Tag: 3 out of 4

Reboots are a tricky thing. Especially if they happen within half of a decade of the last previous movie of that type.

Most people will agree Spider-Man 3 is a disaster, especially when comparing itself to its previous two movies. Why did it fail? Seems like studio intervention. Forcing the director to include villains that they didn’t plan for, made a mess. There was a script for Spider-Man 4 in the works, still with Sam Raimi, who claimed he wouldn’t let the studio mess up the movie again. And then before filming, after the script, they fired him and screamed reboot!

So with that, a few years later, we got The Amazing Spider-Man, hopefully it doesn’t suck!

Ah, he is trying to seduce the nerds with books. I see it now.

A lot of the plot you guys already know. Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) used to have parents (Campbell Scott and Embeth Davidtz), his dad a scientist, but without warning, they get scared and run off. He is left with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field), as they swear to return. Well many years later, guess who never came back and had a plane crash? Sucks.

Peter is all angsty now. Lives a weird life, has an old film camera, in a modern technology world. Smart, doesn’t apply himself, etc. But when he finds his fathers old notes in the basement, he gets curious. Turns out he used to work for Oscorp, and big on genetic therapy involving swapping genes with an animals to make a better human. He dealt with spiders mostly, but his partner, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) was interested in lizards and their ability to grow back limbs. Because he was missing an arm! Oh noes.

Well their company is running out of time, Norman Osborn (Not yet cast!) is dying of something and needs this research, so his lackey (Irrfan Khan) harasses Curt to make science work faster. Human trials damn it, or get fired! Things happen, the latter, and he takes the formula in desperation and tries it on himself. Well, and you know where that probably goes.

There is other stuff going on of course. Like Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the smart science girl at school who Peter has a crush on, who also works for Oscorp. And her dad, (Denis Leary), captain of the NYC police force trying to stop that masked menace. Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka) is in the film, just for some amount of normalcy. Love stuff, flying around without a mask, and more spoilers that I didn’t think would be spoilers.

Will Peter accept his greater power responsibility ratio? Could Uncle Ben have been more bad ass? Will a scene like this appear in the movie? Is this the best Stan Lee cameo yet? Do bitches know about the Lizard’s green gas?

Bitches don’t know ’bout my green gas.

Woo, Spider-Man. There is a lot of things to like about this movie. First off, just by including Gwen Stacy as the main love interest, you already know this film might be a bit darker than the last trilogy. I had legitimate fear for multiple characters throughout the movie during Lizard scenes. Before when it was Mary Jane I never thought “Oh man, is she about to die?” Nope. I always figured out Spider-Man would just save her.

The fights were well done and I could pretty much tell what was going on the whole time. Not too blurry. Spider-Man fighting was generally epic, and the Lizard was generally stronger than him. I wish the Lizard reminded me a bit less of a Killer Croc / Toad from Super Mario Bros. hybrid, but hey, not perfect.

Speaking of not perfect, more than once I rolled my eyes at some poor dialogue. The serious and epic ending I didn’t get to fully experience, only because I knew it was coming. If a comic fan knows the characters in the movie, they are sure to know certain events that will transpire, so I thought the ending wasn’t as good as it could have been. Even laughed in the theater to a line I thought was a joke, that apparently everyone else was way more serious about. Whoops.

Overall, movie definitely does the character justice.

When I saw the (countless) previews for Brave I was never wildly impressed with them, and didn’t really care if I saw it or not. Well, I knew I would see it but when is the better question.

I also learned recently that there is a rather large subset of people who believe that Pixar can do no wrong, all of their movies are amazing, and judge new movies based off everything they’ve ever done. That sucks for Pixar. Good for money, but still, kind of a weird position to be in.

Either way, what bugged me about the previews is they were all super vague. For some reason a girl wants to change her fate and has to go at great lengths to do it. But from the previews it makes it seem like the fate she wants to avoid is just a marriage? Hmm, weird.

Oh and she likes to shoot things, of course.

Merida (Kelly Macdonald) is a Scottish “princesS”. Her father Fergus (Billy Connolly) lost his leg in a fight with the deadliest bear ever, of all time, and helped lead the other three tribes to fight off invaders. So they made him king. However, they agreed that to strengthen the tribes, the daughter (once she gets a certain age) must marry the first born son of one of the other chieftains. Ugh, marriage!

Her mom Elinor (Emma Thompson) is the voice of reason in the house, and has been grooming her daughter to be a proper lady and suitable Queen should the time come. Her dad gave her a bow and arrow, and taught her to ride and be adventurous and hunt! Doesn’t help when the the tribes come to town, the three suitors are all “undesirable” (seemingly based on outward appearance only, for shame Merida). Lord Dingwall (Robbie Coltrane), Lord MacGuffin (Kevin McKidd) and Lord Macintosh (Craig Ferguson) are all willing to fight over it, so she has an archery competition to decide!

Which she enters herself, pissing off her mom, embarrassing the tribes, and then she runs away. Hey whats that? A witch (Julie Walters)? A potion to change her fate by changing her mom? That is a vague as crap potion wish, I am sure it won’t come back to haunt her or do anything too drastic. AND THEN I REALIZED WHY THE PLOT WAS SO SECRETIVE.

It just feels ludicrous to even explain what happens in the second half, and spoils a lot of things. So uhh, rather you find out on your own.

Her unkempt hair shows her free spirit.

Alright, first off I don’t care that the main character is a woman and that she can shoot a bow. Movies that go against stereotypes just to do that shouldn’t matter, cause I don’t care if a lead is male or female, animated or actually existing. Turns out the fact that she can shoot a bow really good adds…very little to the story. Its whole purpose to give her a “non girly” thing to do and surprise people with.

But outside of that, I think the the writers walked a pretty nice line in terms of avoiding women stereotypes, if that was their goal. Don’t be fooled though, this movie is mostly stereotypes. I mean, kilts, Scottish people, just asking for it. Most of the humor is slapstick in nature as well. But the mom? Not mean, just caring. Merida? Not really brave, but kind of reckless and childish. The witch? Not at all mean, just kind of a plot point to teach people lesson/morals.

The actual “bad guy” in the movie also turns out to not even be that bad. A film with everyone being a decent person (eventually).

You might be confused. “Wait? Merida not that Brave?” Sure, she does some stuff, takes some courage. But the bravest character in the movie is in fact the mom character. I think it should have been more from her point of view, but that is harder to sell. So when I looked back on the film, I imagined it as her story and liked it a lot better. Because like I said, Merida is just way more typical child, leaping before looking, overreacting, refusing to talk things out, reckless, than brave. But hey, whatever.

I also felt that some instances could have been vastly improved, story telling wise. But then it would have probably made it a PG-13 movie instead. Oh well.

I’ve known about the epicly long movie Australia for awhile now, but not as long as it took to make this movie. Holy crap, delays, research, and 9 months of shoots.

I have now determined that Baz Luhrmann is insane. Or some sort of crazy genius at least. Dude is Australian and proud of it, and wants to showcase a lot of it. