Why yes, I do feel fine

2012
My rating:




Roland Emmerich hasn't made a good movie since Independence Day. Godzilla was embarrassingly bad, The Patriot was shamelessly manipulative, The Day After Tomorrow was insultingly stupid, and 10,000 B.C. was a snoozefest. The only reason(s) ID4 worked are Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum - their presences gave that film the right attitude and sense of fun to make it one of my favourite guilty pleasures. Emmerich learned all the wrong lessons from it, so now he's indulging his hardon for massive death and destruction with the most massive death and destruction seen on screen to date. But hell, it's Roland Emmerich. How good can it be?

Not very. But at least it's not bad either.

In 2009, geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) discovers something frightening and tells White House Chief of Staff Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover). Three years later, divorced novelist Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) takes his two children camping in Yellowstone Park, and meets conspiracy theorist Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) who warns him of an impending apocalypse from ancient Mayan prophecy. It is indeed the end of the world as we know it, in the form of massive earthquakes and tsunamis, and Curtis and his family - which includes estranged wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and her boyfriend Gordon (Thomas McCarthy) - must race to where the world's major governments are building arks to save as much of humanity as they can.

I actually liked this movie better than I thought I would - better than it deserved, actually - and I know now why. Charlie Frost, who knew of the oncoming apocalypse long before, faces it on his own terms - he stands on the edge of the Yellowstone super-volcano, so that its eruption is the last thing he sees. And it is pretty damn spectacular, not to mention spectacularly realized in CGI. Charlie continues broadcasting his radio show right to the end, screaming his defiance at the very heart of the maelstrom, and I found myself thinking - wow, that is just how I'd like to face the end of the world.

Then I got all contemplative - how would I face the end of the world? And then I started wondering, what if I were one of the faceless billions who die screaming in this movie, or if I would have the same kind of courage Curtis had to fight for his and his family's survival - and bam, this movie had gotten its hooks in me already. And like I said, that's better than it actually deserves. It certainly doesn't waste any time contemplating the myriad ways human beings face death - it's just one scene after another of continent-shattering destruction, interspersed with melodramatic bits of characters tearfully saying goodbye. It's corny and manipulative as all hell, but I gotta say it worked on me at the time.

One of the best books I've read in recent years is Spin, by Robert Charles Wilson, 2006 Hugo Award winner for Best Novel. And that's a far, far better examination of mankind in the face of impending extinction. I found myself wishing that 2012 had aimed for that level of depth, maturity, insight and humanity. But that's far too much to ask of Emmerich. What little depth his screenplay (co-written by Harald Kloser) has is in the subplot of how Anheuser financed the building of the arks by selling seats to the wealthy. Oh, and he also conspired to hide the truth of the apocalypse from the public, even murdering those who threatened to expose it. The morality of his actions are never explored beyond villainizing him at the end, allowing Helmsley to play hero by opening the arks' gates to the clamouring hordes outside (who are mostly the aforementioned rich assholes).

That's Roland Emmerich in a nutshell - a technically talented, but ultimately shallow and superficial storyteller. His characters have all the depth of paper dolls, and he returns time and again to the same stereotypes and cliches. And frankly, if I were a religious person I'd be pretty pissed at his obnoxious disrespect for organized religion. It's at its most blatant when a crack in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel splits the fresco right where God's hand touches Adam's. And then the dome of St. Peter's Basilica collapses in just such a way as to roll and crush thousands of worshipers. Personally, I was most offended by a scene in which a Tibetan lama gives advice to a worried disciple - and his advice turns out to be inane and ignorant of everything that has happened. And yes, Emmerich wanted to destroy the Kaaba too, and I almost wish he had just so he'd get a fatwa on his assholish head.

Okay, okay, I'm being too harsh on it. It's a silly little movie, no better or worse than Transformers 2 or G.I. Joe - the two other big dumb blockbusters of the year. And honestly, I rather enjoyed it as I enjoyed those two. It never got boring or too annoying, and although I didn't like go "fwooaaaarrr" at the disaster scenes, I at least found them entertaining. Emmerich is a better director than he is a writer, and now that he's blown his biggest disaster-movie load he ought to head for fresher territory now. 'Sides, as inane as the story was, this movie actually got me thinking. I've figured out the absolute best place to be when the world ends - basking in the afterglow of sex with the woman I love. I suppose 2012 deserves three stars for giving me that very, very pleasant thought.

