#2009Films

[adamwatchesmovies]

Reel Injun (2009)

I'm worried some will hear the premise of Reel Injun and be turned away. This documentary about the representation of Native Americans in film does not seek to guilt or shame anyone, only to educate and entertain. You don’t need to have a stake in the issue to find it enjoyable.

Directed by Cree filmmaker Neil Diamond as well as Catherine Bainbridge and Jeremiah Hayes, Reel Injun shows Diamond traveling through North America, visiting film and historical locations to explore the way Native Americans have been portrayed on-screen throughout the years. To properly examine Hollywood stereotypes such as the Noble Savage and the Drunken Indian, and recent trends in movies, he sits down with people like Clint Eastwood, Adam Beach, film critic Jesse Wente and others.

This could have easily been a bitter, angry film, but it isn’t, which shows a lot of strength on the filmmaker's part. I don’t know if I could’ve watched hours and hours’ worth of footage of my people depicted as barbarians ready to be slaughtered by cowboys and come out with a positive attitude about it, but Diamond does. The film walks a delicate line, showing clips that are simultaneously funny and offensive. You find them off-putting but (like Diamond) manage to find the laughs in them.

As any good documentary does, Reel Injun enlightens. More importantly, it’s fun to watch. You don’t realize how much film influences people until you see a bunch of extremely white and thoroughly earnest children pay tribute to “Indians” by imitating characters they’ve seen in decidedly un-politically correct films. You don’t know if you want to correct them and possibly ruin their fun, or let them go along with their game of make-believe in the hopes that they discover what the people they’re so enamored with are really like on their own.

If you’re a fan of cinema, there’s a lot of interesting history here. I found a short segment about headbands downright fascinating. Headbands? Yes. One of the most memorable sections of this picture looks at the films of old and asks “Why do these people look like this in every movie?” The answers are alternatively embarrassing and hilarious. If you’re intrigued by Aboriginal films, there are some good recommendations throughout (though the picture is a little bit too much in love with Atarnajuat: The Fast Runner for my taste). It also makes you think.

At times, Reel Injun moves too quickly or doesn’t properly explain things, which might make those who aren't intimately familiar with Native American affairs feel a bit lost. It’s also prone to spoiling big events in the films it refers to, which I have mixed feelings about. With the occasional lack of context for people and events, this might make it more for those who already care than those who don't. It’s still worth catching and even if you have no idea what they're referring to, context mostly fills in the blanks.

If you’re passionate about the portrayal of Native Americans in film, you like movies, or you want to see someone speak about political correctness without making you feel guilty about what privileges you may or may not have, Reel Injun is a great pick. Rent it, along with some of the pictures it discusses, and you’ve got a combination of films that elevate each other. Invite a bunch of friends, set some time to discuss them and you’ve got a full day's worth of entertainment. (On DVD, July 8, 2016)

[1103199xmovies]

33/100 - The Lovely Bones (2009)

Centers on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family - and her killer - from purgatory. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.

Studio: Paramount Pictures

[cunninghamh2014]

Chris Evans and Dakota Fanning Push - Nick & Cassie #Push #ChrisEvans #ColinFord #NickGrant #DakotaFanning #CassieHolmes #CamillaBelle #KiraHudson #NeilJackson #VictorBudarin #Telekinetic #Clairvoyant #HongKong #psychic #2009film #captainamerica #robertydowneyjr #chrishemsworth#markruffalo #scarlettjohansson #jeremyrenner #samuelljackson #jossweedon #movie #film #tvshow #fanart #edits #digitalart #art #drawing #digitalartist https://www.instagram.com/p/BzzGi4-h3tc/?igshid=1qkq3bgg0q6ao

[awfulgrimbonez]

It's that time of the year again. I watch this on Valentine's Day every year. I'll be on it very soon. #jensenackles #mybloodyvalentine #horror #crime #thrillers #dvdcollection #vudu #jamiesmith #kerrsmith #betseyrue #edigathegi #tomatkins #kevintighe #meganboone #marcmacaulay #2009 #2009film #lionsgate https://www.instagram.com/p/Bt4bKGxlkru/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=8p922m88g590

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Road (2009)

I’ve seen The Road twice now and it’s still a wallop of an experience. This is not a horror film or a thriller but it will have you sweating throughout.

This post-apocalyptic story follows a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Cody Scott-McPhee) traveling in a desolated North America. After an unspecified global disaster, nearly all animal species have gone extinct and all plant life has been wiped out. Most humans have resorted to cannibalism to survive, but our heroes insist on holding onto their integrity in a world without hope.

Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, The Road shows us the deepest depths of desperation. While searching for greener pastures, our protagonists have to dodge marauding gangs armed with guns while having to confront their own demons and the appeal of letting go of their ideals. This film is frightening in the same way that a zombie movie is frightening. With limited resources and rampant paranoia, who is more dangerous: them, or us? It’s interwoven with a powerful drama. A father, a son. Probably the last living family left on earth. How did they get there, where will they go next?

For what it is, this is a great-looking, film. The use of color is particularly striking because there’s hardly any. This world is so bleak you wonder if suicide isn’t better than another day of uncertainty. Then, we slip into flashbacks of before the disaster and see how carefree these people were. It helps you remember that survival isn’t enough, that hope and joy are what will keep you going. A warm fire, a treat that’s been overlooked, a pleasant memory, those are what will keep our heroes going.

Watching The Road, you become determined not to lose hope, no matter what. You desperately want to see this father and son make it out alive. They became avatars for you. If they make it, you will too. Perhaps more important than their lives are their code of ethics, their desire to remain good people in a world where all morals have been abandoned. This is the crucial human element that makes the picture an unforgettable experience. Though things get as bleak as they possibly could, you’re constantly reminded that hope can still burn bright.

I won’t call this is a depressing movie, but it’s a depressing story. You thought a zombie apocalypse was bad? At least zombies can’t help but eat people, and once you turn into one, there’s nothing you can do about it. Our heroes are dying. They’re starved, haven’t seen sunlight in years, regularly talk about suicide as an option, and have seen horrors only hinted at in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre time and time again. It’s not a question of “if”, but “when”. In their shoes, what would you do? Director John Hillcoat forces you to confront a scenario with no alternatives. It's kill or be killed. When confronted with such extremes, you're compelled to examine who you are.

All that and it’s got some powerful performances. It boils down its themes to the essentials, stripping away everything but the crucially important. What’s left makes a powerful impact. Is it the kind of movie you can just pop into your machine and watch anytime? No, but you’re going to forget it anytime soon and it will provoke something inside you. The Road might be the stuff of nightmares, but I can’t help kind of loving it. (On DVD, April 22, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Unborn (2009)

Some bad films are so much fun to discuss they almost sound like they’re worth seeing. Then you’ve got those like The Unborn that just sort of sit there, looking pathetic. If you’d seen the film previously and thought the “Unrated” version would change things, you’d be wrong. It’s only a minute longer and adds nothing!

Casey (Odette Yustman) is having nightmares and hallucinations about a strange blue-eyed child stalking her and repeating that “Jumby wants to be born now”. Digging into her past, she fears she is being haunted by a dybbuk, an evil spirit that used to be human.

If only this film was as simple as a standard demonic possession/exorcism movie. The Unborn goes into all kinds of nutty directions, each more perplexing than the last. It’s as if the film started as something completely different. Then, realizing what he had scribed wouldn't excite audiences, writer/director David S. Goyer lept to another idea, only for the cycle to repeat itself. I’ll tell you what I mean in a moment, but let’s keep this portion of the review spoiler-free.

Throughout, there are many head-scratching developments. Not the kind that doesn’t make sense within the story, I mean the type no one in their right mind would consider good ideas. They could’ve been forgiven (to a certain extent) if the results were scary, but they aren't. I understand the malicious spirit of someone dead is a bone-chilling idea, but when it takes the shape of a dog with a mask, an old man in a wheelchair, or a little kid, there won't be any nightmares tonight. In general, I don’t find pint-sized adversaries intimidating or frightening. Anything I could pick up and hurl out of a window I'm confident I could escape from. Children called “Jumby” have to rank among the top 10 of “Things that are definitely not creepy”. Even with the LOUD NOISES and jump scares, it struggles to even startle.

I think I know how this film came about. Goyer attended Hebrew school and, being in the film industry realized that there are a lot of Christian horror films, but not a lot of Jewish ones. From there, he latched onto the dibbuk. Unfortunately, this monster wouldn’t be enough for an entire film, not an original one at least... unless the dibbuk was the spirit of an unborn child! But for the plot to make sense, the spirit would have to torment someone it would realistically resent. What if it was our protagonist's unborn twin? While researching twins, he learned that some twins may change eye colour during their lifetime. That lead him to the monstrous experiments of Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who attempted to change the eye colour of twins. The Holocaust? A Jewish supernatural creature? It all comes back full circle! It would almost be smart if it didn’t make you so uneasy to hear about real-world horrors used for a cheap spookfest.

