Reviews by moviebuff15

I didn't come into this movie expecting much. After watching the documentary "Zombie Girl" centered around teen filmmaker Emily Hagins and the making of the film "Pathogen", I became interested in Hagins' work. I didn't think she looked like a wunderkind, I was just impressed by the strength of her determination and spirit. I thought, I MUST see something by this girl. After all, how many of us aspiring filmmakers are making films when we're twelve, except in our dizziest daydreams?

That said, "My Sucky Teen Romance," Hagins' fourth feature, is an alright piece of entertainment, scattered with a few laughs. The film gets props for making fun of the obscenely overrated piece of garbage "Twilight," as well as a having some snazzy opening credits. The problem is, Hagins isn't a kid anymore (she and I are the same age, nineteen) and the film's occasional pleasures aren't enough to sustain a full-length feature.

Kate (Elaine Hurt,) is going to college, and decides to visit "Space-Con" before she goes. Accompanied by her best friend Allison (Lauren Lee,) Kate visits the sci-fi convention and runs into her old crush, 'cute grocery store boy' Paul (Patrick Delgado.) Sweet and awkward Paul doesn't know Kate wants him, but even less so realizes that he wants her, and he has competition- Kate's childhood friend Jason (Santiago Dietche) has affections for the confused teenager too.

This would be your average teenage love triangle movie if not for one thing... Paul's a vampire. But typical of vampire stories today, he's a sweet, gentle vampire who doesn't want to kill. However, his maker Vince (Devin Bonnée,) who plays off of the character Edward Cullen in order to entice his hapless female victims, is the token full-blooded, charming, suave vampire- everything that Paul is not. And he's hungry.

The quality of the film over all is somewhat amateurish, and the twist at the beginning is ripped directly from the first episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." The acting is also amateurish, with Tony Vespe as jokester Mark being the strong point in an otherwise weak cast. The two main characters were likable (even if the actors weren't exactly magnetic,) and the special effects and script were generally not too bad.

The problem with the script is the shallowness of Kate's dilemma. When she is turned vampire (an unfortunate mistake on Paul's part,) there isn't any real urgency- the movie trades in the drama of her plight in an attempt to be hip and funny. Unfortunately, the humor isn't all that funny, and Patrick Delgado is not leading man material. His "ball-up-and-fight' scenes are a joke, he can't look scared, he can't look fierce, he can't look... much of anything, except himself.

Strong point- the surprising ending, which resolves the issues at hand in an unexpectedly dark way. Some of the humor was strong, but there wasn't nearly enough of it. Any movie that makes fun of "Twilight" and Twihards gets a pass in my book. The film isn't bad, just underachieving, and Emily Hagins shows potential in her writing and directing prowess. Better luck next time, Emily. I hope your next film, "Grow Up, Tony Philips" starring Tony Vespe exceeds this in content and style.

The events that unfold in "The Woman" are not always believable or even serious, but they are consistently intriguing and have a thought-provoking message behind them. The acting adeptly drives home this message- 'the woman' of the title (Pollyanna McIntosh,) a feral human wandering the wilds of rural North America, may be more animal than human, but she is more of a person than her sadistic (and supposedly 'civilized') male captors.

The Cleeks are an all-American family that have done well for themselves- Dad Chris (Sean Bridger) is a successful lawyer, while the others fall into traditional roles of housewife, jock brother, feminine sister, and cutie pie youngster. But something is terribly wrong. Chris rules his frightened family with an iron fist, bullying them into compliance, while older daughter Peg (Lauren Ashley Carter) hides a terrible secret from the rest of the world.

So when the unthinkable happens- Chris brings home a feral woman to force his family to participate in her 'reintroduction into society'- the others are bullied into playing along- but such a decision will have explosive consequences. While brother Brian (Zach Rand) follows in his dad's footsteps and downtrodden mom Belle (Angela Bettis) frets, sister Peg's secret becomes increasingly hard to hide.