NEXT REVIEW: The Box
Expectations: I honestly don't know what to expect

What DID happen in Vegas?

The Hangover
My rating:




(Not Coming to M'sia is a new label for reviews of recent films that, for various reasons, aren't being screened in Malaysian cinemas. Said reasons likely consisting of wussy cinema distributors and jerkass censors. But I can watch 'em and Imma review 'em anyway. Guess how, suckas?)

I'm a funny guy. No, really. I have a sense of humour that I'm reasonably proud of, and in social settings I've been known to raise some chuckles, a few chortles, even a guffaw or two. (And sometimes even intentionally.) But I gotta say, the modern American comedy film is one of those things I tend to find, well, not funny. I dunno why. In almost every one I've watched this year, I've been groaning at how stale and forced the jokes are much more than I've been laughing, even during the big comic setpieces. The Hangover was a film that came recommended by no less than three friends, and I was dreading having to meet them again after watching it and facing their incredulous cries of "Haahh? You didn't like it?? You didn't find it funny?!?"

Okay-lar. It's pretty funny.

Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) head to Vegas for a bachelor night with their best friend (and Alan's brother-in-law-to-be) Doug (Justin Bartha). But the next morning, they wake up with a splitting hangover and no memory of the events of the night before - and a missing Doug. As they race to find their missing friend and get him back in time for his wedding, they have to deal with the fallout of an incredibly wild, drunken night - which begins with Stu missing a tooth, a tiger in their hotel room, a baby in the closet, and a parking valet ticket for a police cruiser.

I watched this movie twice actually, the second time after I'd decided to review it. And I actually liked it better the second time. I still didn't laugh much, but I appreciated the sheer over-the-top absurdity of the plot more, which is what the movie does best. No worries about contrived situations or stale jokes here - the more our heroes get battered, beaten up, humiliated and freaked out, the funnier it gets. The second time I saw what they found in the trunk of their car that they just recovered, I really did LOL. The film isn't afraid to drop them into truly bizarre situations, such as when Mike Tyson (played by Mike Tyson) makes a cameo appearance and demonstrates his love of Phil Collins.

It didn't begin well though. During the first half hour, we are introduced to our three primary characters plus groom, and by this point I was already dreading the movie to come. Phil starts out as an absolute asshole - he's a schoolteacher who steals the money for a class trip to spend on the bachelor night, he's married with a kid but claims to hate his life, and he belittles his friend Stu in front of a cute hotel receptionist. I thought he was gonna be the macho overgrown fratboy moron whose douchebaggery would be played for laughs in a film that ultimately celebrates this kind of party-animal behaviour. Surprisingly, he didn't. As the movie progressed, there were less and less instances of Phil being a jerk - because he, and Stu and Alan, are too busy being carried along by the plot. Frankly, it smells like a hasty script rewrite, but I'm glad for it.

The other two leads get more character development. Stu starts off as a nerd and a wimp with a bitchy and controlling girlfriend - and he later learns that during that fateful night, he got married Vegas-style to a stripper named Jade (Heather Graham). Naturally, by movie's end he will find the nerve to dump his girlfriend, but this arc of his is somewhat underdeveloped. Jade herself makes only sporadic appearances - at one point she just suddenly shows up to help our boys out, and I found myself wondering where's the scene where Stu persuades her to help them, despite the fact that he regrets (and doesn't even remember) marrying her. The fact that we don't see this scene is a bit of a head-scratcher.

As for Alan, he contributes a fair share of the movie's laughs. He is weird, awkward and socially inept - and occasionally downright stupid - but although we're frequently laughing at him, the movie allows us to view him sympathetically instead of just derisively. In fact, it finds just the right approach to his character - he's an overgrown child, a 9-year-old boy in an adult body who desperately wants friends and tries too hard to be liked. And he can still blurt out hilariously creepy things about masturbating on a plane. That's quite an impressive balancing act that the script pulls off, and if this was another rewrite, it's done much smoother than the one on Phil's character.

And how do the actors fare in these three roles? Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis were all friends before they made this movie, and their easy rapport is another of the film's strengths. They're entirely believable as three ordinary guys (well, two ordinary guys and one not-so-much) in increasingly WTF-worthy situations. There's also able support from the aforementioned Mike Tyson, as well as Ken Jeong, who is hands down the movie's funniest character. I'd be spoiling most of the film's biggest laughs if I say too much about him. But what is Heather Graham doing in such a thankless role? Didn't she used to play leads? She does fine here, but I gotta wonder what happened to her career.

It's just as well this movie never made it to Malaysian screens - it's a hard R-rated raunchy adult comedy, with plenty of (mostly male) nudity and profane dialogue. Still, I think I would've really enjoyed watching this in a cinema, with a hundred other moviegoers laughing all around me. It really is one of the few Hollywood comedies I enjoyed in recent years; it shows uncharacteristic affection for its characters, and finds humour in their situations rather than stereotypical and annoying behaviour. If a lot more comedies learned this lesson, I wouldn't be so unjustly accused of being humourless - I wouldn't have that accusation hanging over me. See? See?

Apologia

Sigh. It's been a good week since my last review. TMBF has a day job, and it's been keeping him a lot busier than usual lately. (And for those of you who think I actually watch movies all day and write reviews for a living - hell to the N-O.) My poor hit count has dropped to the low single digits, after hitting a record high two Wednesdays ago. (Were you all that interested to see me swear up a storm?)

My plans for watching 2012 last weekend fell through, as have any chance of catching it during the week. It looks like my review of that movie will only be up by Saturday night or Sunday morning. So to my die-hard fans who've been breathlessly awaiting the next update: soon, Mum, soon.

Aside from 2012, there's already four other movies playing right now that I want to watch, and another four more opening next week. Hope I can find time to catch them all, but really can't guarantee it. It's not just a hectic week at work, it's a hectic time of the year.

They ain't messin' with no broke niggas

Pisau Cukur
My rating:




Since I started this blog, I've been getting a solid primer on the ranks of Malaysian film directors. Every locally-produced film I've watched (not including two indies) has been from a different director - Syamsul Yusof, Ahmad Idham, Madya Razak Mohaideen, Kabir Bhatia, M. Jamil, Azhari Zain, Afdlin Shauki and Majed Salleh. And most of them are, to put it delicately, talentless hacks. Hell, half of them made films that are so staggeringly inept, I can barely imagine how tak malu they must be. Only Bhatia and Afdlin have proved themselves to be decent filmmakers and storytellers, and it's a sad statement on our film industry that we've only got two of such.

Fortunately, Bernard Chauly makes it three.

Intan (Nur Fazura) and Bella (Maya Karin) are best friends with similar mercenary attitudes towards love and relationships - Bella is an unashamed gold-digger, and although Intan has a career as a TV news reporter, she's dating a rich married Datuk. Whilst on an ocean cruise holiday, both girls get their opportunities to pursue their goals: Bella sets her sights on wealthy widower Datuk Hisham (Eizlan Yusof) and enlists the aid of an infatuated Faqir (Redza Minhat). Meanwhile, Intan gets mixed up in the affairs of Datuk Zakaria (Dato' Rahim Razali) and his three wives (Khatijah Tan, Umie Aida, Sharifah Sofia) and children (Liyana Jasmay, Nas-T) - and when a murder occurs, she smells a story and tags along with hunky private investigator Ari (Aaron Aziz).

It's sad that they didn't get to film on an actual ocean liner - the unconvincing sets and occasional obvious green-screenery are the only things that mar a very polished production. The technical aspects - production design, art direction, even wardrobe and styling - boast an attention to detail that's pretty damn rare for a Malay movie, lemme tell ya. And the polish extends to the screenplay as well - writer Rafidah Abdullah displays a remarkably sure hand at characterization, one of the hardest things to write well. I was especially impressed with Bella's character arc and its climactic moment; the craft and care with which it was set up can rival any Hollywood script. Even the murder mystery subplot is surprisingly well done, with the requisite red herrings and a clever resolution.

But I gotta say, this is a movie I like better looking back than I did while watching it. Now, I concede that that may have been due to the annoying wanker who sat next to me, who not only had no qualms about talking in the cinema but also snuck in a Ramly burger (wei, busuk laa!) that he didn't even finish... ahem. Thing is, for a comedy, I just didn't laugh much. There was plenty of wit in the dialogue, and Chauly succeeded in coaxing some entertainingly over-the-top performances from his female cast, but there simply weren't any big laugh-out-loud moments. In fact, one running joke - Intan's frequent exclamations of "oh my Dior, oh my Gucci, oh my Prada" - actually got on my nerves.

And on that note, I'm seriously wondering if the two leads weren't miscast. This is a broad comedy, and Maya never quite seems comfortable with that tone. Fazura, on the other hand, throws herself into her role with gusto - and therein lies the problem. Fazura's Intan is supposed to be the more serious, career-minded one - but Fazura overacts like mad, and it's often fun but occasionally grating. On the other hand, Maya's Bella is the out-and-out pisau cukur - and Maya's performance is earnest, but frequently wooden. Intan is obviously something of a gold-digger herself, what with her affair with Datuk Salleh (a suitably slimy Radhi Khalid), but essentially she's out to prove that she has smarts behind the pretty face. And although Bella has hidden depths, her mata duitan antics are mostly played for laughs. Ya lar, I totally think they should've swapped roles. And Intan's oh-my-expensive-fashion-brandname expletives should've definitely gone to Bella instead.

The rest of the cast's performances are, frankly, somewhat hit and miss. The ladies all seem to be having tremendous fun out-bitching each other, which leaves the serious acting to the menfolk - well, most of them. Aaron Aziz fares best as the macho giler PI, but Redza and Eizlan are kinda dull. Dato' Rahim Razali is a grand old man of Malaysian screen and stage, but horny old bastard doesn't seem to be a role he can pull off convincingly. There are cameos galore, and the funniest are the ones by Yasmin Yusuff, Elaine Pedley and madame screenwriter herself - but there's also a strangely unfunny one by Afdlin Shauki.

So Rafidah's script earns ten out of ten points for dramatic substance, but minus a few for relying too much on broad acting for the comedy - which, from what I've seen, is definitely a thing with local movies. But this one is heaps better than most, and not just because of the writing. It's crafted with a level of professionalism and competence that are shockingly lacking in far too many made-in-Malaysia movies I've seen this year; the blockheads who made those oughta hang their heads in shame. Syabas Mr. Chauly, you totally pwn those noobs.

NEXT REVIEW: 2012
Expectations: *eyeroll*

The second hand unwinds

The Time Traveler's Wife
My rating:




I love sci-fi, always have. When I was younger, I loved it for the escapism - how could boring old reality possibly measure up to a world with spaceships, robots, aliens, time machines and alien planets? But the genre isn't only about escapism; the challenge of any sci-fi story is to marry an out-of-this-world premise with human characters who deal with that premise in real, relatable, human ways. The Time Traveler's Wife is a prime example of that - the evergreen SFnal trope of time travel is mostly employed here as a fresh spin on what's essentially a down-to-earth romantic drama.

And it succeeds - but more in the romantic drama arena than the sci-fi one.

Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) has a singular genetic condition - he travels through time, unwillingly and uncontrollably. He often revisits significant moments in his life, and he always appears naked (his clothes don't travel with him). When he meets Claire Abshire (Rachel McAdams), she tells him she's been in love with him all her life - because as they fall in love and get married, he will frequently travel back to visit her younger self. But living with such a condition - dubbed "chrono-impairment" by geneticist Dr. Kendrick (Stephen Tobolowsky) who helps Henry - takes a toll on their relationship, especially when they try to have children.

I wish I'd read the Audrey Nifenegger novel this film was based on. According to this review, it has a wealth of little details that the movie leaves out, in favour of streamlining the plot - and the plot isn't any great shakes. I'd have to agree, but I still liked it better than that reviewer did. The romance worked for me; Henry and Claire's love for each other is affecting and effective. I also liked the fact that this wasn't your typical Hollywood love story, in which the beginning of a relationship is the end of the movie - we follow Henry and Claire through several years of their lives together, and this makes for a more mature romance than we usually see.

But there's a definite sense that the film doesn't make full use of its premise. Being able to travel through time should affect Henry's and Claire's lives in many, many more ways than are shown here, and some of the ways it does show are glossed over. For example, there are implications that before he met Claire, Henry was a lonely man, unable to live a normal life because of his condition - but this barely comes across, and the character as written (and played by Bana) certainly doesn't seem like a social recluse. During their relationship and marriage, Henry's time-hopping seems little different from an absentee husband who goes on a lot of business trips. At one point, Henry uses a trip to the future to procure a winning lottery ticket that solves their financial worries, which raises the question of why he's never done that before.

