American Heist (2014)

Summary
Two brothers, both with troubled pasts, find themselves in the middle of one last bank job.  Genre : Action

Country : Canada
  
Cast :
Hayden Christensen : James
Adrien Brody : Frankie
Tory Kittles : Ray

Director : Sarik Andreasyan


My opinion

“It was always me and you against the world.”

Are you expecting a good movie after seeing who's playing the main roles, then I'll warn you already now : This is a woefully bad movie. Adrien Brody, Oscar winner for his brilliant performance in "The Pianist", and Christensen, who's undeniably a virtuoso in handling a lightsaber but exhibits a présence that can be surpassed without a problem by Chewbacca, aren't a guarantee for an enjoyable film. The movie poster on its own is an indication that it could be a faded B-movie. And despite the tattoos of those two guys and the use of a vocabulary after which an average rascal would turn pale, they nevertheless still look like two wimps.

The day Frankie (Adrien Boyd) gets released from prison, he returns to his brother James (Hayden Christensen), who now leads an ordinary life and works as a car mechanic. James and Frankie both have an extremely troubling past. Frankie just served 10 years of imprisonment. James tries to pick up the thread. He's getting closer to Emily (Jordana Brewster) and dreams of owning a garage. Frankie wants to persuade his younger brother to start a business involving real estates. Afterwards James comes to the conclusion that again he's involved in a suspicious affair where robbing a bank is the objective.

I'll briefly numerate the negative points of this pathetic end result. First of all the performances. As I mentioned earlier, the two protagonists aren't convincing. Only the moment Brody describes the miserable conditions in prison and defines a reasonable graphic image about the contacts he had with the other inmates (whereby a tube of toothpaste was a necessary tool in those circumstances), you saw briefly a glimpse of the capacities Brody possesses as an actor. Only this scene was a bit messed up by Christensen who doesn't exactly know how to react to this confession, and therefor just looks a little dazed. Incidentally, he uses that look constantly throughout the whole movie : that dazed look where it seems as if he could burst out into tears any moment. And even if the two tough looking brothers use expressions like "fuck", "Shit", "Motherfucker" and "Bro" in their conversations, they still are and remain two dorks.

Also the two would-be business partners Ray (Tory Kittles) and Sugar (Akon who's also a known hip-hop and R & B star) are ridiculous persons. They may have the attitude and looks that would classify them immediately as riff-raff. But when Ray starts to quote statements of Thomas Jefferson about how dangerous banks are (they are even more dangerous than the army) and that they're going to start a revolution, they turn into two clownish wannabe gangsters. Brad Pitt's rant at the end of "Killing Them Softly" was acceptable. That was clearly a socially critical message. And Dominic Purcell in "Assault on Wall Street" having a go at complete Wall Street, after losing everything that was dear to him, is also understandable. But Ray suddenly striking off a few political quotes is totally implausible. But then again, it fits here.

And then the story itself. This is put together so ridiculous and painfully bad, you need a painkiller afterwards because of your painful neck you got after shaking your head repeatedly. I still can't understand how on earth James could believe the real estate story Frankie told him. Even though there's an intense family bond, he'd better struck him with a crankshaft that was lying somewhere in the house. At least I would have done that. Especially if he's the main cause why James has to endure a bleak and difficult existence now. No, he still teams up with his brother and ends up in deep trouble again. The bank robbery was so amateurish and illogical. The intervention of the police was feeble-minded, to say the least. They are handling the bank robbery and seem to have it under control, but the exit at the side of the building, they've overlooked. Then a gunfight starts and you are wondering if there's even anybody who has any practical experience in handling a firearm. The final denouement is even more ridiculous.

If it was a low-budget film, I would forgive them. But if you look at the budget they've spent making this trifle, then you really wonder what it was used for. The wages of the two protagonists? The high-tech camera that was attached to an actor's chest to get a close-up of his face? Or was it an expensive soundtrack made by Akon ? God knows. Yet one last advice. You want to watch an entertaining movie about a bank robbery ? I suggest you watch "The Bank Job".

