HOUSE

 

HOUSE =  C+


This was a rather odd film, yet interesting enough to hold my attention for the full run time. Normally ambiguity leaves me with a feeling of well done, satisfaction or a feeling of resentment against unanswered questions, but I'll be if I wasn't middle of the road here.  I never quite knew exactly what was going on or why, but never really needed to either. 

In many ways this film reminded me of one of my favorite horror films, Oculus.  As if House were the original rough draft & after many revisions, Oculus the final product.  Was the house truly haunted? Was Roger simply crazy?  Was this all within Roger's plot for his new novel?  If the house was haunted, was it the house that controlled Ben or was it Ben that controlled the house?  What was real? What wasn't?  Did Harold in the end realize that Roger had been telling him the truth or was that all in Roger's head too?  Did Roger really end up saving Jimmy?  So many questions that seem to have answers until you take everything into consideration.  Well it could be this, but it could also be that.  This particular happening points to this, while this other happening points to that.  

I was hoping with four sequels that maybe one of them might be more definitive as to what exactly is going on, but from what I was able to gather without viewing them yet, they are standalone films without reference to the original. 

As to other elements of the film, I found the situation with the neighbor and her son to be extraordinarily bizarre. I think this is where the "comedy" or the horror-comedy was supposed to be but I found it more disturbing than I did funny.  The special effects were down right cheesy, but was this done purposefully, tongue in cheek or was it "Ed Wood" serious? Hell, even trying to figure out the film from a production standpoint is rather ambiguous! 

The score wasn't anything too spectacular, but it was fitting. William Katt really seemed to buy into the material & the film was better as a result of his genuine performance.  George Wendt a character similar to Norm, which might explain why he went to the bar so much.  If the experience were real for his character, I think that would drive anyone to drink.  Richard Moll, a fun performance, similar to his small roll in the Highlander  series. 

This film isn't going to hold a special place in my heart, but I do feel it was worth the one time viewing I gave it. If you're into absurd horror films that care more about entertaining you than offending you, I would check this one out. 

RAISE THE TITANIC

 

RAISE THE TITANIC - C

I remember first hearing about this film when I was in high school.  It took me 20 plus years to finally get around to watching it, but I finally did.  I think two things hurt this film. First and foremost for 1980, this premise was just way too far out there. I think people today might be intrigued but 43 years ago, I think they were confused more than anything.  Honestly it is an interesting idea.  The concept of a rare element that can be used to create a forcefield or build the ultimate bomb being left aboard the Titanic is rather gripping. Add in the moral dilemma of what this could mean & suddenly you have captivating drama. However, it was told too matter of fact, with little action & absolutely no comic relief.  The pace was slow, the sense of urgency rather a snail's pace. I think people might have gone into this film thinking that it actually had something to do with the Titanic, when in reality Titanic was a mere background for a story about politics, & the lines that should or shouldn't be crossed in militaristic measures. 

That's not to say that the film didn't have its highlights.  The cast did quite well. Jason Robards as he usually is was quite good. David Selby had the most amount of energy, giving the most realistic responses. Richard Jordan seemed to be a bit more of a character that what the role called for, but still a decent performance. At times it seemed that the cast was rather bored with the material, which I'm sure transgressed to the audience. The moments of levity were few and far between, with the strongest being the white star line flag being raised once again on the Titanic. 

I also wonder if the ending didn't hurt this film as well. So much emphasis, time & money was spent to raise the Titanic off of the ocean floor, only to discover in the end that it didn't even need to be done in the first place. Then once the characters discover where the element actually is, ultimately deciding to keep it hidden. I think the overall message was one of putting humanity ahead of government, but I'm not sure if it came across that way. 

In the end I'll conclude that this average film bombed so poorly at the box office because titles can be rather misleading. I'm sure as we didn't have internet back in those days, people went to the theater expecting a Titanic film, and left vastly disappointed to discover that it wasn't.  Again, only a guess, but this is why I would think the film did not do well. 

A Man Called Otto

 

A Man Called Otto: A 

A simple story that hits upon some of the most complicated parts of life. A story of loss & yet a story of gain. I was told before going into this film that it was very sad, but I beg to differ.  It started off sad & depressing but it ended on a very high note. It's difficult to review a movie like this as just a movie because it hits on such a personal & emotional topic. A topic that we all seem to be well aware of, yet at the same time very quiet and private about. 

Rather than write this movie review right away, I instead found myself writing about the actual topic of suicide when I got home from the theater.  The film moved me to open up about a topic that is so hard to talk about with others. A topic that is so hard to be honest about. To be vulnerable about.  

Some say that a film's sole purpose is to entertain.  That a film's job isn't to move you & that it certainly isn't to get you to act.  I didn't find A Man Called Otto to be didactic or preachy.  Yet I did find it to be motivating.  I did find it to cause me to think & to cause me to act. 

The performances were good.  Tom Hanks has been and continues to be one of the greatest actors of our generation. Yet the story here is what was so compelling.  People don't just wake up one day and want to end their lives for no reason.  It's usually because of a sense of loss & furthermore a sense of no hope, nothing left to go on for. A sense that all that is left in life is pain & suffering.  

Once Otto discovered through fate or intervention that there was more to go on for, he no longer wanted things to end and that's why this film isn't a sad one.  That's why I beg to differ with those that argue that it was. 

Had he succeeded in any of his suicide attempts, he would have died a lonely, sad, bitter & depressed old man.  Instead, he died happy & at peace. That's how I walked away feeling. 

THE RETURN

 

THE RETURN:  D+ 

While many films have suffered from too much exposition, The Return suffered from a lack of it. It was a very difficult story to follow. Show, don't tell is the language of film, but in this case the visuals didn't make up for a lack of dialog. While they were appealing, they did not help to tell the story, fill in the gaps or answer the questions. Instead if anything, they left us more confused. The one saving grace this film did have is strong performances. Sarah Michelle Gellar, Adam Scott, Sam Shepard, Peter O'Brien, I saw no flaws within the cast who did their best despite a screenplay that spun its wheels just shy of two hours. This film asked a lot out of its audience. You had to do a lot of guessing. What's happening? Why is it happening? How is it happening? There are times when films hold your hand throughout the entire experience. In this case they blindfolded you, dropped you off in downtown Manhattan, deprived you of GPS or a map & wished you the best of luck.  Film had potential to be good, but sacrificed what could have been a good story in an effort to be edgy.  It did not pay off. 

DREAMHOUSE NIGHTMARE

 

DREAM HOUSE NIGHTMARE : C 

Although it was not a Lifetime Movie Network film, it could have easily passed as one. Based on a true story, this film would have benefited sticking to the actualities of the real life situation & would have been better off to have omitted the made up parts. What really happened was already interesting enough, it didn't need all of the doctoring up that it received. The old saying "Sometimes less is more" really applies here as DREAM HOUSE NIGHTMARE illustrates exactly what that is countless times throughout the entire film. 

Not that there weren't elements of the film that deserve praise. For one the opening was extremely gripping & uniquely clever.  We are at first introduced to the antagonist set up as if she is the protagonist. We are immediately introduced to her situation as we empathize with the struggles she has endured. Her house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, her husband suffered a bad injury & is addicted to pills & she has the burden of raising an autistic daughter.  Then suddenly when the other couple shows up, it dawns on you that THEY are the protagonist and that she is the antagonist. It was a very well done reversal & it deserves to be recognized for how well it was shot. Unfortunately it's also the highlight of the entire film. 

I appreciate how the character of Madison portrayed by Terese Aiello was multi-dimensional.  While you don't empathize with her sociopathic behavior & all of the horrible things she does to the Wade family, you at least get to dive into her psyche and understand what drove her to the point of insanity.  Aiello did a great job of portraying the character & giving a realistic portrayal of such a person in a situation. 

Also props to Tenea Intriago. Playing someone with a mental disability is perhaps one of the hardest roles an actor can be given. I've seen some very well known, talented actors struggle with it in the past. Even some that just plain weren't able to do it. Juliette Lewis couldn't pull it off in THE OTHER SISTER & for that matter neither could Giovanni Ribisi. Intriago's performance was every bit as good as was Sean Penn's in I AM SAM or John Malkovich in OF MICE AND MEN. She nailed a very difficult part & she should be recognized for it. 

As to Rachel Whittle, her performance as Theresa Wade was 100% Lifetime Movie Network award winning worthy. She felt very unrealistic, written to the page and unnatural. Not sure if that was the way the character was written or if that was just the way she played the part. While blame wonders where exactly to be placed, the fact is, the performance felt odd and abnormal.  