It seems the filmmakers simply aren't familiar with sci-fi as a genre. Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin is mostly known for writing Ghost, and he had it easier with the metaphysical life-after-death aspects of that movie than the time-traveling of this one. I was honestly surprised at that bit with the lottery ticket, because it's the first indication that Henry can also travel to the future - quite a few time-travel stories have made it a rule that it's only possible to go back to the past. The film works best when time travel affects the central couple's lives in real, dramatic ways, such as when Claire gets pregnant - in fact, she suffers several miscarriages because, since Henry's condition is genetic, the fetuses tend to literally disappear from her womb. (Which means they appear somewhere, or somewhen, but we never see this. Would've been extremely icky though.)

But when the drama works, it works quite well. And the acting has a lot to do with it - McAdams and Bana make us believe that they're star-crossed lovers who are - literally - meant to be together. Everyone else is pretty much peripheral, really - Stephen Tobolowsky is always fun to watch (he's a perfect "hey, it's that guy!"-type actor whom you've seen in hundreds of roles), but he's not in it much. Ron Livingston similarly has a rather thankless role as a friend of Henry and Claire, and from what I've read it seems there was a bigger subplot involving the character in the book that the movie left out.

This is the first movie in a long time that I'm giving three stars to, and frankly it's been a bit hard to review - it's not so bad that I can rant about where it went wrong, but not good enough to rave about either. I'm sure I'd have a lot more to say if I'd read the novel, but I suspect I'd probably like it less too. In any case, I did like it, and you'd probably like it more if you weren't as big a sci-fi geek as I am - probably a lot more if you like a good, weepy romantic melodrama, something I'm not immune to myself. (My feminine side, let me show you it.) Still, the next time a movie comes out that's based on a genre novel I've been meaning to read, I'm gonna make sure I read it first. Which reminds me, I need to pick up a copy of Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones real soon.

Update: Rating revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.

NEXT REVIEW: Pisau Cukur
Expectations: let's see what you got, Mr. Chauly

Fuck you Lembaga Penapisan Filem, and fuck you GSC MidValley

No, I will not be reviewing Seven Days.

I did watch it, and I quite enjoyed it. This review recommended it, and for the most part it was right - it's a tight, fast-paced and effective mystery thriller, albeit somewhat contrived and has a Tony Scott wannabe for a director. A lot of the movie's plot points were conveyed through dialogue, and since this is a Korean film, we relied on the subtitles. And every time there was vulgar language in the dialogue (which was often)...

...a guy in the projection booth would cover up the subtitles.

Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that. It wasn't just annoying, it spoiled the movie.

No, I won't apologize for cussing this time. For one thing, I'm pissed off enough that I think I'm entitled to some strong language to express it. For another, I think it's fucking ridiculous to be so squeamish about profanity in this day and age. Nobody can keep me from hearing it, because nobody can keep me from saying it. I'm proving it right here in this post, on my blog.

I'll be boycotting GSC MidValley from now on for a good long while. I can understand that it's not really their fault, it's the National Fucking Censorship Board that probably made them do it. Well, since the LPF are - like so much else about our government - not answerable to the public, someone has to bear the brunt. Someone has to be made to understand how dissatisfied I am, how dissatisfied we are as media consumers. Someone has to pay.

Fucking jerkholes. I'm beginning to wonder now if there's any goddamn point to being a Malaysian cinema blogger.

Nice body - shame about the soul

Jennifer's Body
My rating:




Yes, I liked Juno. The affected dialogue didn't really bother me, and behind it was a genuinely sweet and touching story with some really well-drawn characters. No, I don't much like Megan Fox. Don't get me wrong, I'd do her, but there's a long list of other female celebrities I find more attractive. Jennifer's Body is something of a proving ground for both Fox and Diablo Cody, the writer of Juno - for Fox, it's her chance to display some actual talent on top of her sex appeal, and for Cody, it's her chance to prove her smash debut wasn't a fluke.

Sorry, ladies. You blew it.