The acting here is quite good- I was especially impressed by Lauren Ashley Carter as Peg, who portrayed her alienation, aching loneliness, and increasing empathy for her father's prisoner startlingly well. I really started to care for her- I felt she was a good person trapped in a very sick family dynamic, and felt keenly for her.

Polly McIntosh and Angela Bettis were very good too- Bettis, who impressed in director Lucky McKee's 2002 horror film "May," here shows her versatility as a weak, frightened wife and mother, while there is no trace of actor in McIntosh's portrayal of a wild woman who has met her match in sadistic captor . I felt Sean Bridger's 'family-values-gone-awry' dialogue was a bit silly at times (like a close descendent of Terry O'Quinn's "The Stepfather,") but he did alright with the resources he had.

"The Woman" raises this question- what is more dangerous, a person who is taught to put on a mask of success and normalcy but remains a wild animal, or a person who has never been taught these resources. This would make a great companion viewing with the Stephen King essay "Why We Crave Horror Movies," which goes into the dark urges we are taught to keep in check.

I urge you to pay attention to the scene where youngest child Darlin' Cleek (Shyla Molhusen) demands a cookie from her mother, to which Mom responds, "That's not a very nice way to ask." Promptly, the girl says "Please may I have a cookie Mommy, I love you" (not a direct quote.) We are taught these techniques from an early age, but when the person being taught in a psychopath, does etiquette make him a less monstrous monster?

The editing in "The Woman" is sometimes a little overbaked, as is the writing, and the bombastic ending is so gory and disgusting that it is hard to take seriously, but the films performances and psychological aspects make it worth seeing and discussing.

Is it nuts to expect more from a movie like "The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence?" With a premise and set-up like this, what can you expect, except for a few good scares and a whole lotta gore? But with an intriguing killer like Martin, I was actually hopeful, and disappointed by the never-ending, and I suppose inevitable, stream of torture that followed.

I guess I would have liked to have seen more Martin, less of the centipede. More scathing black humor, less of the gore? Crazy? Maybe. But my love of all things fuck-upedly psychological led me to wish for an entirely different movie.

I'll be honest and straight-up and admit that I haven't seen Tom Six's controversial original (and at this point I don't think I'll bother.) But to those uninitiated few, I'll describe the original premise to the best of my abilities. Sensitive readers, stop right here. It only goes downhill from here.

In the original "Human Centipede," two pretty American tourists' car breaks down while traveling in Germany (of course, the car,) and they seek help at the home of an incredibly creepy German doctor, who proceeds to serve them a drugged drink and reveal his master plan (you've never seen that one before, right?)

The doctor intends to make a Siamese triplet out of the frightened girls and a third party. Okay, this is where it gets real messy. Using the magic of surgical precision, the the good doc will sew them together mouth to anus, therefore creating one entity. I guess you're starting to understand the controversy behind these films, eh?

So. "The Human Centipede II." Listen, now, because the premise is actually pretty creative. Martin, a short, creepy, obese security guard (Laurence R. Harvey) who lives with his abusive mother (Mommy issues- where have I heard that one before...? Okay I'll stop now) is INSPIRED by the original "Human Centipede" and sets out to make one of his own, but suffers from poor health and limited resources.

Martin, whose father sexually abused him, and whose mother blames Martin for sending hubby to jail (I call it "Precious" syndrome. but it definitely happens,) has led an agonizing life full of brutality and misery, and, as it so happens, has a sexual fetish for "The Human Centipede." On top of that he has a psychiatrist (Bill Hutchins) who wants to have sex with him (ew.)

SO what can Martin do except to make the people around him suffer? And so he does, in a spectacularly brutal manner. And may I just say, Laurence R. Harvey is a FABULOUS actor. Not only does he cope with the fact that Martin doesn't say a single word throughout the movie, he makes it an asset.

Harvey also makes you feel sorry for Martin at parts throughout the movie. And I think that's where he really excels, making you feel sympathy for such a beastly character. Unfortunately, Laurence R. Harvey (and Martin) are stuck in a movie that doesn't deserve them, and Vivian Bridsen (who plays Martin's mother) is as incompetent as Harvey is adept.

The first half of this film is pretty good- deliberately illogical at times (Martin hits his victims full-force with a crow bar and still manages to only knock them out,) but the film has a devilish, nightmarish feel, and makes good use of black & white photography. The dialogue is often bizarre and implausible, but only reinforces the fact that we are living in nightmare.


After the first half, though, we are thrown into forty minutes of torture which is not only gross, it's also boring. How do you make torture boring? For dragging it on forty minutes, that's how. I know, I know, I'm watching "The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence,)," not "My Dinner With Andre." Dialogue isn't the film's strong point. But is it too much to hope for a little... more of it?

If there's one thing I got out of this movie, it was Laurence R. Harvey's performance. I really, really hope this guy makes it. Otherwise, skip this weakly plotted torture fest. Next!

Inspirational but never maudlin, "Billy Elliot" practically soars with unforgettable characters and compassionate storytelling. Working-class 11-year-old Billy Elliot (Jamie Bell,) whose family and home life is directly affected by the striking miner's demands for better pay, discovers his passion for dance when he is at a boxing lesson (which he hates) and stumbles upon a ballet class.

Mrs. Wilkinson (Julie Walters,) a chain-smoking, tough old broad, becomes aware of Billy's talent during their many secret lessons together and encourages him to try out for the royal ballet school, but first Billy must fight the disapproval of his hard-headed, disciplinary father (Gary Lewis) and the traditional English community.

All of "Billy Elliot"'s characters act and feel like real people... and instead of demonizing the people opposing Billy, the film sensitively portrays their argumentative point of view. Jamie Bell gives a great performance here as Billy, who will be the first to tell you that he's NOT a poof, but the real stand-out is Gary Lewis as the dad, Jackie Elliot.

Instead of making the dad a bigoted a***ole like most movie's would have done, the script creates Jackie as a multifaceted, rough and tumble miner past his prime, who believably makes the transition from skepticism to acceptance of his son's passion for the ballet.

In fact, I can't think of a single bad performance in this whole movie- everybody excels in their roles. The script is also good, making events that could seem contrived plausible through believable plot and character development. The only plot point I had trouble with is the ending.

Not to reveal anything (bad movie-spoiling critic!,) but I don't know if the Ballet school really would have made the decision that it did. I also think that despite the R rating, older kids and teens should enjoy this and doubtfully will be traumatized by the mild adult content.

There's some language on display here, but if you're like my 9-year-old sister (who watched the movie with me and thoroughly enjoyed it,) you've heard worse at home. And if you have a family member like my brother (who screams continuous strings of obscenities over his X-Box all day,) this film's realistically rough dialogue will seem absolutely quaint.

This movie has been adapted into a stage play, but I probably wouldn't go see it, seeing as little Billy's all grown up now and I can't picture anyone but Jamie Bell playing the role. I know, but I am denying myself a great experience. But when others go to the play, I will pop in the DVD and watch Jamie Bell- forever young, forever dancing, and I will never regret it.

Compelling from beginning to end, "Gun Hill Road" is a powerful and touching picture about race, gender, and family that refuses to incorporate stereotypes or cliches into it's scorching script. The three leads serve up great performances in a movie that offers no pat solutions for it's tough subject matter.

Mexican tough Enrique (Esai Morales) gets out of prison to find his world has changed dramatically- his wife, Angie (Judy Reyes,) is involved with another man, while his son Micheal (Harmony Santana) is looking and behaving more and more like a girl.

Michael, who is transgendered (and played by a real-life intersexual,) who has ambivalent emotions about his dad getting out of the can, is saving up his money for a painful and strenuous sex reassignment surgery, and his traditional dad is not even close to accepting his son's identity as a woman.