My rating 2/10 
Links : IMDB

The Atticus institute (2015)

Summary
In the fall of 1976, a small psychology lab in Pennsylvania became the unwitting home to the only government-confirmed case of possession. The U.S. military assumed control of the lab under orders of national security and, soon after, implemented measures aimed at weaponizing the entity. The details of the inexplicable events that occurred are being made public after remaining classified for nearly forty years.


Genre : Horror
Country : USA
  
Cast :
Wiliam Mapother : Dr. Henry West
Rhya Kihlstedt : Judith Winstead

Julian Acosta : Young Robert Koep

Director : Chris Sparling
 


My opinion

“We don't control this, it's not just us who will be at risk.
And if you do control it, then who will be at risk?”

You like to watch documentaries about the supernatural, alien sightings or other unexplained phenomena on "National Geographic", then you should see "The Atticus institute" since this is a documentary-style film about a scientific study in an institute led by Dr. Henry West. The research is focused on paranormal activities such as ESP and psychokinesis (using the power of the mind to cause the movement of matter at a distance). The film is described as a mockumentary found footage horror. It's certainly not based on true facts, but I wouldn't look at it as a parody or satire, because even though it looks like a documentary, it's reasonably successful. Fortunately, the found footage was reduced to the minimum, and the whole movie is a collage of interviews, eyewitness reports and video recordings (both fixed cameras that capture the experiment and in a limited extent some home recording).

You can compare it a bit with "The Quiet Ones". Only the latter is not really a documentary that's made of videotaping, but just an ordinary horror film. Both films are set in the 70's which can be clearly seen in the decoration and the overall appearance. Especially the VHS look is typical for that period. But both films excel especially in the total absence of tension or frightening scenes. Or it should be you are easily scared and shake like a leaf after witnessing a curving card, a tray opening suddenly or a chair sliding away by itself. Anyway, it looks less creepy than implied by the previous testimonies which they always show.

The eventual story isn't that original. Today you're overwhelmed with horror films with possession as a central theme. The starting point is an institution in Pennsylvania where Dr. West (William Mapother) and his team of researchers test certain persons to investigate and capture psychokinetic activity. Unfortunately they also get fraudsters between the study objects until Judith Winstead shows up (Rya Kihlstedt). At first sight it seems like an ordinary woman who probably needs some psychological counseling, but gradually they come to the conclusion that she has inexplicable powers. When the official authorities are called for help after they've noticed that the phenomenal forces aren't controllable, those authorities see an opportunity to use this to their advantage and they try to isolate the supernatural power that resides in Judith.

 
In addition to the total lack of tension, there's also the fact that the surprise effect is totally negated by the testimonies. One can already predict which direction it's going and what the outcome will be. Even the warning to the filmmakers and those who watch this film is a little bland. Isn't this already been used somewhere else ? Saying that by watching a video or movie, this will invite evil ? The moments we witness the demonic events, are quite sparse. But those sporadic moments are still  thrilling in a certain way. I'm not really a fan of this type movies (I mean the documentary part) and yet I was fascinated by it. There wasn't a single moment that I felt the urge to turn off the film. Rya Kihlstedt doesn't look as if she is possessed and eventually she suffers more because of the human intervention than by the demonic force that has her in its grip. Don't expect a woman who's spitting green slime, swearing, screaming,spouting profane language all the time and staring with a devilish glance. But I thought that Kihlstedt was convincing enough and acted with the right look and feel : that of a desperate woman who's physically and psychologically tormented. The only weak point and still farfetched item was the final plan of the US government. But to know what their intentions were, you have go and see the film for yourself. Although this topic is widely used, Chris Sparling manages nevertheless to turn it into an original movie.