Jennifer Check (Megan Fox) and "Needy" Lesnicki (Amanda Seyfried) are childhood BFFs, even though Jennifer is the school sexpot and Needy is innocent and nerdy. One night, they go to a show by indie rock band Low Shoulder, and Jennifer is seduced by the lead singer (Adam Brody) and sacrificed in a satanic ritual - only to come back to life possessed by a demon. Soon, she's seducing boys and devouring them to keep herself beautiful, and Needy must stop her - especially when Jennifer begins to take an interest in Needy's boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons).

First of all, if you're going to watch this, read this review. The best horror employs its supernatural scares as a metaphor for real-life anxieties, and the best thing about this movie is that it picked a pretty cool one - the uniquely female fear of other women who have everything they don't, whether it's looks or smarts or self-assurance. If you're looking for some sexay Megan Fox action, you'll be disappointed. For one thing, this is Malaysia, hello, and for another, there isn't much even if the naughty bits weren't censored. This is, at heart, a chick horror flick, and you'll probably enjoy it better if you know that going in.

You'd probably enjoy it even more if it was actually good. The biggest problem is in the titular character. When you say "possessed by a demon", do you mean she's no longer herself? Do you mean she turns evil, which means she wasn't evil before? Well, the answer to the first two questions is no. Jennifer basically has her personality intact, plus an added demonic hunger for human flesh. So the answer to that third question - was she evil before? - is not clear. After her possession, she's bitchy and callous and cruel, and if this is how she's always been, why is Needy even friends with her?

And that's a pretty big problem right there. If we're asked to believe that Jennifer and Needy have been best friends "since the sandbox", we need to see some genuine friendship between them. But Jennifer pretty much treats Needy like dirt, pre- and post-possession, and Needy doesn't really seem needy enough to keep hanging around someone like that. At one point, we learn that Jennifer is actually the insecure one among the two; for all her hawtness, she still resents Needy for being smarter, more together, and having a geeky-but-loving boyfriend. Cool idea, but the movie doesn't go there far enough. We hardly see Jennifer vulnerable, nor does she ever seem to actually value her friendship with Needy. She needs to be a three-dimensional, fully-realized character as much as Needy is - and she's not. It's a horror film, and she's pretty much just the monster that must be defeated at the end.

Which brings me to the horror elements, and they're kinda WTFable. How does Needy figure out what happened to Jennifer and how to deal with her? She looks it up in the occult section of their school library. Aiyoo, movie, what laa?? The movie tries to hang a lampshade on it, but it can't hide the fact that this is just lazy plotting. Every supernatural story creates its own rules, but this one just seems like it's pulling stuff out of its ass, especially during the ending. After she's had a fresh kill, Jennifer is invulnerable - her wounds heal instantly, "like some real X-Men shit" - and you'd think this would be relevant later, but nuh-uh.

This is really disappointing coming from the pen of Diablo Cody. It's one thing for her to attempt the horror genre and fall short, it's another thing for her to drop the ball on characterization. There doesn't even seem to be much of her trademark contrived dialogue - probably because a lot of it is profane, and therefore deemed unworthy of Malaysian ears by the Lembaga Penapisan Filem. In fact, I have to wonder if the movie's problems was due to all the scenes they snipped. (There's a lesbian kiss between the two female leads that got cut, and although my penis feels cheated, it didn't really add anything to the story.) What you're left with is your run-of-the-mill horror movie - a few jump scares, some gory deaths, and a climactic womano-a-womano showdown.

So can Fox act? Well, to be fair, the script did her no favours - but to be fair, she didn't exactly make the most of it either. She's still little more than a walking pheromone, and although she looks like she's having fun, this role isn't gonna win her much respectability. Amanda Seyfried fares better - she's cute and likable, although frankly, the script didn't do her many favours either. Johnny Simmons does a decent job, although he looks much younger than his on-screen girlfriend. Adam Brody is fun as an utter douchebag, but sadly he's not in the movie much.

When I said "you blew it" to Cody and Fox, I wasn't being all high-and-mighty-film-critic. (Although I can be.) This movie flopped - and considering its hype, it was a big flop. I feel bad for them, I really do, and I hope they get another shot at what this movie should've gotten them. I'm giving it two-and-a-half stars for what it attempted, and I think that's generous. Besides, I found it pretty scary at parts, but then again, it doesn't take much to scare me.

NEXT REVIEW: Seven Days
Anticipation level: hey, why not?