There are some aspects of The Unborn that make it memorable, but not in a good way. The cast, for example, includes Meagan Good, Gary Oldman, Idris Elba, and Carla Gugino. The fact that the haunt targetting our heroine is called “Jumby” is unforgettable as well. The baffling twists throughout stick with you long after the film is gone. The film as a whole? Not worth taking a look at, even as something you watch with friends and ridicule. (Unrated version on DVD, March 23, 2017)

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Countess (2009)

If you’re going to bring a familiar story or well-known historical figure to life on the big screen, you’ve got to bring something new to the table. That's what The Countess does. You may not know Erzsébet Báthory, but you probably recognize "Elizabeth Bathory", the notorious 16th-century serial killer.

This psychological gothic horror/drama details the life of the countess (played by Julie Delpy), from her birth in 1560 to her death. After her husband’s passing, she rules over his estate. As her army keeps the Turks out of Hungary, the kingdom grows increasingly indebted towards her. Today, she is known for abducting, murdering, and then bathing in the blood of virgins to keep herself young. Were these accusations based on real events, fabrications by her political rivals, or somewhere in between?

Julie Delpy (who stars, writes, and directs) offers a wholly original take on the history of Bathory. I never thought twice to question the stories of the woman who lived in a castle and murdered virgins so that she could feed on their youth. Why not? Isn't it just as likely the stories we've heard are wild exaggerations or even full-blown folklore? Let's keep in mind the period. The 16th Century is not particularly well-known for its gender equality. Is it possible that a scheming, jealous rival of Báthory could have framed her and that other men joined in to remove a powerful woman from her position? It sounds more plausible than a real-life vampire, that's for sure. Alternatively, I'd believe Báthory did murder all of those young women but that her accusers wouldn't have cared unless they saw something to gain from her conviction. Complex ideas and differing interpretations can be drawn from individual scenes and the film as a whole. Once those floodgates are opened, you wonder what other historical monsters might've been created by those who outlived them.

This angle is the most interesting part of the film, but there is plenty else to like. This is a passion project; a great-looking period piece with elaborate, authentic-looking costumes and sets (I’m no expert on mid to late 16th Century Hungary). It gets ghoulish and unsettling, but never too much that someone who isn’t accustomed or drawn to horror couldn’t bear to sit through it. The characters are well developed and the relationships compelling to follow. I enjoyed seeing as Daniel Brühl as István Thurzó and Sebastian Blomberg as Dominic Vizakna. The way those two play in the story adds a whole lot of complexity.

Keep in mind, this isn't a documentary. Many events are depicted in a deliberately ambiguous way, and it's all told in flashback by someone who wasn't present for many of the events. You shouldn't criticize its authenticity. Actual flaws include the pacing during the early years of Báthory’s life and some of the performances by the young cast. There are extensive flashback sequences that could've been dropped for time, particularly when it seems like later years are merely touched upon, even when multiple murders are committed. Perhaps spreading those out to bridge the seasons would have worked better and made the film more digestible for audiences who are not familiar with gothic storylines. The bad acting is self-explanatory. Whenever you see a kid on-screen, get ready to cringe.

Small flaws aside, The Countess is a horror/drama with a brain. It's about much more than a singular character we're "getting to know for the first time"; it'll make you wonder about women of the past, and any historical figures that seem too good (or rather, bad) to be true. (On DVD, October 2, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Drag Me To Hell (2009)

Great horror comedies are hard to come by. We often get comedies with a few scenes of gore and a Halloween theme, or straight fright-fests with a few laughs to break up the tension. What I’m talking about is a film like Drag Me To Hell, which maintains a 50/50 balance. If you want to see how it's done, look no further.

When bank loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) denies an elderly woman (Lorna Raver as Mrs. Sylvia Ganush) a third extension on her mortgage payment, the old woman curses her. Christie’s got three days to figure out a way to get rid of the malediction. If she doesn’t, a demon will claim her soul and drag it to hell.

Call it tasteless, but I love movies with stereotypical "gypsies". I don't mean Romani people; I mean this imaginary tribe of people with magic powers who can cast spells upon poor (or sometimes guilty) white folk who wrong them. The ones in Thinner for example. It's ludicrous, which is why this film works. The scenario could never work seriously, and certainly not in modern-day but at the same time, the idea is "scary".

In most horror movies, the people that find themselves in peril are just cannon fodder. They’ve got no business walking into Chernobyl or shooting a documentary in that abandoned slaughterhouse that’s being converted into a mental institution on Halloween night. Not here. Christine is a nice person. She puts her all into her job but is constantly outshined by a jerk who deliberately making her look bad in front of the boss. She’s got empathy for the old woman, but she’s just an employee of the bank. Everyone knows if you can’t pay for your mortgage there are going to be consequences. This script does a wonderful job making you care about her and her boyfriend (played by Justin Long). They have great chemistry together, so when things go sour, you feel the chills she does. Upset or not about losing your home, condemning someone to hell for all eternity is way too harsh. You want to see her get out of this movie alive.

Upon its foundation, Drag Me To Hell piles on the dark and gross-out humor. You might even say Sam Raimi shows a fascination for the disgusting. You get scared by the approaching demon when all of a sudden you’ll see something so outrageous you won’t be able to help but laugh. It’s campy, scary and funny. A perfect marriage of what this plot should be - and it’s got a great ending.

If you’re a fan of horror films but your significant other isn’t, this is a great date night pick. It’s scary, but not too scary, there’s not much gore, lots of charm, and frequent laughs. I wish Sam and Ivan Raimi would do this kind of thing more often. Drag Me To Hell is a lot of things - including a gooey delight. (Unrated version on DVD, January 29, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Defendor (2009)

Defendor isn't a bad film; it's just missing something to make it stand out. There are moments where its individuality shows but when it comes to the comedic bits, it's too often “been there, done that”.

Arthur Poppington (Woody Harrelson) is a mentally challenged man who dresses up as the vigilante “Defendor” at night. Determined to defeat his nemesis “Captain Industry”, Arthur repeatedly gets in trouble with the law as he attempts to fight crime using a costume and gadgets. When he befriends a young prostitute, Angel (Kat Dennings), she reveals to him that she knows where his archenemy lives. Actually, she’s just using him to get drug money and a place to stay.

The basic premise of this film has been done before. Kick-Ass, Super, Mystery Men, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, even Watchmen��- to a certain extent - deal with regular people who are noticeably disturbed and decide to put on a superhero costume. I’m not saying you couldn’t do a movie along these lines. It's just that at this point, this gimmick isn't enough.

Defendor is a comedic drama. Some of it works well. Harrelson is perfectly suited for his role. He’s got that look of a person that is kind of schlubby but not completely out of shape and he’s got the mannerisms of someone desperate to exorcise their demons down to a science. When the picture focuses on Arthur and his past tragedies, it’s completely believable. Writer/director Peter Stebbing isn't afraid to show how lonely and out of place he feels. That's real. So are the interactions between the various characters. In a lesser film, Angel would start by taking advantage of Arthur, only to fall in love with him by the end. When Defendor attempts to fight crime, the thugs he confronts are not the least bit intimidated by his rag-tag costume and violently assault him. Particularly good and genuine are the scenes with Paul (Michael Kelly). He helps bring some weight to the drama of the film. You can see why the talented actors were attracted to Defendor. Everyone delivers strong performances.

What isn’t as successful is the comedy and the ending, which are a mixed bag. The movie isn’t really funny, even when it’s attempting to be funny in a twisted way. Dark comedy could have helped make the drama that much more impactful. Instead, it's distracting. Then, the conclusion is just too neat and tidy. The place some of the characters ultimately go to is somewhat of a betrayal of everything we were shown earlier on top of feeling manufactured.

Defendor is ok. You can’t help compare it to other, similar, more successful films and in that entourage, it falls short too often to be worth more than a rental. That's how I'd recommend it; at home on your big TV. Who knows? You might even call it a pleasant surprise, particularly if you like the cast. (On DVD, September 20, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Jennifer’s Body (2009)

Though the mix of teen high school drama/romance and horror is uneven and there are plenty of awkward or flat moments in Jennifer’s Body, enough of it works for it to be worth seeing.

It's about two friends: Anita “Needy” Lesnicki (Amanda Seyfried) and her much more attractive BFF Jennifer (Megan Fox). The later gets all the attention, and she's constantly putting Needy down. After narrowly escaping a lethal fire at the only bar in their small town, Jennifer emerges changed. If Needy didn’t know better she’d swear her friend now feeds on the flesh of the living to keep herself beautiful.