My rating 5/10 
Links : IMDB

The Theory of Everything (2014)

Summary  
 The Theory of Everything is the story of the most brilliant and celebrated physicist of our time, Stephen Hawking, and Jane Wilde the arts student he fell in love with whilst studying at Cambridge in the 1960s. Little was expected from Stephen Hawking, a bright but shiftless student of cosmology, given just two years to live following the diagnosis of a fatal illness at 21 years of age. He became galvanized, however, by the love of fellow Cambridge student, Jane Wilde, and he went on to be called the successor to Einstein, as well as a husband and father to their three children. Over the course of their marriage as Stephen's body collapsed and his academic renown soared, fault lines were exposed that tested the lineaments of their relationship and dramatically altered the course of both of their lives.

Genre : Biography/Drama/Romance
Country : UK

Cast :
Eddie Redmayne : Stephen Hawking
Felicity Jones : Jane Hawking
David Thewlis : Dennis Sciama 

Director : James Marsh

My opinion 

"What are you ?

I’m a cosmologist
What’s that ?
It’s a kind of religion for intelligent atheists."

I must admit that I've seen this film a few weeks ago. Probably the fact that Eddie Redmayne was nominated for an Oscar, prompted me to see if he was a worthy contender for the coveted golden statuette. And the only thing I can say is that he totally deserved to win with his magnificent performance. I love to watch a biographical movie now and then. The only drawback is that I'm always a little bit disappointed about the subject covered in such a biopic and that the emphasis lies on something I wasn't looking for. In "jOBS" I missed the philosophy this visionary had about the Apple phenomenon and the development of the applied interface (which is currently perfectly normal for everybody). The clash between Jobs and Gates was cited as a fait divers, whereas that interested me. Also in "The Theory of Everything" the focus was on other facets of Hawking's life. What applies to both these films is the fact that the protagonists physically look an awful lot like the corresponding character. It's creepy to see how they both manage not only to capture the emotional part, but also to match the characteristics and physical traits of these famous people. "The Imitation Game" is obviously also a biopic which, however, had a more adventurous twist rather than being a purely biographical sketch.

You must admit that the performance of Eddie Redmayne is simply magnificent. Both excerpts from the college years, where he's still healthy,lively and the way he finishes his studies in a nonchalant manner, as the portrayal of a genius who's struck by a muscle disease, are brilliant and striking. A series of events wonderfully visualized using a variety of intense colors at certain times. The university professor who looks surprised at the solutions scribbled on the back of a timetable (10 math assignments which are almost impossible to solve I suppose, of which Stephen could ONLY solve 9). A family dinner Jane was invited to and where you already can get a sense of the intellectual atmosphere. The contradictions between Jane and Stephen when it's about religion. Hawking who excludes everyone after hearing the terrible verdict and the determination of Jane. These fragments stayed with me and made it a fascinating film. 

 

Which theories the brilliant mind of Hawking produced in that cripple body, isn't explained in detail. Here and there black holes, big bangs and the concept of time is mentioned, but eventually I was wondering what exactly Stephen Hawking's ultimate contribution was to mankind. What Jobs achieved you can discover in any computer shop. And from Turing we know that he has broken the Enigma code. But what abstract evidence Hawking delivered, wasn't clear to me. From one moment to the other he's a celebrity and a much sought-after guest speaker. That a woman who lives together with a paralyzed person can't really enjoy a thrilling,romantic life and that she's actually the person who's responsible for all practical matters in a marriage, is of course obvious. And that's the central theme of this biopic: a loving relationship slowly falling apart because of a fatal disease, the awareness of limitations and the danger to seek solace in someone else's arms. So it's mainly a biopic about the wife of Hawking, instead of about Hawking himself. An insight into the life of mathematical genius, who could explain the mystery of the origin of the universe by using his phenomenal intellectual brain, is thus transformed into an ordinary dime novel about an unhappy woman who feels abandoned by her ever loving husband. And that's something I wasn't waiting for.

Despite the romantic approach, I think it's an admirable film. The situation Hawking is facing during his life, ensured that other qualities came up : humor and willpower. These two qualities are subtly incorporated into this film. Even the choice Hawking made at an older age about his marriage, took me by surprise (actually it wasn't much I knew about the life of Hawking). Once again this proves that he sees himself as a normal functioning man. "The Theory of Everything" is a beautiful film that actually moved me and should serve as an example to show what one can achieve with the right attitude and a big portion of perseverance.

My rating 7/10

Links : IMDB

Clown (2014)

Summary
A loving father finds a clown suit for his son's birthday party, only to realize the suit is part of an evil curse that turns its wearer into a killer.
 
Genre : Horor
Country : USA
  
Cast :
Andy Powers : Kent
Laura Allen : Meg
Peter Stormare : Karlsson

Director : Jon Watts


My opinion  

Perhaps you have nostalgic memories about attending a circus when you were young and you had fun while watching the clowns act. My advice. Don't watch "Clown" because these idyllic reveries won't be the same anymore. And also, were you scared of clowns and thought these were horrible impersonations, you definitely shouldn't watch. I guarantee you the phobia will grow out into clownish proportions. For me who has no emotional connection with clowns and enjoys a ghastly horror, it's mandatory to watch this movie. Just one thing worth knowing. If you're wondering which movie is shown in one particular trailer and the thought of plagiarism comes to mind, I can tell you that this is a fake trailer created by director Jon Watts. The moment Eli Roth saw this trailer, he couldn't restrain his enthusiasm and the only thing he wanted to do was to turn it into a feature film with himself as a producer. Although Kent looks rather ordinary as a clown in the initial stage, the final transformation ensures a grim and frightening character. He can join the club of creepy clowns like those in the movies "IT" (Stephen King) and "All Hallow's Eve" (A trashy tale, but with an ultra-scary clown as main character). I am convinced that there exist other horror movies with a creepy clown in the lead.

The trouble starts when Kent (Andy Powers), a real estate agent, is forced to replace the clown who was booked to perform at the birthday party of his son Jack (Christian Distefano) and whose schedule got mixed up a bit. Luckily he discovers a complete clown outfit in the house of a client, in a chest that is chained to the wall (what a coincidence). Kent appears at home dressed as the clown Dummo and ensures a spectacular birthday party for his son. The next morning, however, he comes to the conclusion that he can't take off the costume: it seems to be merged with his own human skin, the wig is suddenly his natural hair and he can't get rid of the clowns nose despite all efforts. Ultimately he discovers that the costume is made off the skin of an evil demon, called "The Cloyne". Kent gradually transforms into a bloodthirsty Killer Clown with an insatiable appetite.

The initial idea isn't so bad, but the final result is a bit too soft in my opinion. But rest assured, there are plenty of "suggestive" thrilling moments and gore scenes, but it's never straight-in-your-face horror violence what you'll get to see. And yet I enjoyed watching this film (despite the linear storyline with a predictable ending). There are some funny moments, like the clumsy way Kent tries to get rid of the suit and the sublime decapitation mechanism Kent designs, which provides a very different outcome. There are also some subtle fine details elaborated, showing that the makers have looked further than their (red?) nose. Just as Derek in "Afflicted", Kent is unable to take his own life. The only thing that was added to this fact was the confetti. Quite funny and a proof that creativity was indeed present.

There are some gruesome scenes (for experienced horror fanatics still a bit soft) and the atmosphere is sometimes really unnerving. The part that takes place in the indoor playground was extremely thrilling and creepy. You can be sure that you'll be looking at a ball pool in a different way from now on. For me this was the most magnificent moment of the entire movie with claustrophobic images in a labyrinth of corridors, shown in an explosion of colors. But as mentioned before, the central theme around which everything revolves, isn't explicitly portrayed. If you want to promote a creepy and gruesome horror movie, you have to have the guts to handle this in the whole story. Now the most gruesome scenes are handled off-screen and your imagination has to provide the missing images. The inner struggle that Kent should engage with the demon, who tries to change his personality, takes up a large portion of the film. Perfectly outlined but maybe it was still a tad overemphasised. Most horror fans will say that the transformation unfolds way to slow and that they rather saw Kent appearing as a bloodthirsty killer clown much sooner.

In terms of performances, there is no one who excels or disappoints. Andy Powers (unknown to me) manages to show the creepy clown in a convincing manner and with its various facets : entertaining, sad and desperate, resisting, fighting and finally sneaking around as a maniacal killer, looking for victims to satisfy his hunger. Laura Allen plays the desperate wife Meg who (obviously) must face the ultimate confrontation with her "transformed into a not so cheerful clown" husband. Christian Distefano evolves from a clown lover to a frightened little boy who eventually throws his plush clown in the bin. Who wouldn't ? The most amusing supporting role is played by Peter Stormare as the pretty disturbed Karlsson. The Swede Stormare is such an actor who takes care of small roles in many films (The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Armageddon, Bad Boys II, Get the Gringo, The Last Stand, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters ...). His contribution in this film is of greater importance. 

"Clown" has its good sides and lesser sides. Unfortunately, there won't be much publicity about this film and most likely you'll only see it on DVD. The idea and the development of the theme about the clown is rather successful, but the final result is still just an average movie. I have enjoyed myself while watching it, but I'll still go to a circus without any worries or fear. And I'm surely not going to run away in a panic when the clown act begins.

My rating 5/10

Links : IMDB

Spring (2014)

Summary
A young man in a personal tailspin flees the US to Italy, where he sparks up a romance with a woman harboring a dark, primordial secret.
 
Genre : Horor/Romance/SF
Country : USA
  
Cast :
Lou Taylor Pucci : Evan
Nadia Hilker : Louise
Vanessa Bednar : Gail

Director : Justin Benson, Aaron Moorhead

My opinion 

"I’m half undiscovered science, a bunch of confusing biochemistry and some crazy hormones."

"Spring" isn't really a horror film. It's a rather mythological love story with a "not so bad" twist. A story about how true love can overcome obstacles and how that makes you choose irreversible options. And this interspersed with sometimes lurid and bizarre scenes. There are several moments in this film, which also proceeds painfully slow (the only flaw I could think of), where you are wondering what the hell is actually going on. And when everything is explained in detail, you frown and instantly you think "What the f * ck was that ?". I admit that the whole metabolic explanation went over my head the first time, but after a while it became really clear and I realized it was dead simple. Ultimately it was a film that took me by surprise, despite its long playing time, and unexpectedly continued to fascinate me.

The beginning of this remarkable film is I could say brilliant. A scarce setting. Young Evan (Lou Taylor Pucci) at the bedside of his dying mother. A joke. A blank stare. A final sigh and then ... finito. The day of the funeral ends with an out of control bar fight. To avoid problems with the local police, Evan decides out-of-the-blue to book a plane ticket and travels to distant Italy. Once there, he ends up in the company of two British loudmouths whose main interests are : pouring as much as possible alcohol in their throat, using gore language and constantly trying to seduce an Italian girl. The day they scram and leave Evan behind, he's determined to get acquainted with the beautiful Louise (Nadia Hilker) with whom he briefly made eye contact, somewhere at a village square. He offers his services at some farm in order to pay for his stay and slowly the two grow closer together. What emerges is a not so obvious relationship. The mysterious and impulsive Louise isn't exactly making it easy for Evan and soon the viewer is fully aware that she's hiding a terrible secret.

What is it that makes this film so unique? Several things as I look at it afterwards. The casual and spontaneous way these two people interact, converse and let love flourish between each other. Not with contrived and forced dialogues. It seemed as if their love game unfolds naturally before your eyes and you witness how two charismatic individuals whirl around each other in a flirting way. You wouldn't say that Evan has charisma. He looks more like a meaningless, unqualified,miserable fellow who has no specific goal in his life and also has a limited wardrobe. Yet he came across as profound and intellectual during philosophical conversations with Louise. And certainly the speed at which he could grasp the whole explanation, proves there's a sparkle of some intelligence. Conversely Louise is a chunk of charisma. A mysterious character who Evan can't get hold of and whose reasoning and reactions raises questions. The reason why she is confusing at times and stands aloof, becomes clearer as soon as the terrible secret is revealed. Superb performances without a doubt.

Also cinematically it's a bit different. The camera movements and positions are sometimes surprising. The bird's-eye view sometimes delivers beautiful images such as the boat trip. These splendor images are regularly interrupted by short shots of all kinds of flora and fauna. Bizarre and sometimes incomprehensible. But all this is ultimately connected with the big secret. The most successful scene is when Louise explains the whole mystery to Evan. Although she doesn't want to explain it initially, she changes her mind and she does it while Evan is on its way through the narrow streets of the Italian village. And while stumbling over the cobbles he listens to the eerie tale. I would have preferred that she'd tell this complicated story calmly at a table because the pivoting camera and flashy long sequence demanded all my attention. And this ensured that the final message didn't directly hit me and sounded pretty hazy. The horror clips are scarce, sometimes unclear and sometimes with pretty ugly CGI. Is this done deliberately? Were the resources limited? I have no idea. But ultimately it all fits perfectly with the rest.

Maybe there's a moment when you're wondering where exactly the romance is hiding ? Maybe you dropped off because it's pretty surreal and it all looks strange. And yet you should do the effort to sit through the movie, because the final denouement is pure romance. This is the epitome of true love. Maybe I raved about this film, but I've never seen the concepts life, love, death,pregnancy and rebirth flow into each other in such a subtle way. A simplistic love story with a quirky twist which eventually ends in a way you hoped it would end. A beautiful, unique film that briefly will resonate to some.

My rating 8/10

Links : IMDB

Exodus : Gods and Kings (2014)

Summary
Epic adventure Exodus: Gods and Kings is the story of one man's daring courage to take on the might of an empire. Using state of the art visual effects and 3D immersion, Scott brings new life to the story of the defiant leader Moses as he rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses, setting 600,000 slaves on a monumental journey of escape from Egypt and its terrifying cycle of deadly plagues

Genre : Action/Adventure/Drama
Country : USA/UK
 
Cast :
Christian Bale : Moses
Joel Edgerton : Ramses
Aaron Paul : Joshua

Director : Ridley Scott
 


My opinion 

“Follow me and you will be free. Stay and you will perish.” 

I have a feeling that the Catholic Church has done quite a bit of lobbying in Hollywood, after noticing that their fanbase started to dwindle. First there was the biblical story "Noah" with the famous boat builder who started constructing a huge ark, insisted by "The guy upstairs", just so he and his family could withstand the announced tidal wave together with a pair of every animal species. And now they even convinced Ridley Scott to make a film of the incomparable epic story of Moses who guided his people through the desert to absolute freedom (It's clear he hasn't pointed out the right place, because they still haven't found the right spot). Ultimately, this film won't convert me (it didn't appeal to me either), but I did expect great things from this pimped version of "The ten commandments" from 1956. In the end it was just a boring spectacle in which the whole bag of CGI tricks, special effects and contemporary modern camera technology was opened, to ensure a stunning visual show. I couldn't find any added value compared with the original film from 1956. Indeed, it was dead boring and disappointing with some non-impressive performances in comparison with those from "The Ten Commandments".

