Moms' night out (2014)

Summary
All Allyson and her friends want is a peaceful, grown-up evening of dinner and fun - a long-needed moms' night out. But in order to enjoy high heels, adult conversation, and food not served in a bag, they need their husbands to watch the kids for a few hours ... what could go wrong?

Genre : Comedy
Country : USA

Cast :
Sarah Drew : Allyson
Sean Astin : Sean
Patricia Heaton : Sondra

Director : Andrew and Jon Erwin

My opinion

“So here's the Plan... We take them inside, get their hand stamped and they can't get out. Like Shawshank Redemption.”

Let me just say it briefly but powerful. I thought this was an insult to all current fathers who are portrayed again as incapable to raise children or watch over them for a while. Again there's the image that a family life and the daily organization only can run smoothly when super-mammy is around. Let hubby take care of it and everything will end up in a chaotic mess. Sorry, but I think this is such a terrible outdated idea and again the subject of another "everything-goes-wrong" film. These days new terms like "The New Man" are used frequently so the idea being used in here, is kind of old-fashioned. And the statement that modern women can do a multitude of tasks simultaneously nowadays, is also a rarity. There are enough women who aren't blessed with this multitasking feature.

I also hate these kind of movies where everything goes wrong and it always seems like "Murphy" is at every corner waiting to interfere with the situation in such a way that everything goes haywire. I am a very huge fan of the sitcom "Friends" and have always looked at these episodes with pleasure. Except for one episode and that's the one where Ross needs to give a speech and everyone gets terribly annoying so it looked as if it would turn into a disaster. In the end everything turns out just fine. That's a recurring security in such films (and also in that particular episode of "Friends"). "Moms' night out" also finishes in a corny way with a Christian message. Afterwards I was terrible dizzy and I was struggling to get my eyes back into position again. And this because the film constantly annoyed me and made sure I was turning my eyes around like hell in my eye sockets.

The entire film can be summarized as follows. The highly stressed mother Allyson (Sarah "Greys Anatomy" Drew) urgently needs to take a break to let off steam (she's not blessed with the multitasking option apparently) and asks her two friends, Izzy (Andrea Logan White) and Sondra (Patricia Heaton) to join her in a night out. Her husband Sean (Sean Astin who still looks like a hobbit) understands the situation and fully supports her. He'll take care of the children that weekend along with his friends Kevin (Kevin Downes), who hates children, and Marco (Robert Amaya), who also could use some psychiatric assistance due to his chronic anxiety when it comes to childcare. And then the "Night out" starts and the accumulation of accidents, mishaps and misunderstandings begins. Even a summary of all extreme disaster movies of the last decade is nothing, compared to this catastrophic night. Everything goes wrong. And I mean literally everything.

The performances aren't that great either. However, this is not due to the performance of the actors themselves, but rather because of the created stupid, bland, banal cardboard characters with their dramatized and pathetic traits. The tensed mother, with a bunch of kids, who are portrayed as a gang of hooligans, who suffers from a cleaning illness and sees herself as a complete failure (she can't even think of any content for her blog , the poor soul ...). Her girlfriend, the wife of a priest, acts like a saint but ultimately it appears she has a more dissolute past. Sean is the typical loving man who always seems to understand his wife (but it turns out he doesn't. And he's not the only one ...) and tries to take matters in hand, but ultimately looks pretty clumsy. His friends transform during the film into something they are not at the beginning. The only admirable display was of Trace Adkins as Bones. A kind of "Hulk Hogan" type who turns out to be the savior in distress. Even his moralizing speech afterwards (of which he doesn't understand the impact) I could condone. A successful performance that managed to put a half smile on my face. And the last honorable mention: Manwell Reyes as the person in the tattoo shop. 

As full time working parents of two little kids, we've never experienced such situations and think it's slightly exaggerated. As the film progressed it started to cause irritation. Even my wife, who's my checkpoint when it comes to comedies, also looked at me with a slightly frustrated look after a while. Afterwards I can conclude that this was a fairly unsuccessful movie. It's a comedy without funny moments. Just like a barbecue without meat. The intention is good, but the end result is tasteless. And for all the happy newlyweds who have plans about expanding their family, I strongly advise not to watch this film. They might rethink it ...

My rating 2/10
Links : IMDB

The Borderlands (2013)

Summary
"The Borderlands" follows a team of Vatican investigators sent to the British West Country to investigate reports of paranormal activity at a remote church.

Genre : Horror
Country : UK

Cast :
Gordon Kennedy : Deacon
Robin Hill : Gray
Aidan McArdle : Mark

Director : Elliot Goldner

My opinion

"The Borderlands" provides evidence that an IMDb score isn't necessarily a guarantee that a film is bad or excellent. I've seen movies that had a low score and still surprised me. This would-be horror still gets an exceptionally high score, but I found it depressingly bad. I even read someone's opinion in which he suggested that he was afraid to look at the screen because it was too psychotic and shocking. I'm sure I've seen the censored version, because there was really nothing horrible or terrifying in this film.

To be honest I also had trouble watching this movie, but this because of the urge to fall asleep all the time. "The Borderlands" tries to profit from the hype of found-footage films. It's a kind of "The Amityville Horror", but this time set in a church, mixed with a bit of "Paranormal Activity". Although these activities are very limited. I promise I won't reveal too much, since it's already a very weak and thin story. Otherwise there will be absolutely nothing left anymore. The film refers to a religious aspect and especially the way the Catholic faith was imposed causing ancient primal religions being supplanted. The Vatican regularly sends a team of experts to certain places around the world where supernatural phenomena occur. The whole purpose is to investigate whether these phenomena are authentic or, as shown in most cases, simply are of a natural origin or pure fraud. So a team whose members are an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman (sounds like a joke) , is given the task to investigate a case of paranormal activity in the local church in the British West Country.

But I have to hand it, this film has the perseverance to keep all aspects related to a horror to a strict minimum so the end result is a bunch of meaningless components. First, the story is simplistic and not particularly innovative. The suspense part is anyway meager. A horror won't be horrible because of a pair of sliding candlesticks, a burning sheep or a sheet full of meat maggots. A few scary noises and slamming doors won't make it exactly a possessed church. I guess it's rather due to the fact that the dilapidated church stands on a hill and therefore is subject to the forces of nature, including wind gusts. The found-footage section was also nothing to write home about. You have 3 investigators constantly walking around with a mobile camera attached to their head, shooting sickening swirling meaningless images. The technician on duty also covered the whole house where they were staying with fixed cameras (why exactly there, while the phenomena are occurring in the church, was a mystery to me). On these images which were shown constantly throughout the film was, what a surprise, nothing to see! At the end there remained one practical question: how the hell did they get those found-footage images ?

And than the thing that got most on my nerves: the acting. What a bunch of implausible characters they scraped together here. First there's the technician Gray (Robin Hill), who doesn't believe there's something spooky going on in the beginning and rather wants to scram as soon as possible, but eventually stays because of the bonus. But when the first candle in an inexplicable way hits the ground, he's immediately convinced that something isn't right. Then we have the firmly drinking Scotsman Deacon (Gordon Kennedy) who apparently made ​​a miscalculation in the past (with priests being murdered as a result) and they still blame him for that. And finally the fairly haughty Irish ambassador of the Vatican Mark (Aidan McArdle) who has a reasonable persevering attitude towards the poltergeist situation and has a plausible scientific explanation for each suspicious phenomenon. And the thing that almost gave me chronic diarrhea, was Gray ending every sentence with "Dude". This stop-word was even used when talking to clerics. It seemed as if this ghost story took place in the slums of New York instead of on English soil. Fortunately there was no crucifix nearby, otherwise I had thrown it to my LCD TV after the 50th "Dude".

I'm not really a big fan of found footage (for the usual reasons) and till now I only saw a few that were quite worth it. However "The Borderlands" is on all fronts a big disappointment. Lousy renditions, absolutely no tension or suspense and a really farfetched and abrupt ending. The only positive is the claustrophobic closure and the sometimes sarcastic, humorous dialogues. The reason why I watched the whole movie is because I was curious how it would eventually end.

Conclusion: yet another found footage hocus-pocus story without scary or intense moments, totally not original or groundbreaking, with a bizarre collection of characters like a gullible non-believer, a skeptic spiritual and a priest who should reread the Bible before using his fists again. Many parts are probably interesting for hardened hikers who dare to stretch their legs on weekends and make long walks through fields and woods (with the unpleasant confrontation with feces from ruminants). The end was eerie but came too late.

My rating 2/10
Links : IMDB
 

Wer (2013)

Summary
A defense attorney begins to suspect that there might be more to her client, who is charged with the murders of a vacationing family, than meets the eye.