The casting is excellent. In any other movie, you'd never believe Amanda Seyfried as the insecure "ugly one". Next to Megan Fox? Different story. But Fox does more than fit the part physically, she does a terrific job with material that feels tailor-made for her. One look and you know she's fully aware of how attractive she is and uses this knowledge to her full advantage… but has been playing these cards for too long. Boys lust for her but know she has slime pumping through her veins, not blood.

As for Needy, she's insecure enough to tolerate Jennifer and think of her as a friend. Thanks to her boyfriend (Johnny Simmons), she's on the cusp of realizing how toxic the friendship is. Knowing her all too well, Jennifer is aware of the change that's about to take place but is herself too insecure to do anything but what she's always done. You wouldn't think it but between the two, Jennifer is the real dependent.

This core relationship is well done and utilized to great effect. It tells you so much about the women as a pair and as individuals. The budding jealousy keeps you watching and the dialogue by Diablo Cody is terrific. I don't know if anyone uses "salty" to describe someone as attractive but I hope it's a thing/becomes a thing. The gross pet names Jennifer and Needy have for each other are hilarious, as is the way they speak frankly about sex.

Next, we come to the horror element. The idea of an already strained friendship becoming murderous is fantastic. The reason for Jennifer’s transformation is delightfully demented and the way murders are woven into the friendship is inspired. The attention given to the high school teen drama adds tension when you realize someone you care for is at risk. It's not like those teenager facsimiles we get in your run-of-the-mill slashers. So often the soon-to-be victims aren't likable and you look forward to their heads being impaled on a stake just so they will finally shut up. It's more complicated here.

While individually the high school, friendship, romance, drama, and (to a lesser extent) horror element work, together they clash. Jennifer's Body isn't quite as funny enough to be a true horror-comedy. It's intended to be a - a sex scene where a guy confuses his girlfriend's gasp of terror for signs of passion proves it. That's a great blend of genres. The rest isn't exactly Reeses Peanut Butter Cups. J.K. Simmons plays a one-armed teacher… but why? There’s weird stuff going on with the wildlife surrounding the town that doesn’t pay off either. Over and over, it’s almost there, but not quite.

While the mix of genres isn't smooth, enough in Jennifer's Body functions properly to earn it a recommendation. The leads are good, relationships interesting, and premise fun. As an early feminist horror, it says and does things we just haven't seen elsewhere, which makes the flaws seem bigger than they are. (Unrated version on DVD, July 6, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Fourth Kind (2009)

We’ve all seen someone try so hard to be funny it becomes awkward and a little embarrassing. The Fourth Kind tries so hard to be convincing it makes a fool out of itself. While there are elements that are effective, it’s a mixed bag at best.

Based on true events (we swear they’re real) the film begins with an interview of psychologist Dr. Abigail “Abbey” Tyler (yes really, it’s her being interviewed). Nine years ago in Nome, Alaska, she discovered (with true evidence that’s really genuine) unexplainable phenomena. Under hypnosis, several of her patients reveal they've been visited by indescribable beings at night. Could these strange thoughts be related to the murder of Abby’s husband? What does uncovering this truth (because it’s based on the truth you see) mean for her and her family?

Shown through a mixture of actual archival footage, including recorded interviews, video recordings of sessions, surveillance cameras, and dramatization using actors, let’s begin with what works. This is a horror movie, and many scenes are genuinely creepy. The interviews under hypnosis, for example. The patients describe the creatures they saw as owls, but... not owls. That’s eerie. Owls are creepy birds. They have humanoid faces compared to other fowl, they’re out all night, they can turn their heads like no other animal and with that bright white face and those dark eyes that becomes lost in the dark plumage in the middle, they feel otherworldly. At its best, The Fourth Kind lingers on simple imagery and thoughts then lets your mind fill in the gaps. It's what "found footage" does best.

The Fourth Kind tries too hard. It wants you to believe this stuff so desperately that it compels you to be skeptical. Even assuming you remove yourself from the fact that this is obviously a movie, you question the presentation. Why re-create scenes when the people who saw these events are still alive? The footage of actors being intercut with “actual recordings” of what happened in Nome doesn't feel genuine no matter how many captions we see assuring us that this scene was shot in this location, that this person is that person, that names have been changed to protect people's identity, etc.

