Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | My Orble | Login
 
Picking the rare gems out of a sea of crap.... so you don't have to!



As I explained before, I lost a review of each of these movies, so basically I'm going to just do one review to cover the both of them. Don't worry, you won't miss much, they're basically the same movie.

Premise: A group of people feel a mysterious earthquake, and then finds that they are trapped in a remote desert locale with a demon hunting them.

Now, I watched No Man's Land before I watched the original, so I may have a skewed opinion about it. Both the movies are, and I am not exaggerating, virtually identical in terms of scripting. Even down to the exact same twist/explanation at the end. When I bought these movies I had no idea that they were so similar, so I didn't watch them together for comparison.

However, seeing as this is basically your typical hollywood-style horror movie, I'll be brief. No Man's Land is a complete ripoff of Reeker. Someone has decided that the Reeker franchise wasn't quite dead yet, so decided to add a little bit of a backstory to the Reeker character, and then proceed to basically rescreen the first movie. The whole Reeker backstory from the movie can't have lasted more than 15 minutes, after which they've decided they couldn't be bothered thinking of anything more inventive, and just used the script from the original Reeker film as filler. Like I mentioned previously, the similarities extend right down to the same twist at the end.


Now, I haven't seen No Man's Land recently, so my memory of it is a little sketchy, but overall I thought that the second one was better, simply because of it's bigger budget. While the first has a more cultish feel to it, the second has much more to offer in the gore department, which is really the only reason we watch movies like these anyway.

Overall... I can't really pick which one to recommend. It depends what you're looking for. If you prefer a more cultish tinge to your films, or if you think watching a blatant money-grabbing ripoff would be sacrilege, well then go with Reeker. If, on the other hand, you are after some higher budget gore effects, and don't mind recycled scripts, then No Man's Land is probably a better bet.
44
Vote
   


The Devil's Chair

May 28th 2009 06:29
Warning! Spoilers!



Premise: A healed mental patient is released to the care of a psychology professor, who along with 3 students takes the man back to the abandoned mental hospital where the man claims a chair took his girlfriend 4 years prior, in an attempt to discover what really happened.

As I mentioned in my previous review, twists are a hard thing to get right in a movie. If done badly, and they're hard to do well, they can ruin a movie (think M. Night Shyamalan. The Village, The Happening... eugh). However, if done well, they can define a movie, elevate it, make it stick with you long after the movie is over, and make you watch it again and again. Think back to the first time you saw Fight Club, or The Usual Suspects. Hell, even The Sixth Sense.

Mmm... Comfy.


Back to the movie at hand. The first hour and ten minutes is fairly standard Hollywood horror-by-numbers... the chair is a gateway to another realm, in which a blood-demon is killing whoever comes through. There are the standard cliched twists, like the evil professor and the man not actually being crazy, and you are thinking wow, what a waste of a promising movie.

I am warning again of spoilers, I am about to totally ruin the movie.

And then the last 10 minutes just blow you away. Turns out the majority of the movie, borrowing heavily from Identity, is just a representation of the main character's mental struggle. What follows this realization is a brutal 10 minute sequence in which the main character slaughters everyone else with an axe.

Now, the last 10 minutes are easily the most disturbing of the movie, even though there is little gore. There's alot of blood splashed around, but the actual gore is always just off screen... What makes it disturbing is how the first hour-ish of the movie is spent building the main character up as a hero, who risks his own life to try and save one of the students, and then cutting to reality, in which he is raping said blood-soaked student. Creepy stuff.

What also makes it believable is the acting. Now, I have a couple of bones to pick with the casting, which I will get to shortly, but overall the acting was above average. Best among them is the lead (Andrew Howard),

who does a good job handling the shift from sane hero to psychopathic killer. I also didn't mind the blonde student (Elize Du Toit), who isn't half bad.

However, what the hell were they thinking when they cast Matt Berry in a serious movie. It could be because I'm a fan of The IT Crowd, but I cannot possibly ever take that guy seriously. Ever.

Also, the Professor was way too melodramatic to be realistic... however, seeing as he was part of an illusion, and seeing how the Narrator (Howard) himself comments on how it's like a crap B-grade movie, it's entirely plausible that this was done on purpose.

Overall... probably not one of the twists that will stick with you for the rest of your life (come on, you know Fight Club will), but if you get 50 minutes through the movie and you're about to turn it off... just let it run. The last 10 minutes I feel more than make up for the rest of the movie. Especially the ending, in which the main character, soaked in blood, drives away with his imaginary girlfriend. Probably worth a watch, but there are definitely better movies out there.

41
Vote
   


Room 6

May 26th 2009 14:32

Premise: Following a car accident, a the boyfriend of a school teacher is taken away by an ambulance, but the school-teacher girlfriend cannot find him in any of the surrounding hospitals. She is joined by the other party in the crash, who has lost his sister to the same mysterious ambulances. Meanwhile, the boyfriend awakes from the crash in a strange hospital, St. Rosemary's, at which nothing is what it seems.

Spoilers ahead, read on at your own peril.

Now, usually I am a fan of those movies that are a representation of something else... Identity being a prime example, or Secret Window, or Fight Club... but I can't really say this appreciation extends to Room 6.

The movie is basically the main character's struggle with self forgiveness, following a tragic event involving her father in her youth. She sees demons, which are her inner demons. The movie is pretty blunt about it to. "You belong here with us" gets thrown around alot. And that's really where the difference lies. That moment of realization is really what defines those movies (Think back to the first time you saw The Usual Suspects. You know what I'm talking about), and Room 6 is really lacking. One of the great things about those realization movies is that you can watch them again, and every time you pick up that extra subtle hint, that slight nuance that is a clue of what is to come. There isn't any of that in Room 6.

The rest of the movie, unfortunately, doesn't make up for this shortfall.
Got any change?
The demon outfits are on the whole quite impressive. For those of you that are interested, Mr. Burny-face in the picture is none other than Mr. Jason Vorhees himself. However, you would hardly notice it in the 2 minutes of screen time he gets. However... that's really where the good bits end. The plot is mildly entertaining, but doesn't make any sense really. There are vampire nurses... for absolutely no reason at all. But that doesn't stop them from getting topless and having a blood-orgy, oh certainly not! However, it only lasts for 20 seconds, so it isn't enough to make up for the rest of the plot. And there are references to a weird dream that the main character has... that really has nothing at all to do with the story.

Also... Christine Taylor should stick to letting Ben Stiller put his dick in her. She is ridiculously awful in this movie. She runs for her life from monsters... at a jogging pace. Very convincing, Christine. Very convincing indeed. The worst thing was... she wasn't alone. Jerry O'Connell puts in a bland and uninteresting performance, has a mild twist associated with his character that you can easily spot as soon as his character is introduced. And really, you can't take the guy seriously in anything he does. Shane Brolly does an awfully good job of appearing uninterested in the weird occurrences in the hospital around him.

So yeah... tries to be Jacob's Ladder, but falls far short. Probably not worth your time, even for the topless vampire nurse blood orgy.
33
Vote
   


Pumpkinhead 3: Ashes to Ashes

May 24th 2009 12:05


Well, having watched 4 before 3, I figured it was only fair to give this one a go


[ Click here to read more ]
43
Vote
   


Pumpkinhead 4: Blood Feud

May 21st 2009 02:11


Premise: 2 families, the (snooty) McCoys and the (redneck) Hatfields, have been at war for a years, following a car accident that left one of the Hatfields crippled. However, a Romeo & Juliet-esque love affair between Ricky McCoy (Bradley Taylor) and Jodie Hatfield (Amy Manson) has developed in secret


[ Click here to read more ]
44
Vote
   


The Other Side

April 15th 2009 15:45
I love low budget horror movies. Love them to bits I tells ya. However, contrary to popular belief, I don't think they are good movies. They appeal to me, but not in the same way as a good movie appeals to me (if that makes any sense).

That being said, once in a while you get a pleasant surprise. A gem in the rough, so to speak. This movie is one of them


[ Click here to read more ]
65
Vote
   


Moderated by Someone
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]