Movie Review: Storm (2005)

Summer of the Swedes continues. Look at that face in the thumbnail… someone must’ve stolen his sandwich.

Ladies and gentlemen… “Storm”.

DD (Eric Ericson) is a bit of an aimless loner, just living his life and getting by. But that will soon get flipped turned upside down by the sudden entrances of an enigmatic woman (Eva Röse) and a shadowy organization led by a man in black (Jonas Karlsson). This story is a weird one. It wears a decent bit of its inspirations on its sleeves, and I can see how well the various elements could blend together. However, the story here is an absolute clusterfuck. It jumps between tones, it contradicts some of its own logic, nothing is explained, it’s all just a mess. There are some good moments throughout, but none of it jells in a coherent manner. I can see the ambition, I can see the glimpses of light, but it somehow never fully comes together.

The characters in this, kinda like the story, have decent enough ideas to them, but the execution is a bit iffy. Eric Ericson plays DD (short for Donny Davidsson, if you have to know). He’s a bit of a loner, not because he doesn’t know how to manage people, he does, but because it’s a movie thing, I guess. But as far as protagonists go, he’s not the worst. He’s not one of the best either, but he’s given enough little moments to keep him… fine. Ericson gives a really good performance though. Eva Röse plays Lova, an enigmatic woman who is kind of like Trinity from “The Matrix”, but not quite as interesting. They try, but they fail. Röse is pretty good in the role though. And then we have Jonas Karlsson as the man in black, no wait… man in suit. Anyhow, he’s meant to be a menacing villain who’s also like “Join the dark side”. However, Jonas Karlsson (who’s one of my favorite actors) isn’t menacing. When he’s just talking and tries to convince DD of things, he’s good. But when he’s trying to be a scary villain… no.

The score for the movie was composed by Carl-Michael Herlöfsson, and it was good. It’s not memorable, I don’t really remember much other than decent instrumentation involving some strings and piano… so yeah. Decent, but not memorable.

“Storm” was written by Måns Mårlind, and co-directed by him and Björn Stein. And I guess they did a pretty good job with it. Scenes have a decent flow, and they are not incomprehensible. Though their direction is of course a little bit let down by the mess that is the story… which is then carried by Linus Sandgren’s cinematography, which is quite good.

This movie has gotten some mixed reception. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 54% user rating (no critic rating though). And on imdb.com it has a score of 5.7/10.

“Storm” is a highly ambitious film with some good aspects to it, but overall it is hard to recommend due to being quite a mess. It has a not good story, meh characters, really good performances, okay music, decent direction, and really good cinematography. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “Storm” is a 4,55/10. So unfortunately I would have to recommend skipping it.

My review of “Storm” is now completed.

Hmm…

Movie Review: The Guardian Angel (1990)

Oh hi. Ready for another Summer of the Swedes entry? Cool, let’s go!

Ladies and gentlemen… “The Guardians Angel” (Original title: Skyddsängeln).

Some fictional European country, the 1910s. A revolution rages on, and one of the country’s ministers (Etienne Glaser) has decided to have a nice, relaxing summer with his family in the countryside. He has also brought his new bodyguard (Philip Zandén). And we follow these people as they go through ups and downs throughout the summer. This film tries to say things about stuff, but it never succeeded in putting it in my head. I don’t mind a movie trying to say something about humanity or politics or whatever the fuck, but you got to have a clever way of saying it that speaks to people. This right here is just fucking pretentious and boring, seldom doing anything remotely engaging. And even in those rare moments where something that could be called mildly interesting happens, the presentation (which we’ll get deeper into later) pushes it into nonsensical pretentiousness again. And while pretentiousness can be acceptable (see Ingmar Bergman), you’re gonna need something interesting to back it up… which this tale doesn’t.

The characters try to be dramatic and engaging and interesting, but guess what… nah. They all clash, as if they’re in different movies. Take Etienne Glaser for example. He very much has the vibe of an uptight asshole in a 50s drama. But then you have Björn Kjellman who feels like he should be in a 90s rom-com. And then there’s Philip Zandén whose performance feels like what Matthew Macfadyen would end up as if he wasn’t allowed to be expressive. The actors are trying, and generally I can’t actively say anything about their performances (except for Björn Kjellman, whose performance just feels weirdly anachronistic).

What’s interesting about the music in this movie is that there isn’t much of it. And the little we get is music licensed for the film. It doesn’t have a typical score. But how do these few licensed tracks work throughout? Eh. The tracks themselves aren’t bad, but the way they’ve been implemented just feels slightly off.

Based on a novel by Ricarda Huch, “The Guardian Angel” was directed by Suzanna Osten. And I have mixed feelings about the execution of her directing. It’s clear that she knows what she wants in her direction, the confidence is very evident in what we see. However, some of the choices made don’t really work for me. There are some shots that are a bit… off. But even more baffling is the editing, which is all over the fucking place, often just leaving me stunned as to why you would make a lot of those cuts, sometimes causing a weird sense of nausea even.

On imdb.com this movie has a score of 6.6/10. That’s all I got… the movie barely fucking exists on my usual sites.

“The Guardian Angel” is a bit too slow and pretentious for me, just ending up being a drab and less than engaging experience. Its plot is slow and nonsensical, its characters not that engaging despite (mostly) good acting, weirdly chosen music, the direction okay, and the editing being fucking baffling. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “The Guardians Angel” is a 3,11/10. So I’d recommend skipping it.

My review of “The Guardian Angel” is now completed.

Zzzzz…

Movie Review: House of Angels (1992)

The Summer of the Swedes continues.

Ladies and gentlemen… “House of Angels” (Original title: Änglagård).

When an elderly man (Per Oscarsson) passes away very suddenly, his granddaughter (Helena Bergström) and her boyfriend (Rikard Wolff) inherit and move into his old mansion. And the arrival of this somewhat bohemian couple starts stirring quite a few emotions within the village. The setup is one we’ve kind of seen before, and it’s one I have no problem with seeing, because it’s a fun setup. And while there are some enjoyable moments throughout this film’s narrative, I overall find it lackluster. Any time you see a hint of conflict to add drama, it finds a way to resolve itself before anything genuinely interesting has a chance to kick off. This makes the story feel very inconsequential. What doesn’t help it either is an ass-draggingly slow pace. I don’t mind a slow pace, as long as there’s something actually happening to add to the story (See stuff like “The Godfather”). So when you combine an inconsequential narrative with a drawn out pace, you get an experience that isn’t very fun to follow along with. Like I said before, there are a few fun moments throughout, but the overall package that is this movie’s story just feels very underwhelming.

The characters in this are all wandering cliches, with some of them handling it better than others. Helena Bergström plays Fanny (don’t laugh, it’s an actual name), a young and ambitious woman working to renovate her new home, all while trying to be friends with people in the village and still being herself. It sounds layered, but it’s not. Again, no conflict, no character development. She’s a blank, friendly slate throughout the entire thing. I’ll give her this at least, Helena Bergström is okay in the role. I am generally not a fan of her, but she did an alright job here. Then we have Rikard Wolff as Zac, Fanny’s boyfriend. He’s a man of few words, a cool as ice biker dude with a background as an artist. And while he doesn’t do too much in the story, he at least has a sense of cool that I enjoy watching. And Wolff is good in the role. We also get supporting work from people like Sven Wollter, Reine Brynolfsson, Ernst Günther, Viveka Seldahl, Per Oscarsson, Jakob Eklund, and several others, all doing quite well in their respective roles (even if their characters feel a bit hollow).

The score for the movie was composed by Björn Isfält, and it was alright. If you’ve seen other movies set in these sort of rural parts of Sweden, you have heard this sort of idyllic, old school kind of music before. It’s a certain sound that I haven’t really hard in movies from other countries, which I find interesting. Anyway, it’s an alright score that works fine for the movie.

“House of Angels” was written and directed by British expat Colin Nutley, and I think he did an alright job with it. While his direction can’t save the ass-dragging pace or underwhelming story, I do think that it still manages to give some level of watchability to proceedings by being visually pleasing and actually somewhat competent.

This movie has gotten some mixed (but mainly positive) reception. On Rotten Tomatoes it has an 80% positive rating. And on imdb.com it has a score of 6,3/10.

While other people seem to like it, I found “House of Angels” to be an uneventful slog to get through. It has a boring plot, hollow characters, good performances, fine music, and pretty good directing. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “House of Angels” is a 4,99/10. So even if there’s some good elements to it, I’d say skip it.

My review of “House of Angels” is now completed.

Summer of the Swedes is off to a rocky start…

Movie Review: White Boy Rick (2018)

Don’t do crimes.

Disclaimer: I know this thing is based on a true story, but I will not base my review on how perfectly accurate to the real situation it may or may not be, but I will instead judge it as a movie… which it is. Disclaimer over.

Ladies and gents… “White Boy Rick”.

Detroit, the 1980s. Teenager Richard Wershe Jr. (Richie Merritt) comes from a broken home. But soon he finds himself on quite an interesting rise, as he starts getting involved both as an FBI informant and a drug trafficker. So now we have our crime-drama. The premise of it all I find highly intriguing, and there are some decent moments and ideas going on throughout the movie. But looking at the package as a whole, it feels quite underwhelming, with the script, while not bad, feels severely underwritten. The writer’s should’ve probably done another draft or two to truly flesh out a lot of the storytelling, because as it stands, it doesn’t quite reach the dramatic heights it sets out for. And this makes it often feel a lot more boring and uninteresting than one would want a fascinating premise like this to be.

Much like the story, the characters in this story suffer due to the undercooked script. I can see what the team were going for with all of them, but they never quite get far enough to make ’em that compelling. Richie Merritt plays Richard Wershe Jr, the young man at the center of the story. He’s the closest we get to a compelling character, as he gets the biggest arc of the bunch (probably due to his status as “protagonist”). And Merritt is okay in the role. Next we have Matthew McConaughey as Richard Wershe Senior, the father of our main character. He’s a bit of a hick, while also trying to be a decent dad. As said before about other things: Good idea, mediocre execution. At least McConaughey gives a really good performance. We also get supporting work from people like Bel Powley, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Brian Tyree Henry, Rory Cochrane, RJ Cyler, Jonathan Majors, Eddie Marsan, and more, all doing pretty well in their respective roles.

The score for the movie was composed by Max Richter, and it was really good. Richter’s a talented composer, and he managed to bring some really compelling synth/piano goodness to the soundscape of this movie. It manages to take scenes that are mediocre at best, and manages to make them alright. There’s also a few licensed songs used throughout, and they work fine I guess.

“White Boy Rick” was directed by Yann Demange, and I think he did an okay job with it. There are scenes in the movie that I think are really well directed, but then there are also scenes that I feel are a bit drab in execution. Again, it’s kind of a mixed bag in execution, which unfortunately really brings me out of the experience. There are scenes where Demange’s directing truly shines, and I applaud those moments. But there are times where it dips too, which is a shame.

This movie has gotten some mixed reception. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 59% positive rating. On Metacritic it has a score of 59/100. And on imdb.com it has a score of 6,4/10.

“White Boy Rick” has some decent elements to it, but in the end is a disappointment. It has an undercooked story, less than compelling characters, good performances, really good music, and okay directing. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “White Boy Rick” is a 4,78/10. So despite some bright spots, I’d recommend skipping it.

My review of “White Boy Rick” is now completed.

Mustache McConaughey.

Movie Review: Carnosaur (1993)

I can already hear the comments asking why I watched this movie, let alone review it. Well, let’s just say that I am currently petitioning to get morbid curiosity labeled as a federal crime in order to prevent shit like this from happening to me again.

Ladies and gents… “Carnosaur”.

A scientist manages, through some sort of bioengineering, to bring a dinosaur to life, which then promptly escapes from the lab… seeking to eat any living thing that comes in its path. Do you like “Jurassic Park”, but wish they took out all the awe, the whimsy, the fun, the suspense… and basically anything that makes a good story out? Well then “Carnosaur” is for you! Look, I expected schlocky entertainment, that’s fine. But could you at least aim to make said schlock fun? This right here is boring. How do you make an 80-minute movie about a murderous dinosaur this sluggish and dull? The writing here isn’t even a funny kind of bad, it’s just bad bad.

The characters are so boring and uninteresting that I didn’t recognize them beyond “Main-ish guy”, “Scientist lady”, and “Clint Howard”. Which is a shame, because there’s some genuine talent in this cast. Diane Ladd, Raphael Sbarge, Ned Bellamy, and Clint Howard are all talented people, I think they all at least try to do something good with the material here… but they all unfortunately can’t elevate this web sock of a script. Except for Clint Howard, he at least seems mildly self-aware about it all.

The score for the movie was composed by Nigel Holton, and it’s not great. His compositions are eclectic, poorly structured, and a bit week. I get that he’s going for the good ol’ monster brass. What does that mean? Loud, a little bit chaotic, utilizing a lot of staccatos to create a sort of scare effect. And while I respect that… it doesn’t really work here due to somewhat poor compositions.

Based on the novel of the same name written by John Brosnan, “Carnosaur” was written and directed by Adam Simon… and if you’ve read the previous sections, you might figure out my thoughts here. I get that this is low-budget, but I’ve seen low budget films that work around their limitations even better. The shot composition is passable at best, and the editing is quite meh too. If I have to give a few words of praise to anything, the effects work is alright. The dinosaur effects look fine, and there’s a few pretty alright gore effects too. But overall the craft in this isn’t great.

This movie hasn’t been very well received at all. On Rotten Tomatoes it has an 11% positive rating. And on imdb.com it has a score of 3,6/10.

I love dinosaurs. I love a bit of schlock. But “Carnosaur” somehow really let me down by being boring, unfocused, drab, and not having a single interesting character. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “Carnosaur” is a 1,02/10. So definitely skip this one.

My review of “Carnosaur” is now completed.

How can you make dinosaurs boring?

Series Review: A Christmas Carol (2019)

I guess we gotta cover something christmas-related since the holidays are upon us. And lucky for me, we just got a new christmas mini-series to talk about. Yay.

Ladies and gentlemen… “A Christmas Carol”.

Ebenezer Scrooge (Guy Pearce) is an anti-social, greedy businessman who’s made his success on the misery of others for years. But one night right before christmas day, three spirits come to visit him to try to make him realize the fault of his ways. Everybody knows the setup for this story, question with each adaptation tends to instead come down to execution. And the execution in this series is not great. It’s a really dark, bleak, and edgy take on the classic story that is honestly stretched way too long. Sure, three episodes don’t sound like much. But when each episode is just under 60 minutes long and tries to then stretch a 110 page book out to that runtime, it just feels like it drags its ass. Plus, while the darker take sounds interesting on paper, it just doesn’t work, often taking me out of it. Even the supposedly heartwarming bits leave me feeling cold. The story’s just off for me.

The characters in this you know the basic dynamics of. But they also get given a somewhat darker edge to them that just makes things feel a little off at times. Guy Pearce of course plays the ultimate douchebag that is Ebenezer Scrooge. Anti-social, greedy, douchey… he’s just the worst. And Pearce is great in the role. You get Stephen Graham as Jacob Marley, and he’s of course great. Joe Alwyn does an admirable job as Bob Cratchit. Lenny Rush who plays Tiny Tim does a really good job. Andy Serkis as the ghost of christmas past rides the line between intimidating and hammy wonderfully. Really, all actors here brought their A-game, even if the material isn’t always up to snuff.

The score for the series was composed by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran. It was okay. Nothing too memorable, nothing that ruined the series, but also didn’t improve it. It’s just kinda there. Moving on.

Based on the classic book by Charles Dickens, “A Christmas Carol” was brought to us by Steven Knight, with Nick Murphy serving as director. And while the show felt a bit lackluster in the story and character departments, it excels in the production parts. The sets are immaculate, the costumes neat, and the cinematography by Si Bell was gorgeous. You can tell that so much love and care was put into how the world was crafted.

This show hasn’t been too well received so far. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 60% positive rating. On Metacritic it has a score of 39/100. And on imdb.com it has a score of 7,0/10.

Despite having some things strewn throughout, 2019’s “A Christmas Carol” is ultimately not a great adaptation. The story isn’t very good, the characters are meh, the performances are great, the music is meh, and the directing, cinematography, and sets are great. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “A Christmas Carol” is a 4,65/10. So despite some good stuff, I’d still recommend skipping it.

My review of “A Christmas Carol” is now completed.

If someone disagrees with me, they better use “humbug”.

Movie Review: Wonder Woman: Bloodlines (2019)

Sorry for the lack of posts so far this month. Been hit with a weird case of apathy. But hopefully will get back on track soon enough. So to try to get things back into gear, let’s go into one of my most talked about subjects here on the blog: DC animated movies.

Ladies and gentlemen… “Wonder Woman: Bloodlines”.

Wonder Woman (Rosario Dawson) has to face her toughest challenge yet when several of her villains team up to pull off an evil, potentially world-threatening scheme. All the while a young woman she saw grow up (Marie Avgeropoulos) starts turning towards the dark side. So now we have our big, sweeping tale of heroism and family drama and I’m being totally facetious, this plot holds together like wet cardboard and paper glue. There are decent ideas here that could make for a solid superhero plot… but the way it’s stitched together doesn’t quite work. Allegedly emotional moments get a disinterested/sarcastic “Oh no, not that person” from me. So yeah, unfortunately I didn’t find the plot that engaging, which is sad, because there are decent ideas presented throughout.

The characters in this, like with the plot, have good ideas to them, but in execution just end up… meh. The one that I probably cared about most was the titular princess of Themyscira. She’s kind, she’s tough, she’s… Wonder Woman. And Rosario Dawson gives it her all in voicing her. Then we have Jeffrey Donovan playing Steve Trevor, sidekick and love interest. He’s all quips, all the time. I like quips… but it doesn’t quite work here, because there’s nothing else there, no other trait than “Spew quip”. Which means Donovan doesn’t have much to work with. The other actors in the movie, including Marie Avgeropoulos, Kimberly Brooks, Michael Dorn, Courtenay Taylor, Adrienne C. Moore, and a bunch of other people, they all give good performances… even if the writing leaves a bit to be desired.

As with a lot of other DC animated movies, the score for “Wonder Woman: Bloodlines” was composed by Frederik Wiedmann, and as per usual, it is great. Big and epic, somber and emotional, mysterious and intriguing, his score captures all the emotions and such one would require from a big superhero adventure… however, a great score does not a great movie make.

Based on the iconic DC Comics character created by William Moulton Marston, “Wonder Woman: Bloodlines” was directed by Sam Liu and Justin Copeland. And this teamup isn’t great. Look, the animation itself is really frickin’ good, highly detailed and really fluid. But as with the plot and characters, something feels a bit off. The action isn’t as well crafted as some other DC animated efforts, and there’s something weirdly bland about shot composition in most scenes. Such a mixed bag in this department.

This movie has gotten some mixed reception. On Rotten Tomatoes it has an 88% positive rating. And on imdb.com it has a score of 5,8/10.

I wanted to love this… but unfortunately I didn’t. It has a not good plot, meh characters, good performances, great music, and meh direction. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “Wonder Woman: Bloodlines” is a 4,50/10. So unfortunately I have to say that I’d recommend skipping this.

My review of “Wonder Woman: Bloodlines” is now completed.

When I envisioned my return to the blog, I thought it’d be something grand and joyous… but now I’m just sad.

Movie Review: Case 39 (2009)

Can you believe that tomorrow is the final day of the Month of Spooks? Time sure flies when you’re having fun. Oh well, it’s not over yet. We still got some shit to talk about. Some shit indeed.

Ladies and gentlemen… “Case 39”.

Social worker Emily Jenkins (Renée Zellweger) saves a young girl (Jodelle Ferland) from getting killed by her own parents. And after she starts looking out for the girl, she soon starts to realize that there’s more to this situation than meets the eye. And no, that isn’t code for the girl being a Transformer, though that would’ve been fucking rad. No, there’s some… spooky stuff going on. Look, I do admit that there’s some decent ideas throughout, and even one or two moments that I thought were decently clever. But for the most part this is a bland, poorly written, and worst of all, boring story that neither thrills nor chills.

The characters are cliches. They try to give the main character some depth, but they barely reach what they’re grasping for. Renée Zellweger, she tries, god does she try, she tries so much that I’d be willing to call her performance… fine. But she doesn’t get any good material to work with, and I’m not sure about her direction either. Ian McShane isn’t bad in this movie, because it isn’t possible for him to be bad in something… but god damn, he’s drab in this. They somehow made Ian McShane boring. Jodelle Ferland as the kid, she’s okay, even if her direction is a bit… eclectic, at best. Bradley Cooper’s in this, he’s okay. Callum Keith Rennie is fine. Adrian Lester is… fine. Good cast, less than stellar material.

The score by Michl Britsch (great name) isn’t very good. At moments it sound okay actually, but then it takes a turn into somewhat obnoxious. It thinks itself emotional and suspenseful, but just ends up being… not particularly good. I can usually find nice enough things to say about a score, but in this case I am sad to say that I really can’t.

“Case 39” was written by Ray Wright, and directed by Christian Alvart. And I have mixed feelings here (writing is obvious, if you’ve read the previous sections). But in terms of directing, I don’t have one clear opinion. There’s some good camera movements, and you can tell that Alvart isn’t incompetent. But he somehow fails to build suspense, which is, you know, kind of important in a horror movie. What’s worse is that lighting/color correction in this isn’t great, which makes otherwise decent shots come off as a bit.. not great. And any supposedly scary moments, not really that scary.

This movie hasn’t been that well received. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 21% positive rating. On Metacritic it has a score of 25/100. And on imdb.com it has a score of 6,2/10.

I think it’s clear by now that I thought “Case 39” was quite bad. It has a plot, bad characters, okay performances, not very good music, bad writing, and meh directing. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “Case 39” is a 2,91/10. So yeah… I’d definitely recommend skipping it.

My review of “Case 39” is now completed.

HOW DO YOU MANAGE TO MAKE IAN MCSHANE BORING?

Movie Review: Mimic (1997)

That’s right, more Month of Spooks content. And today it’s from one of my favorite directors. So let’s go!

Ladies and gentlemen… “Mimic”.

A few years ago, a special insect was created to eradicate disease-carrying cockroaches. Now, that action is carrying dark, violent consequences. So now we have our horror story. And I am so mixed about it. I can see the strong vision in it, there’s a lot of clever shit going on with it here. But man, there’s something about it, the way it’s put together that just feels off. And I know exactly what that is, which we will get into later. Again, there’s good stuff going on in the background, but the way it’s cut together… it doesn’t really work.

The characters in this, like the story, have some decent ideas to them, but end up suffering due to how this is cut. You have a stellar cast consisting of people like Mira Sorvino, Jeremy Northam, Josh Brolin, and Charles S. Dutton… but I didn’t really care so much about their characters on a level other than “Oh hey, that’s an actor I like!”. I can see the foundations for the characters peeking through, and it’s not bad… but again, the final execution fucks with this a bit. So I guess I’ll just say, the performances are very good, but the characters unfortunately suffer.

The score for “Mimic” was composed by Marco Beltrami, and it’s alright. Sometimes it can be slightly overbearing in how it tries be loud and startling. And at other times it’s this low-key and haunting score that adds a very welcome amount of emotional weight to proceedings.

Based on a short story by Donald Wollheim, the movie was written by Guillermo del Toro and Matthew Robbins, directed by del Toro… and cut to shit by the Weinstein brothers (I told you I’d get around to explaining). Some of del Toro’s vision does shine through at times, which in combination with Dan Laustsen’s cinematography can make for some stunning shots and moments. But if you do a bit of sleuthing on the production of this movie, you’ll find out that there were frequent clashes between del Toro and the producing brothers. While del Toro got to shoot the movie he wanted, thanks to interventions form Mira Sorvino, he had no control of the final cut, which was in the hands of the dumbnamic duo, which is why it feels so weirdly chopped up at times, why it doesn’t quite reach that strong vision that can be spotted in certain moments. Which is a shame, because the little quality that can be gleaned… it’s strong. Fucked over, but strong.

On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 61% positive rating. On Metacritic it has a score of 55/10. And on imdb.com it has a score of 5,9/10.

I don’t wanna say negative stuff about movies, especially not ones with one of my favorite directors attached to them… but the producers butchered it too much to give a positive review. It has an okay-ish plot, not great characters, really good performances, pretty good music, and really solid directing/cinematography. However, it all gets undone by a poor final cut. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “Mimic” (the theatrical cut) is a 4,87/10. Saddens me to say that I’d recommend skipping it.

My review of “Mimic” (the theatrical cut) is now completed.

Apparently there’s a director’s cut that del Toro released a few years back. Might need to get around to that some day.

Movie Review: Mulberry Street (2006)

And the spooks continue. So what’s on today’s menu? Well, it’s a movie from a creative team whose other works I’ve enjoyed. And this was their first collaboration, so I thought I’d finally get around to it.

Ladies and gentlemen… “Mulberry Street”.

Mulberry Street, Manhattan. It’s a hot day. A group of people go about their day. But soon that will be turned on its head when an infection that turns people into rat monsters starts spreading. It’s basically a zombie siege movie, but with a unique spin on the infection. I can respect that, and it’s clear that the writers really wanted the story to feel more fleshed out and engaging, but in the end I just didn’t find the overall execution very interesting.

The characters, like the story, are written to seem more fleshed out, but again, I just didn’t really give a shit. Maybe I could care a little bit about Nick Damici’s character at times, but that’s mainly because he’s played by the awesome Nick Damici. The cast try, and the performances for the most part are alright. But man, in the end it doesn’t do much to help me care about the people who might become a rat monster’s lunch.

The score for the movie was composed by Andreas Kapsalis, and it isn’t great. I’ve enjoyed this kind of more minimal synth-esque score before, but the way it was executed here wasn’t that great. It somehow managed to feel like it wasn’t enough, while also being slightly overbearing.

This movie was written by Nick Damici and Jim Mickle, with Mickle handling direction. Like I said at the beginning of the review, I love this team, I’ve reviewed multiple things of theirs before, all getting recommendations from me. And I get that they were working with a lot of limitations (most of them budgetary) on this. But man, I am not a fan of the presentation in this movie. It’s a shaky, handheld, early 2000s digital camera, which is a combo I don’t like. The look it creates honestly hurts my head. Moments that should be scary and intense end up becoming a little annoying.

This movie has gotten some mixed reception. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 70% positive rating. And on imdb.com it has a score of 5,6/10.

I love these guys, I really do. So it kinda hurts when I say that “Mulberry Street” isn’t really that good. The plot is uninteresting, I didn’t care for any of the characters, the performances are okay, the music isn’t great, and the directing/cinematography is kinda painful. Time for my final score. *Sad ahem*. My final score for “Mulberry Street” is a 4,76/10, so I’d recommend skipping it.

My review of “Mulberry Street” is now completed.

*sigh*