Writing a spoiler-free review for a film like "Exodus" isn't really difficult, because most of us know the initial story. In contrast to the story in the Bible with everything miraculous, wondrous and divine described, this film looks at it from a scientific perspective. There's a meaningful explanation for every Egyptian plague. Even the highlight with the Red Sea didn't look as if the hand of God was in play. As Scott announced it himself, the intention was to give all miracles a scientific twist. Similarly, the big trick with the Red Sea. A giant tsunami caused a drawback of the Red Sea. As a realist, I can live with this, and it's a more plausible explanation for the course of events. As an avid movie lover, this was a rather disappointing choice. In my honest opinion this ruined the magic of the movie. To be honest, my high expectations about this scene made sure I persisted in looking further to this rather miserable-long film. I was expecting an impressive fragment (compared to that of the film of 1956) but was treated to an empty, muddy seabed (and judging by the immense noise of the flying birds, it was swarming with air gasping fish) which got flooded again by huge tidal waves. So it wasn't an impressive moment with a sea opening itself. Waiting impatiently for this moment was just a waste of effort.

The performances by Christian Bale (Moses) and Joel Edgerton (Ramses) were sometimes flatly embarrassing and totally unconvincing. Bale really wasn't believable as the famous Moses. As would-be Egyptian, he looked youthful and virile in the beginning. As Moses, he also looked like a virile person, but with a fake beard. Also, he wasn't confident and he even dared to accuse God of going too far. Compare him with Charlton Heston. Now THAT was a real Moses : his stature, the impressive beard, that appearance and he was a perfect example what leadership is all about. Also Edgerton as the cruel ruler Ramses looked downright ridiculous. The moment he lays aside his dangerous sword, being part of "The Village People" wouldn't be out of place with the thick applied mascara and his shiny bald head. Remember Yul Brynner ! Yes, he looked like a dangerous and cruel Egyptian pharaoh. For the supporting roles they recruited some big names like Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Aaron Paul and John Turturro. Obviously neither cost nor effort was spared and this served merely to give the whole spectacle a Hollywood status. The only one who didn't disappoint me was Kingsley, although there is a little wear on the routine of facial expressions by him.

Is there anything positive to report ? Yes of course. Visually it is a feast for the eyes: the whole decor, the costumes, Memphis and the surrounding slums were impressive on screen, the monuments and the ongoing labor, the mandatory large-scale battle scenes (I got that "The Lords of the ring" feeling again), the Egyptian plagues look slick and some images are real gems. The subtle interpretations of the biblical story, were surprising. Firstly, He-who-always-talks-with-a-reverberating-voice is represented by an irritating young boy who speaks with a British accent (Not an uninspired burning bush). He's a real brat who gets terribly worked up when his demands aren't met. I'm not a religious type and certainly no expert when it comes to the content of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that while His Holiness let the 10 plagues rage over Egypt, he still was working on the 10 Commandments, because the rule "Thou shalt not kill" and the concept of "to love thy neighbour" wasn't applied here. The term "turn the other cheek" apparently wasn't customary either. He rather used the slogan "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" I guess. But that's a subject for a theological debate. Furthermore, I think it's wonderful that Moses had to chisel the 10 commandments into the stone tablets himself, instead of "The Big Chief" using some lightning.

Yet I ask myself why Ridley Scott, still one of my favorite directors who produced a series of superb films (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, Prometheus) why he has choosen this project at the age of 77. Maybe he wanted to come to terms with God! Conclusion: a visually successful film but substantively it's as empty as the desert during a hot summer. The only thing they need to make is a soft erotic drama about Sodom and Gomorrah, a thriller about the fate of Lot and an adventurous movie about Samson and Delilah, and I think they would have covered the most thrilling parts of the Bible.

PS. It's certainly not my intention to offend those who believe. Who am I to judge if believing is a good or a bad thing. That would make me God, God forbid. But let me quote Ridley : "Religion is the source of all evil. Everyone is tearing each other apart in the name of their personal God". Ultimately, this film will cause a fuss among the devout audience. For me it was simply a simple story.

My rating 4/10

Links : IMDB

VANish (2015)

Summary
A kidnapped young woman is forced on a road trip full of murder and mayhem that takes place entirely in her captor's getaway van.

Genre : Action/Crime/Horror
Country : USA
 
Cast :
Maiara Walsh : Emma
Danny Trejo : Carlos
Austin Abke : Jack

Director : Bryan Bockbrader


My opinion 

“Max, hide the beers.
I mean, who gives a shit, man. The whole fucking van smells like pot and alcohol.”

Seeing the title of this movie, it inevitably made me think of the legendary polish product, used to remove stains. I must admit that as the film progresses, and especially during the rough and gore climax in the end, they sure could use a shitload of this product to remove the resulting stains (blood stains that is). Eventually, the initial meaning of the movie title will be a reference to the fact that the entire film almost solely takes place in a van. "VANish"  surely can be considered as a low-budget film that was made in an unreal short period. In 13 days they've made the whole thing and in a way you'll notice that.

Despite the low budget, the film still looks surprisingly fresh and professional. In terms of images anyway. The sultry and hot desert environment where everything happens, shimmers of the screen. Everything is soaked in warm colors. And although it's a simple story that was filmed in a driven way, there are some shortcomings in it. I'm a fan of low-budget movies. And after watching all these million dollar blockbusters, it's sometimes a relief to see a minimalist creation. It's the purity of such movies that intrigue me and not the dizzying special effects or the exuberant paid movie stars who appear in it. That this film won't be nominated for an Oscar is obvious of course, but usually there is still a revelation to discover in such a creative product. In "VANish" this is without a doubt the actress Maiara Walsh who plays brilliantly the part of Emma: a brave young lady who, even though she finds herself in a dire situation, continues to provoke and belittle the three kidnappers. A funny rendition that guarantees hilarious conversations now and then.

Another highlight is the brief appearance of Tony Todd, who I'll always remember as the imposing and frightening "Candyman" from the eponymous movie. A central interlude so absurd that it made me think of "Pulp Fiction" and the character of Todd  as intimidating as ludicrous. I'm sure Tarantino could appreciate this fragment. Besides that, I think you can compare "VANish" with "From Dusk Till Dawn" (except that the latter with regard to the finishing touch and elaboration surely is from a different level). At first glance you might think that this is yet another Danny Trejo one-man-show. Are you a hardcore Trejo fan, then you'll be deeply disappointed, because he appears only for a few minutes (which I didn't regret). He might be a crucial part of Jack's (Austin Abke) established plan, but the final emphasis is on the interaction between the four protagonists and the hidden agenda of Jack.

The biggest disappointment was the denouement. In line with the slasher films of the 90s, this film ends in a huge bloodbath and the shown violence reaches excessive proportions. But ultimately, these violent scenes aren't really innovative and they look just as old as those of the good old days. Nevertheless you would expect them to be more realistic and credible with today's technology. It seemed as if the staff used buckets of fake blood on the set. Also, the three kidnappers Jack, Max and Shane were at one time really irritating. Admittedly, Shane (Adam Guthrie) and Max (Bryan Bock Brader, Director) weren't really sane (drugs, alcohol and PTSD are most likely the cause of this), but gradually they became more and more schizophrenic and hallucinatory insane. In contrast, Jack is an example of self-control. That's why a visit to his pissed girlfriend, who broke up with him for unknown reasons, during the abduction is plain normal (for me this was a bit exaggerated).

Perhaps the biggest plus of this film is the simplicity of the story: two perfectly normal looking weirdos (a kind of "Dumb and Dumber"-types) abduct the daughter of a drug baron for ransom, the trip to the meeting is fairly chaotic, one of the kidnappers seems to have a different motivation, the denouement turns out to be quite bloody. And that's perhaps the downside of the film. A too simplistic story. Perhaps they should have extended that period of 13 days a little, to embellish the story a bit and improve the gore, bloody scenes. The movie isn't that bad, but maybe they rushed it a bit as if all hell would fall on them.

My rating 5/10
Links : IMDB