Where this film really suffered was within the last 20 minutes. Had the film ended where Madison had gotten arrested & the credits rolled upon her being placed in the back of the squad car, the film might have earned a C+ or even a B-.   The film's focus was on Madison and the horrors she put the Wade family through. That was the entire focus of the film & then suddenly the last 20 minutes shifted to Madison's husband & her daughter. I think what the film was trying to go for, was to show how Autistic individuals can be heroes. While I appreciate the sentiment, it was out of place here & it robbed us from the reward of seeing Madison get her due. Furthermore it cheapened the heroic save made by her daughter.  Subplots should be woven into the main plot of a story and that wasn't done here. Instead it felt like two different films. The one ending definitively & the other rushed to be told in the last 20 minutes. 

It could have been worse though & that fact isn't lost on me.  It wasn't good, it wasn't all that bad, it was in many ways just ok.  If you're hard up for something to watch, you could do a lot worse. 

SHARK BAIT

 

SHARK BAIT 
C-

This flick felt like a student film through and through & I was actually surprised to see the seniority involved within the project. Screenwriter Nick Saltrese has been in the business for over 30 years, yet the screenplay felt uncomfortably simplistic and formulaic. Director James Nunn has been honing his craft for nearly 15 years & yet the film's direction felt so guarded and played safe that you would have thought this was his first project.  It was predictable from start to finish. One of those once you've seen one, you've seen em' all experiences. You saw the scenes unfold in your head long before they ever happened. You could hear the dialog word for word before it was spoken. It was painfully obvious from the start that Nat would be the sole survivor.  If anyone were to call "SPOILERS!!" in return I ask the following question:  Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? That's how blatantly obvious the film is. 

Nat is immediately established as the one likeable character. While Tyler matches Tom, Milly & Greg in terms of carelessness and stupidity, he's at least not as unsympathetic as the other three characters.  The screenplay gives you little reason to root for Tyler or hope for his survival but at the same time you don't enjoy the Shark's devouring of him in the way you do Greg or Milly. There is an attempt to salvage Tom's deplorable behavior, but we're cheated out of a true act of pure selflessness due to the fact that he's already wounded beyond repair. 

SHARK BAIT could easily be summed up as a film of a group of irresponsible knotheads served up one by one as a smorgasbord for a hungry shark. It absolutely astounds me that as nitpicky as audiences can be in terms of accuracy and honest depiction, you can literally get everything about shark behavior and what a shark would actually do in such a situation W-R-O-N-G, yet nobody bats an eye. 10 minutes on google, you'd quickly find the answer to be "No" in 9/10's of the questions you'd ask in response to this film.  "Would a Shark really?" No.  "Does sharks actually?" No.  No, no, no.  Doesn't matter, because while dramas, comedies, and even pornos are held to a standard, thrillers and horrors obviously aren't. 

There's nothing all that reprehensible about the film. It's sitthroughable. You're not going to run to the video store to obtain a copy to put in your DVD collection but you're not going to turn the film off in disgust either. There are a ton of films way better but this is far from the worst thing I've ever seen either. Slightly below average and you have a very fair grade.  

THE MURDER OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON

 

THE MURDER OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON: D- 

Stupidity has hit a whole new level. I feel somewhat bad for saying that as I once met the director, Daniel Farrands at a convention in St. Louis years ago. It's funny because when I met him all those years ago we talked of how a director had more or less butchered one of his screenplays. Nevetheless this film was just bad. Bad in about everyway a film can be bad. 

Why a D- instead of an F? Well I have to give credit where credit is due. Mena Suvari and Nick Stahl despite what they had to work with still gave convincing performances for the most part. When actors do their best, despite everything else, I have to give them props for effort. 

This film is tasteless. Plain and simple, absolutely tasteless. I remember first hearing of the plausible connection to Glen Rogers over 20 years ago. I thought it was a farfetched, damn near 0% plausibility theory back then and I think the same thing now.  To entertain such an improbable postulation makes a mockery of a very real tragedy where loved ones lost their lives in a very real heinous event. To treat  a matter of this magnitude as a novelty is rather shameful. 

It absolutely astounds me the filth that can get green lit when so many good, solid ideas lay dormant. This film hooked it's audience in with a clever title making them think that they were getting into a depiction of real life events and then unabashedly pulled a bait and switch into this ridiculous circus of obvious sensationalism and fiction.   

It's hard to even evaluate this film in any other area as that cardinal sin forever cements it into pipes that carry our sewage. Flush it down the toilet where it belongs.  This film was pure waste.