Genre : Horror/Thriller/Mystery
Country : USA 

Cast :
A.J. Cook : Kate Moore
Sebastian Roché : Klaus Pistor
Vik Sahay : Eric Sarin
Simon Quarterman : Gavin Flemyng

Director : William Brent Bell


My opinion

“There are also some signs of bite marks,
that seems to belong to a great beast.
Broken knees as a whole.
Well, the whole jaw was broken.
Again, no signs of the use of weapons of any kind ...”

There is a horror genre of which really very few films are made, and that's the werewolf genre. We are inundated with films about zombies, all sorts of demonic forces and paranormal phenomena. But we don't see our profusely hairy friend that often. There are only a limited number of successful werewolf movies like "The Wolfman", "Silver Bullet" and "The Howling". "An American Werewolf in London" is for me a classic and a jewel in this genre. It's no surprise that this film won an Oscar and a Saturn award for best grimage. Of course there are also some misfires in terms of grimage, special effects and content such as "Night Wolf" for example.

In "Wer" (ridiculous movie title by the way) it's not a werewolf we get to see, but rather a "Wolfman". This means you won't see a real transformation into a wolf and the corresponding creature has excessive hair growth, an impressive stature and probably strong jaws with disproportionate grown teeth. It's not really the appearance and movement of a wolf (although we do get a glimpse of this at the end).

Just as "Afflicted" managed to revive an old horror genre (in this case about vampires), of which films are made into infinity with all necessary and related clichés, by approaching the subject from a different angle, "Wer" tried it with the werewolves genre. It's also starting with a found-footage part where we witness how an American family, on holiday in France, becomes the victim of an unknown creature that tears them into shreds. After a while the obscure,strange individual Gwynek Talan (Brian Scott O'Connor) is arrested. He's suspect number one and accused of being the person who committed this terrible crime. An imposing person with hands like coal shovels and who looks like a walking hairy carpet. Talan is entitled to a lawyer and that's when Kate Moore (AJ Cook) comes up with two assistants Eric Sarin (Vic Sahay) and Gavin Flemyng (Sebastian Roche).

You can divide the movie into two parts. The first part is the least interesting part (to be honest it's fairly boring). A.J.Cook wasn't really convincing as a lawyer and came across as a timid lightweight advocate. It's only until Talan is subjected to a medical examination to determine whether he suffers from Porphyria, a disorder which affects the hair grow and the body length of a person, the situation starts to escalate. This disease is also important evidence because if someone suffers from this condition he can't move that fast anyway. So it could be the ultimate proof that Talan might not be the culprit. The principle of a werewolf is approached in a scientific way. Kind of original.

The second part is flashy and brutal with quite a few skulls being crushed and a whole bunch French policemen being dismembered. A rapidly moving violent werewolf who, despite its almost human form, goes on a killing spree in a monstrous way, leaving behind an unreal bloody trace. Despite the limited budget, the used SE's are realistic and there's never a feeling that too much CGI was used. We get a ferocious werewolf that causes a true massacre. Also Gavin will provide an extra surprise which will lead to a fairly grotesque and absurd ending. Need I say that Sebastian Roche treats us to a wonderful acting performance.

Despite the slow start, where really nothing interesting happens, and the absurd ending, it still resulted in an eerie, terrifying and intense monster movie which is still worth to give it a try. Even the found-footage (of which I'm not really such a big fan) didn't really bother me. It's self-evident this isn't really a family film. There are some explicit images of mutilated bodies and a blood-stained looming figure, that turns this into an ominous film. It surely isn't exactly intended for little kids. It won't go down in history as the most successful werewolf movie of all time, but it certainly is way better than all the pitiful efforts which have been undertaken over the last 10 years.

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

The Signal (2014)

Summary
On a road trip, Nic and two friends are drawn to an isolated area by a computer genius. When everything suddenly goes dark, Nic regains consciousness - only to find himself in a waking nightmare.

Genre : SF
Country : USA 

Cast :
Laurence Fishburne : Damon
Brenton Thwaites : Nic
Olivia Cooke : Haley
Beau Knapp : Jonah

Director : William Eubank


My opinion

I had no idea what this film was about when I started watching it. Looking at the movie poster, you can assume it has something to do with SF. But I didn't expect it to be such a brilliant film. Compared with other great well known SciFi's, "The Signal" is more of a modest movie. This will probably also be due to the small budget (4 Million Dollars). But despite this small budget, this magnificent indie has some very successful moments with hallucinatory special effects.