"Gun Hill Road" skirts the opportunity for stereotypes to deliver a cast of compelling characters- Enrique, far from the maniacally conservative, cardboard homophobe gay movies like to serve up to the Liberal masses, truly loves his son, but his distrust of his son's true self leads him to make terrible mistakes, which he is unable or unwilling to atone for.

Michael/'Vanessa,' on the other hand, is a soft-spoken and respectful kid who acts believably and responsibly in a role that could be reserved for trannie theatrics. Even the cop who keeps his watchful eye on Enrique is a thoroughly believable character.

"Gun Hill Road"'s script is extraordinary- I haven't seen a film in months I was this taken with. I found the character of 'Vanessa' especially engrossing and really rooted for him (her?) to find happiness. Harmony Santana evokes great empathy for Vanessa- when she hurts, we hurt. And we love her for that.

If I could sum this movie up in one world it would be- 'sensitive.' The events are plausible, the characters achingly real. Open-minded audiences will find a lot to love in this beautiful tale of sexual identity and accepting the things we cannot change, as hard as that might be. Highly recommended.

There are undeniably touching moments in "Front of the Class," but from the 'Ah-Gee' musical score to the sappy voice-over, the periods in between are more frustrating then inspiring.

The effectiveness are the story is very subjective- if you like Hallmark Hall of Fame television movies and unabashed tearjerkers, you will find a lot to love in this story of a young man living with Tourette's Syndrome while struggling to achieve his dream of becoming a teacher.

If not... well, you may be a hard-hearted cynic like yours truly. Have you ever felt like a robot? Like you weren't capable, or even deserving of, empathy? I watched this movie in a sparse classroom of four students (besides myself,) and by the end credits all four (and the teacher) were weeping and disheveled.

And me...? As for myself, the movie hadn't squeezed a single tear out of me. But before I could snarl and say "Bah-Humbug," the teacher turned on the lights and began raving about what an amazing film it was. What was I supposed to say? Could I say anything?

I guess the whole thing was a bit too calculated for my taste. Or maybe I just don't have empathy for nice, clean-cut white Americans. Or Something. Nevertheless, the experience left me feeling confused and alienated.

At the age of six, Brad Cohen (played by Dominic Scott Kay as a child and James Wolk as an adult) starts to experience mysterious tics- grunts, yelps, and sounds that puzzle his teachers and his family. His classmates, on the other hand, laugh and poke fun at his strange behavior.

However, most heart-wrenching for Brad is the frustration and embarrassment of Brad's father, Norman (Treat Williams.) Although Brad's dad and teachers are convinced that he's a toublemaker, Brad's mom Ellen (Patricia Heaton) loves him and is determined to find the source of his problems, which lies in the fateful diagnosis of Tourette's Syndrome, a neurological disorder which causes tics and twitches against the sufferer's will.

After experiencing the support of a childhood principal (Mike Pniewski,) Brad grows up with a dream to teach... a dream he never lets go of, through crushing rejections and devastating failures. Will he succeed? If you don't know the answer to this, apparently you're not familiar with this type of movie.

Anyway, the stand-out performance here is Dominic Scott Kay as the young Brad Cohen, who wins our sympathy as good kid struggling with events outside his control. Patricia Heaton is also very good as his devoted mother, while James Wolk is decent (if a bit too overly earnest) as the grown Brad.

Although the portrayal of Tourette's is realistic and may appeal to sufferers of the condition looking for support, the so-so script weighs the movie down in a way even the decent cast can't make up for. The movie is just too sentimental for it's own good. Which is a shame, because there are some good things on display here.

"Front of the Class" is the kind of movie that might be worth watching if it comes on Hallmark, but isn't worth your time or money to buy or rent IMO. If you have Tourette's it might offer more to you than it did to me. In that case, or if you like Hallmark tearjerkers, ignore this review and have a good cry on me. Otherwise, you may want to skip this one. Just sayin'.

"Frasier"'s David Hyde Piece turns up the camp for "The Perfect Host," a perfectly functional black comedy that deteriorates into an incompressible mess. Sporting more twists than Snakes and Ladders and more holes than a putt-putt golf course, the end ruins what is otherwise an enjoyable exercise in kitsch.

John (Clayne Crawford) is on the run after a bank robbery gone wrong- and camps out in the wrong house when he enters the L.A. home of Warwick Wilson (David Hyde Pierce,) a well-mannered gentleman with a sadist's streak. Warwick, a full-blown Schizophrenic with a plethora of imaginary friends, holds John captive, while flashback reveal what led up to John's crimes.

Sounds great, doesn't it? It kinda is... until "The Perfect Host" falls prey to 'the curse of the thriller' and piles one nonsensical plot twist after another. I was reminded of the eye-roll ending of Stephen Soderburgh's "Side Effects," which brick by brick tore down the foundation the film had strove for.

Still, there are some great things here. The moments in David Hyde Pierce's delightfully over-the-top performance where you can practically see him smiling over the script. The scene with Warwick f'ing his imaginary friend in the bathroom. It's all very fun and funny, until the filmmaker overplays his hand and transforms a fun ride into an unmitigated disaster.

The obviously gay David Hyde Pierce plays the (presumably) straight Warwick here, which works about as well as it does in "Frasier" (which is to say, not at all.) The musical score is more than a little overbearing, but like Warwick, we are willing to play along... for a while.

"The Perfect Host" is a good example of a typical first feature- good in parts, not so good in others, and puzzling as a whole. If it had quit when it was ahead and ended by the 1 hour 10 minute mark, this may have been a different review altogether. As it is, it concludes as a mess, albeit an interesting one. Pity. Pierce deserves a better vehicle than this, and director Nick Tomnay refuses to give him one.

"Is that that Seth Rogen guy? What's he doing?"

"I think he's... acting."

"Acting? You mean actually giving a performance without using immature fart or stoner humor as a crutch to compensate for an apparent lack of talent? Well, I'll be... Do miracles never cease?"

Seth Rogen is, indeed, quite good in this. The scene where he expresses, in various takes, his shock and horror at his wife's infidelity is revelatory. Overall, though, "Take This Waltz" is so-so, marred by a lack of likable characters and consistent dialogue.

I there's one thing you can say about this movie, it's that it doesn't glorify the act of adultery in any way. Bored housewife Margot (Michelle Williams, who gives a very nice performance here) engages in cutie pie antics and baby talk with her husband, Lou (Seth Rogan,) but longs for passion and intimacy.

When Margot meets Daniel (Luke Kirby,) a handsome artist, sparks fly almost immediately. As it turns out (damn you, fate!,) Daniel lives right next door to Margot and Lou's place, and temptation for indiscretion may be too much to resist. But what are the consequences for such an act?

I was underwhelmed by the dialogue here... sometimes it was really good, and sometimes it was cringe-worthy. It felt like the movie was divided into two different worlds- one where intelligent characters say intelligent things, and one where a verbal expression comes directly out of a third-rate sitcom.

The relationship between Lou and Margot was interesting. I could neither fully support it, nor deny it's moments of comfort and familiarity. I can understand Margot's need for a more intellectually stimulating relationship (as any reasonably intelligent person would presumably have,) as many of the 'tender moments' between them were saccharine or just plain icky.

However, we don't really see a side of Daniel that allows us to understand Margot's prompt crisis. In fact, some of the dialogue was just as vomit-inducing, and the scary thing is, I'm not even sure it was meant to be. For the most part, the characters were more exasperating then likable.

This would be a much better movie if not for the dives in quality of dialogue. "Take This Waltz"'s acting is both fresh and powerful, as is it's refusal to slap itself with a happy ending. However, I have difficulty recommending it and will, sighing, present my ambivalent review.

Admittedly, "Cry-Baby" is a very silly movie, and that silliness may not appeal to everyone. I for one found myself consistently bored by the campy goings-on, and found little to like about delinquent greaser 'Cry-Baby' (Johnny Depp) and his redneck family, when the movie insists we cheer on their successes and 'gee-whiz' at their failures.

It's 1960's Baltimore, and prim, perfect Allison (Amy Locane) has it all- social status, wealth, and a dapper boyfriend (Stephen Mailer.) But, gee, the 'Drapes' from the wrong side of the tracks seem to be having more fun, and Allison is doomed to be a 'Square,' destined for a life of courteousness and decency. Or is she?

Everything changes when Allison meets Wade 'Cry-Baby' Walker (Depp,) a singing, dancing, rocking Drape bad boy who wins her heart. But a series of rivalries and misunderstandings strive to keep Cry-Baby and Allison apart. There will be a lot of music and a lot of fights before a customary happy ending, and for me they couldn't get there fast enough.

I'll be honest with you, folks... the acting here is mediocre, and Johnny Depp as 'Cry-Baby' is unexpectedly terrible. The only stand-outs here are Stephen Mailer as Baldwin, Allison's boyfriend with puppy-dog eyes and a black, black heart, and Polly Bergen, as Allison's well-meaning but clueless grandma. The rest are forgettable.

Also, there are a load of stereotypes in this movie, all of them attempts at satiric humor and achieving none. Authority figures are the dunces and 'bad guys' of the movie, while promiscuous teenagers and thieves are the ones we should look up to.

The movie throws around stereotypes of typically corrupt cops and stupid Christians, while the responsible adults were so 'square' that one can only roll their eyes and wonder if director John Waters has the mentality of a goth teen whining to his dear diary about the hypocrisy of grown-ups. Like, they say one thing and mean another. Burn!

In the end, we are caught between the self-conscious morals of the 'Squares' and the wild unpredictability and grit of the 'Drapes,' from Cry-Baby's nutty stolen hubcap-selling Aunt Ramona (Susan Tyrrell) to the thuggish girl uncharitably called 'Hatchet-Face' (Kim McGuire.)

But guess what? None of the characters are particularly appealing to me. And maybe next time, John Waters will keep his shallow Goth-kid observations about the inherent dishonesty of adults and the dangers of being square to himself. Burn!

Honestly, I think they should have gone one way or another with this movie- the half documentary, half film narrative doesn't quite work, and I'm still struggling to figure out why. "Hide and Seek," not to be confused with the De Niro/Fanning thriller, is the story of Lou (Chelsea Holland,) a adolescent girl forging her identity as a lesbian in the 1960's.

Interspersed with this narrative are interviews with a variety of gay women. The women courageously tell stories about their experiences with sexual awakening. Meanwhile, the child actors give brave performances in the fictional narrative.

Lou is friends with Betsy (Ariel Mara,) while experiencing growing affection toward an African-American classmate. School mean girl Maureen (Alicia Manta) eyes Lou suspiciously, while spreading rumors about the alleged sexuality of her schoolteacher.

Between the documentary segments and the story of Lou's trials of growing up, the film shows us instructional videos of that time period, in an expression of the bigotry and close-mindedness of the time.

The problem is, the portion focusing on Lou just kind of ends, with no resolution, while the transitions are fairly jarring. I think the feature could have been cut into several different films, each expanded greatly, and therefore improved upon.

I wanted to hear Lou's story, and I wanted to hear the ladies' memories, but both in the same movie proved to be somewhat distracting. Overall, though, "Ide and Seek" isn't a bad film, just a little inconsistent, though I'd advise you to stay as far away as possible from the short films on the special features.

I watched one and started the other, and I have to say it was the most tedious ten minutes of my life. While this deserves to be watched, the short film deserves to rot in art-film purgatory. But if you like pointless shorts with no plot, maybe you'll like that one. I don't know.