Tag: review

Another day to fill and so I booked another trip to the cinema. What’s quite nice is that I book films without knowing a single thing about them. The previous film, The Night House, has been playing on my mind and I’m concerned for the main character. At the end of the film it was clearly implied that she was safe from the demon just because she didn’t kill herself, but if, as the film wants us to believe, a demon is after her then how can it be defeated? Oh, maybe it can’t affect her directly which was why it was using her husband to attempt to kill her? Nope, the film clearly shows the demon affecting her directly so it can’t be that. Maybe it’s because she didn’t kill herself and so the demon is giving up? Nope, can’t be that because that fucker had chased her from the shadows since her NDE following a car crash. This is the problem with supernatural horror films with demons and shit. You can’t make them internally consistent because it’s all bollocks. I’d still go for the mental breakdown version of this film, but then it has the neighbour seeing the “shadow” at the end of the film, so who knows what the intention was. Maybe a I care too much about this film? Maybe it deserves a higher rating? Nope, I’m not going to watch it again.

So, I drove to the cinema on this Sunday and actually got there before the showtime. This allowed me to take a photograph of the river. As you can see from the green plant layers on the nearest pillar that the tide is reasonably low [it was even lower when I Ieft the cinema]. Don’t look too closely at the nearest bridge otherwise you’ll see all the strengthening bolts and rods and start to get concerned about the integrity of the structure. A lot of bridges have this down this way and I think it’s because of the gradual increase in maximum limits of truck mass. I’ve written about the bridges before.

Sometimes after watching a film I have to think about the rating and what I consider to be “fair”, although this is cancelled out by the rating system that I created and you can read about here. This particular film soon dove down to a lowly rating while watching it. I’ll explain shortly. Here’s my rating, but Twitter based.

Oh, my god. This film was utter shit. I even think I might have been generous with a 4/10 rating. I hated it after about ten minutes and that hate did not dissipate as time went on. Even now, the day after, I feel angry at how bad this film was and I don’t have any connections to it.

Let me start off with a good thing. I quite liked the world that was drowned and how they played with Miami being under the sea. This was quite good. I don’t like the dams they created because they looked at though they were designed by a five year old and they wouldn’t work. I’m not sure the production designers had any concept of the depth pressure relationship and how much water actually weighs. I did wonder if I was meant to recognise the city from the skyline and before I knew it was Miami I had settled on Chicago but I was wrong in a big way. Oh, Miami and most of Florida is absolutely fucked when it comes to sea rises. As is New Orleans, another city featured in the film.

Another thing I quite liked about this film was that during a fight scene the camera stayed at a distance and actually followed the fight rather than get all “in the action” and blurry. The underwater scenes actually looked pretty too, but they suffered like all underwater scenes in movies that people can’t hold their breath for that long and the “action” is super slow.

Now it’s time for all the bad in this shit movie which I’m going to write as a stream of consciousness so watch out. None of the voice over was necessary. Why is he set up in a bank? How does the electricity still work? How did he get into the mansion at the end? Why is this such a tart with a heart film – it could have been better? How many times do I need to see the same scene? What the fuck was this film actually about? Who the fuck wrote this utter shit? How did it get 68 million dollars to be made? Why is more than 30 volts terrible? Why was the bad man facially scarred? Scarring is one of those things that is only on bad people in films, it’s terrible. Why is this film?

I absolutely hated this film, it was shit and I only stayed to see how they decided to resolve the film, which, much like the rest of it, was poor. Fuck this film, it’s a heap of shit.

This is communication number 1937 and so here, in keeping with recent tradition, is a list of some things that happened that year.

• GM recognises a workers’ union.
• Over 295 students and teachers are killed in an explosion in New London, Texas.
• Police kill ten unarmed demonstrators in Chicago.
• 724,000 people are killed in a Soviet “purge”.
• The last Bali tiger dies.

Yesterday I went to the cinema because I like going to the cinema and there wasn’t really a lot else to watch. The film was being shown in screen 8 and that’s my favourite of them apart from the shitty right speaker which I might have to email the cinema about, but still, a film being shown in screen 8 is a bonus. The traffic was bad heading to the cinema so I missed all the adverts which can only be considered a good thing but I’m experienced enough to know that the film normally starts 15-20 minutes after the advertised time. While checking the state of the tide I decided to take a photograph to illustrate the view I have.

In the picture above you can see the Medway bridges, I wrote about them here, the North Downs and a little bit of Borstal along with boats and things.

I look for the following as I drive along the esplanade.

• A – the edge of the mud bank.
• B – the little water channel.
• C – the “dip”.
• D – how high are the boats that are anchored over this side of the river.

Each of those four things and how much I can see or not tell me about the state of the tide. I suspect I probably have spent too long of my life wondering about and looking at this view – who cares anyway?

After watching the film I rated it on IMDB and there’re communications that deal with the rating system but the most important one is this one. At some point after I’ve rated it I tweet the result.

There are going to be spoilers ahead so you should consider yourself warned that I will give away a lot of the film plot points in the next few paragraphs. Overall I actually nearly enjoyed this film. About halfway through I remember trying to work out whether I cared about the main character or whether I was just staying in the theatre to see how it ends and it turned out I actually wanted to know how the person coped. Now, let me point out something I think film makers need to know:

You don’t need fucking pop-scares to make a film scary.

I Parish

It was a touch annoying, for me, that this film could have been a decent psychological thriller and an investigation into a woman’s grief for her husband and yet, for me again, it was spoilt very slightly by the supernatural aspects of it. The big problem for these films and their relationship to me is that I don’t believe in any of that shit and so I just write it off as childish. Let’s get into this in a little more detail:

One way of interpreting this film is that, following a near death experience, a malevolent spirit keeps trying to claim the “soul” he is owed by whispering to the woman’s husband that he must kill her. To avoid killing the wife he loves the husband kidnaps and murders women who looked like his wife to trick the spirit into thinking he had killed his wife. Eventually the husband kills himself to save his wife from being murdered by the spirit through him. The woman knows nothing of this until she discovers some photographs on her husbands phone and computer of women who look like her. She considers killing herself to escape the torture of the spirit who has finally decided to take her on himself rather than act through a proxy. The woman’s best friend saves her and the neighbour sees a dark shadow on a boat.

The upshot of this interpretation of the film is that spirits want what they are owed and are willing to act through someone else to get them even though they can interact with the main person themselves. They are lazy? Or just like contrived plots? I don’t know. The film seemed to want us to believe this interpretation because of the shadow at the end of the film. If the film was written with this in mind then it really opens up many many questions about an awful lot of the film and kind of removes all the mystery.

For me, a better interpretation is that, following her husbands suicide a woman descends into psychological and emotional hell. She discovers some photographs on his phone and twists her reality around to make sense of them. Slowly, she goes mad, including hitting herself onto the mirror and making up stories about finding bodies. She suffers many hallucinations, including some of extreme sexual torture. The alcohol keeps pushing her towards suicide and eventually after deciding that she needs to die to stop her emotional pain she rows out on the lake only to be found by her friend who “saves” her. Now, the film stops at this point but it would have been far more scary and mysterious if this was the acknowledged reality.

I wrote the words “extreme sexual torture” in the previous paragraph mostly because this was mentioned at the beginning of the film and close to the end of the film I found myself wondering where the sexual torture was. I didn’t really see any. There was a statuette thing that the main character found but there wasn’t really any sex stuff. The movie had teased me but failed to deliver. Not that I wanted to see that type of thing. Sexual violence [unless consensual in which case I suppose you could argue it’s not violent] is a horrible thing.

To think the best of this film is to remove all the supernatural and just read the meaning as the complete psychological breakdown of a grieving widow. Humans are complicated enough without adding all that god-shit to everything.

This is number 1933 and so here are some things that happened that year:

• The bodyline Ashes tour.
• Dachau is opened.
• The birth of radio astronomy.
• FM radio is patented.