Sometimes you watch a movie and you are wondering all the time what's actually going on. Eventually I had the same feeling as Nic (Brenton Thwaites) : groping in the dark, anxiously looking for the truth and feeling desperate. Nic was on its way to California, together with his girlfriend Haley (Olivia Cooke) and his best friend Jonah (Beau Knapp). Haley was planning to attend school in California. Something Nic wasn't so happy about, resulting in ending up (probably temporary) their relationship. Along the way, they are contacted by a rival hacker, Nomad, who has put them in an awkward position already before. They decide to follow his tracked signal and confront Nomad. They end up somewhere in no man's land in a dilapidated shack of a house. The next moment Nic wakes up in a kind of research center where everyone walks around in space suits. It seems like they are quarantined. He has no idea where he is, where his friends are and what is going on. He's regularly interviewed by someone named Dr. Damon Wallace (Laurence Fishburne), probably head of this facility and responsible for the investigation. To Nic's consternation Wallace announces that they are probably the victim of an EBE (Extraterrestrial Biological Entity). 

Revealing more about this movie would be ridiculous. Actually, it is advisable to go and have a look at this film with as minimum information as possible. The fact that it's a low-budget film, means that the success of this film doesn't depend on the quality of SE's (though there are a few slick-looking effects), but the storyline should be highly original and ingeniously fit together. While watching "The Signal" I could predict which way it was going and where it would end up (actually there are only two options to choose from), and yet I was surprised at the denouement. Despite the unknown actors (besides Fishburne) and the fact that this is only the second film directed by Eubanks, this is still a successful and refreshing SF. Do not expect "Star Wars" situations or "Edge of Tomorrow" action parts. The entire film keeps a perfect balance between mystery, successful visual images, surprising plot twists, strong performances and masterfully applied special effects.

A brilliant, magnificent SF which is pretty captivating through its simplicity and sobriety, and continues to fascinate. Some will thoroughly hate and reject it. Others (like me) will applaud it. I would recommend every SF fan to give this low-budget a chance and after viewing it, be overwhelmed by a creative whole with admirable visualization and an oppressive atmosphere. The great mystery is resolved in the end though. But some things are not explained in detail and thus remain unanswered. This will be frustrating for some. However, I am a big fan of such movies in which there are certain developments which are open to self-interpretation. But if someone can share his opinion about the part with the cow, I'll be eternally grateful to that person .... "The Signal" will create a stir and I predict it'll receive a cult status in the SF genre. I expect great things from Eubanks in the future! Something to look forward to.

My rating 8/10
Links : IMDB

Autómata (2014)

Summary
Jacq Vaucan, an insurance agent of ROC robotics corporation, routinely investigates the case of manipulating a robot. What he discovers will have profound consequences for the future of humanity.

Genre : SF/Thriller
Country : Spain/Bulgaria 

Cast :
Antonio Banderas : Jacq Vaucan
Birgitte Hjort Sørensen : Rachel Vaucan
Melanie Griffith : Dr. Dupre

Director : Gabe Ibáñez


My opinion

“To die, you got to be alive first.”

The future of our beloved planet doesn't look rosy as Hollywood presents it lately. After a random grab in the bag of apocalyptic films of the last year, you'll get a wide choice of possible misery and disasters that mankind has to endure. In "Elysium" we have an ultra overpopulated Earth whose natural resources have been exhausted and where the super rich have gotten a place on the space station Elysium where they live in luxury. "The Giver" is about a society that after a great war live in communes where feelings and memories are banished. "The Colony" and "Snowpiercer" show a world covered with snow caused by failed experiments to get the climate under control. In "Oblivion" there was a long war with aliens called Scavs that lead to a world in ruins. In "The Divide" a nuclear war is the culprit (just as in "How I live now"). "World War Z" shows a global scourge turning people into bloodthirsty zombies. A meteor means the end in "Seeking a Friend for the End of the World". In "Goodbye World" and "Dragon Day" it's computer viruses that cause damnation. "Divergent" and "The Hunger Games" are recent films showing a futuristic dystopia where survivors are divided into classes. You see, there's plenty of choice to destroy humanity.

