out of the Dark by Ursula Curtiss

This remake follows the original storyline fairly closely. When Kim’s (Smith) father goes away for the evening, she invites Lisa (Lauren) over for dinner. Soon the girls get bored, and along with Kim’s little sister, Julia (Cameron Bure), begin making prank phone calls. Lisa is the one who suggests “I Saw What You Did,” and they wind up dialing Adrian Lance (Robert Carradine), who has just killed his girlfriend.

Once again, it is the girls driving by the killer’s house that gets his attention and enables him to track them. In both films the girls are so obsessed with seeing the “sexy man” on the other end of the line; they don’t think that he could possibly be dangerous. I don’t know why they insist on making these girls, who seem intelligent in every other way, idiots when it comes to men.

In this version, the character of Amy is replaced by Stephen (David Carradine), Adrian’s concerned brother, who drops in for a visit to make sure everything is okay. It’s clear from the moment we meet Adrian that he has some sort of mental issues, and as the plot progresses we get to know the his back story.

I felt the characters were more believable in this version, aside from the stupidity of the car-ride to Adrian’s house. Maybe that’s because the 1980s is closer to my generation and I can relate to the girls a little better. Smith, Lauren and Cameron Bure all gave convincing performances as the young ladies making the calls. David Carradine delivered a decent performance as the concerned older brother. It was Robert Carradine as the killer that I had a hard time buying. I know him best as Hillary Duff’s father in the Disney show Lizzie McGuire, so to see him attempting to be intimidating was almost humorous to me.  His performance was just starting to be believable in the final scene between Adrian and Kim, but that scene felt so rushed that the tension didn’t have a chance to build up.

The cinematography in this film wasn’t nearly as well-shot, but the score was much better. It almost had a rock and roll feel to it, music that the girls would listen to, but it flowed with the mood of the film as well.

I do feel the scenes between Kim and Adrian are rushed far too much. Just when the viewer begins to feel any tension at all, the scene either ends abruptly or charges on through, leaving what little suspense had been built in the dust. My last complaint is the twist ending, it felt like it was just tacked on to be like every other horror film from the 1980s, and it wasn’t necessary.

Overall: It’s not bad for a made-for-television remake, but nothing to write home about either. The girls are just as foolish, the killer is not as believable, and the twist ending annoying and unnecessary. Still, it was a fun little watch with decent acting and it remained true to the original film for the most part.

5.5/10

Cherry (2010)

Directed by: Jeff Fine

Starring: Kyle Gallner, Laura Allen, Britt Robertson, Esai Morales and Matt Walsh

Genre: Independent, Comedy, Drama

Rated: R

This coming-of-age story follows seventeen-year-old Aaron Milton (Gallner) as he enters his freshman year at an Ivy League university. He’s a highly intelligent guy, entering the engineering program on a scholarship. However, he also has a passion for art, and attends a drawing class against the wishes of his advisor and his mother. In this class he meets an older woman named Linda (Allen), whose free spirit and direct manner charm him. He soon develops a crush on Linda, but things get complicated when he goes to her house for dinner and meets her fourteen-year-old daughter, Beth, who develops a crush on him. Through this awkward triangle, Aaron learns more about himself and grows into a more confident, secure person.

When I first saw previews for this film, I wasn’t sure I was going to like it. I was afraid it was going to turn out to be just another overly sexualized college flick about a guy losing his virginity, but those fears were put to rest upon viewing. Despite the name of the film, sex is not the main focus of the storyline. Aaron isn’t just a virgin in the sexual sense; he’s a virgin to the real world – having been raised by an overly protective-to-the-point-of-controlling mother. He’s unaware of the problems people face, because he’s never had to face them. He embarks on quite the adventure with Linda and Beth, and learns a lot about the world and those he cares about on the way to finding himself.

I really liked this film. The acting was very well-done, especially from Gallner, Allen, and Robertson. Gallner is a young actor that I have been following readily for some time. He’s a very talented and versatile actor, and I haven’t disliked a single performance yet. His portrayal of the somewhat naïve, nerdy leading man was both believable and charming. Allen is fun as the free-spirited older woman but she is also able to realistically portray the complexities of addiction that afflict her. Robertson furthers this with her convincing performance as the daughter of an addict. I only wish that the relationship between mother and daughter got a little more screen time, and the audience could actually see what went on between the two of them rather than just hear it described by Beth. 

The writing feels natural. While the story isn’t entirely original, it is loosely based on the director’s life, and the writing makes you forget that similar stories have been told before. The three main characters all have full character arcs and each one has something to learn – no character in this film is flawless, but every character is redeemable.

For me, everything seemed to work for this film. The indie music really seemed to fit the characters and the storyline. The technical aspects were great – the music never overpowered the dialogue, scenes were always well-lit, etc. This is just one example of professional quality independent film.

7/10