Take away the so-so presentation. Look at it simply as a horror movie. What have we got? Nothing particularly noteworthy or original. It’s yet another story in which aliens have developed incredibly sophisticated technology to the point where they can travel billions of light-years, can sneak into people’s rooms undetected and can scramble recording technology... all so they can come into your bedroom at night, poke you with painful-looking instruments and mess around with people’s minds. It’s one thing for an alien to go on a space safari but who goes to Africa just so they can laugh while a lion looks crazy while trying to explain to their pride what is happening to them while the savannah sleeps?

Other characters are problematic throughout, but the one I had the most trouble with is the picture's villain - not the space jerks - the sheriff of Nome. This guy... come on! Even before aliens are thrown in as a probable cause for the strange events, he sells himself as the kind of dunderhead that looks at acupuncture and thinks it’s witchcraft. His only purpose in the film is to infuriate the audience and make everything more difficult for our protagonist. He’s nothing but a plot device.

I can't deny certain scenes in The Fourth Kind are horrifying. The rest is badly written and gimmicky. I don’t dislike it, but I hesitate to recommend it. I’ll come in with a rating of 2.5/5. It ain’t great but if you see it for rental for like a dollar, it might be worth looking into if aliens freak you out. (On DVD, April 24, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Final Destination (2009)

It’s only fitting that the worst instalment of the Final Destination franchise be given the stupidest title. The Final Destination. Pfft. Give me a break.

When Nick O’Bannon (Bobby Campo) has a premonition at the speedway, he saves his friends and other bystanders from a horrific death. As the survivors are picked off one by one by a “random” chain of events, it becomes obvious that by saving these people, Nick interfered with Death’s plan.

The previous film was bad. This one’s even worse. To begin, we once again follow a new pool of characters meaning that we have to sit there twiddling our thumbs waiting for them to catch up to what we already know. If the characters were somewhat interesting, you might forgive the repetitive plot, but from frame one, half of the characters establish themselves as nothing more than meat for the grinder. Nick Zano plays Hunt, a character whose entire dialogue is composed of comments that establish him as a despicable douchebag. He stands absolutely no chance of surviving or even of displaying human emotion. Unfortunately, it takes forever for him to get sent to the grave. Why this obsession with making characters we don’t like? You know the filmmakers are trying to cash in on some schadenfreude, but this is supposed to be a horror movie, not a dark comedy! There’s no suspense whatsoever because of course, the Neo Nazi (Justin Welborn) isn’t going to make it past the 40-minute mark. I could’ve told you that without even seeing the film!

There’s hardly a plot here so the deaths are the only thing you can look forward to. Unfortunately, it’s 4 movies in and you can tell the people in charge have started running out of ideas. Some of these kills are downright ridiculous. I’ve seem more credible demises out of an “Itchy and Scratchy” cartoon; either that of the people in this horror universe are composed entirely of bags of meat and of blood. No bones or organs save for long lengths of intestine to decorate the streets and the onlookers’ faces.

This movie stood no chance. The big opening catastrophe in The misses the point of this franchise. Randomly avoiding a plane crash that kills all your friends is lucky. Dodging strategically thrown car engines, tires and rubble is cartoonish. Everyone in this universe would suddenly start believing in magic and prophecies after seeing the absurd chains of events that off people in this film.

The film is so desperate to keep the franchise going that about 2/3 of the way in, it re-starts. Nick has another vision detailing the death of the remaining survivors. It’d be funny if the film wasn’t so boring. The special effects aren’t even that good, guaranteeing the gore won't satisfy anyone. The best thing about The Final Destination is that my Playstation 3 is smart enough to recognize it as a truly idiotic title and the name Final Destination 4 popped up when I threw my Blu-ray into the machine. (2-D version on Blu-ray, September 13, 2016)

[1103199xmovies]

100/100 - The Time Traveller's Wife (2009)

Chicago librarian, Henry De Tamble suffers from a rare genetic disorder that causes him to drift uncontrollably back and forth through time. On one of his sojourns, he meets the love of his life, Claire and they marry. But the problems and complexities of any relationship are multiplied by Henry's inability to remain in one time and place, so that he and his beloved are continually out of sync.

Genre: Drama, Fantasy, Romance

[awfulgrimbonez]

Every since I've seen the Raid, I've been watching the movies that he's in. This dude kicks ass. Don't sleep on him. #merantau #2009film #ikouwais #magnoliapictures #bahasa #foreignfilm #goodmovie #sadmovies #vuducollection #kickassmovie #manhood #yuda #jakarta https://www.instagram.com/p/BtRG5Y7F-AX/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=pjtl01fdt16n