 

"Autómata" is set in the eerie near future, the year 2044 to be exact, and Earth is an uninhabitable radioactive desert thanks to solar storms. Most of the world's population was eradicated and nearly 21 million survivors settled in cities. Cities that are walled and equipped with a modern system to protect against radioactive rain and storms. All this was built with millions of robot (Pilgrims), manufactured by the company ROC, all of whom were subjected to protocols : they can't injure a living being and can't repair or improve themselves. It's almost like Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics. And as you would expect, these laws are there to be broken.

Of course there's the feeling of recognition after a while. Self-developing robots which develop a certain consciousness in a dilapidated futuristic world. Both the philosophy as the look and feel immediately makes you think of "Blade Runner" and "A.I.". A dark, gloomy city where the weather forecast report information about the radioactivity of rain and holographic images of half-naked women are projected. Even the plastic overcoats is a recycled fashion from "Blade Runner". Only the umbrellas with a fluorescent lamps were missing. There is a regression in technology which is reflected in the use of reasonable corny-looking printers. This in sharp contrast with the high technology used for the robots on duty, the holographic projections and futuristic looking 3D television. Creatively, there is a noticeable regression because the television show looked abominable and meaningless.

Jacq Vaucan (Banderas) is an insurance agent, employed by ROC and investigating certain cases of rebellious and faltering robots, checking if it could be a case of fraud (as in the opening scene with the dog being hugged to death by a Pilgrim). Jacq suffers of a burn-out and most of all he yearns to leave this depressing town with his pregnant wife and move towards the coast. A carefree existence near the ocean, of which he has visions during stressful times (probably visions from his childhood), which probably doesn't exist anymore in this wasteland. The whole mess begins after Wallace (Dylan McDermott), a ultra-hard cop or bounty hunter (that's not clarified), sends a Pilgrim to the happy hunting grounds with a well-aimed shot through the melon-shaped head after determining it was adapting itself. The company ROC asks Jacq to investigate this case because if there's one thing this multinational detest, it's self-healing robots.

The first part was captivating and was, despite the similarities with previously released SF, excellent portrayed. The predominant chaotic feeling and hopelessness of a crumbling society. A brilliant sketch of how seemingly obedient robots became a part of humanity. Proof of this was the moment when the concerning robot underwent a thorough dissection. It was, as if a human victim was examined, completely with missing or damaged parts and vital juices dripping out. The second part was uninspired and literally and figuratively too dry. There were huge plot holes and illogical things. It seemed as if the screenwriters lost track and didn't know anymore which way to go. A missed opportunity.

Banderas, this time completely bald and acting with a tired look, could convince in the first half, but had to do his utmost to carry the whole film. The additional roles ranged from trivial to unnecessary. Only the design of the robots, which had more in common with those from "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" and didn't have an uncanny resemblance to human beings as in "Blade Runner", was successful in my eyes. A hotchpotch of mechanical parts and high-tech electronics and microprocessors with a head in the form of a watermelon. Some, like Cleo, even had strategically placed plastic parts to emphasize the feminine aspect. Cleo was also the most entertaining value in this doom-like SF. Dylan McDermott was a big question mark in terms of its function in the complete story and made such an impression on me as in "Freezer". Not so much. Birgitte Hjort Sorenson, Melanie Griffith and Robert Forster are reduced to extras who didn't contribute very much to the whole.

I did have some demurs afterwards. Why unplug a Pilgrim in such a destructive way while it's dead simple (with one press of a button) to do this by removing the kernel (probably not impressive enough). It's strange that scavengers can survive in the harsh, highly radioactive wasteland. Apparently their evolution progress was of such a nature that they quickly adapted themselves. And the price shooting from the protecting walls at individuals who are trying to survive in the unprotected zone (the chance of survival is still nil) also seemed pretty trite and meaningless. But despite these minor flaws, this is a pure SF without too many frills with a perfect created atmosphere, where the emphasis lies on creating the right feelings instead of massive use of CGI. The robots look adequate and move as dented and dirty machines, sometimes effectively and sometimes clumsy so the physical resemblance of their human counterparts is striking. The end is highly cliched, but eventually it fits the complete setup. An open end with unanswered questions and a final image that reminded me of a fellowship that follows "The Yellow brick road" searching for a heart, a mind, or simply an answer to the question "Who am I". Who knows ...

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB
 

Honeymoon (2014)

Summary
Young newlyweds Paul and Bea travel to remote lake country for their honeymoon. Shortly after arriving, Paul finds Bea wandering and disoriented in the middle of the night. As she becomes more distant and her behavior increasingly peculiar, Paul begins to suspect something more sinister than sleepwalking took place in the woods.

Genre : Horror/Thriller
Country : USA

Cast :
Rose Leslie : Bea
Harry Treadaway : Paul
Ben Huber : Will
Hanna Brown : Annie

Director : Leigh Janiak


My opinion

“You taste the same. But you're different. You're different.”

Those who are about to tie the knot and subsequently also have a honeymoon planned, I advice to ignore this movie. And if the booked honeymoon destination is some remote forest I would certainly forget about it, because that was the destination of Bea (Rose Leslie) and Paul (Harry Treadaway). "Honeymoon" isn't just a travelogue of the two lovebirds their journey, but a subtle horror-SF story which doesn't focus on the use of masterful SE's or gore, bloody fragments. It's the brief use of resources (probably because of the micro-budget) that creates an oppressive, gloomy atmosphere. It's about the realization that your life partner seems no longer to be the same one as before.

Don't let yourself be frightened by the beginning. It looks as if it's once again a footage movie, after witnessing the two newlyweds standing in front of the camera giving a brief explanation about their wedding. So no need to have an anxiety attack immediately and start pounding the "Off" button. Bea and Paul travel to a wooden cabin after their wedding, somewhere in a forest in Canada. An idyllic picture of young luck and a spectacle of a camaraderie with childish teasing and obviously sexually provocative interaction between each other. A kind of intimate relationship such as fresh lovers know and it appears as if they just discovered each other. Two loved ones hopping through the forest, enjoying each others company and looking genuinely happy. This happiness is disrupted after visiting a local restaurant where they meet a somewhat aggressively labile owner, also an old childhood friend of Bea, and his rather sick-looking wife, who exhorts them to leave. That night Paul finds his wife in the woods : naked, confused, disoriented, absent and with strange bites on the inside of her legs. Bea minimizes the concerns of Paul and claims that she was sleepwalking and that everything is alright. But Paul realizes that something fundamentally changed. The romance is gone, Bea forgets how to do daily things like making coffee or baking a toast. She doesn't seem to realize who she really is anymore and especially her frigid, dismissive attitude towards sex is striking.

Not everybody will be thrilled about this movie. At first glance it looks fairly simplistic and without content. For those who love this genre (I consider myself one of them) this film still is a pleasant surprise. In "Honeymoon" a feeling of unease is created by using subtle elements so you can see someones personality slowly changing. It's not accomplished by using physical peculiarities immediately. Maybe "Honeymoon" is a metaphor for something that everyone experienced once in his life namely concluding that a person isn't the one we used to know. It must be a real nightmare to discover that the person you were initially in love with and decided to share your life with, suddenly appears to be a very different person. Of course it basically resembles "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". I thought there was only one flaw in this film. The mystery is prematurely revealed to you by displaying the mysterious light that shines through cracks very early. "Honeymoon" isn't really scary and therefore it's not really a horror to me. It's not a cabin in the woods as in "Evil Dead" or "Mama" where a demonic force presents itself in this hut or forest and the involved characters are constantly surrounded by a threatening environment. The inability of Paul and the unknown power that controls Bea appeals more to the imagination than a possessed person whose head is spinning around.

What pleasantly surprised me, were the performances by Henry Treadaway and Rose "Game of Thrones" Leslie. They were perfectly chosen for these roles and they are a believable couple with visible youthfulness and dynamism. The interplay and interaction between them was so recognizable and natural. From the outset we are involved in this relationship and their acting made sure that we, as the situation progressed, are emotionally concerned about both individuals. Superb performances. Also the used images are off a technically high level and sometimes the varying positions resulted in visual delights. And the pace is of such a nature that you just crave for the continuation, so the truth will come out and the mystery unraveled. For those who expect a full explanation at the end of the movie, I can reveal that the mystery remains partially hidden. And for the others who enjoy watching thrilling fragments or gore scenes, I can also tell that this is not frequently present (besides during an erratic third part).

Maybe the whole film is a metaphor for some, who regard the institution of marriage as true hell. Ultimately, the marriage of Paul was a ride to hell, with unlikely consequences. Narratively it could possibly be worked out a little bit more. But finally I thought "Honeymoon" was still successful the way it was presented and in the end the film is still fairly creepy,gruesome and macabre. I don't think Paul could have imagined it would be such a marriage. A film with a simple but sublime elaborated story, that will stick to your mind for a few days.

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB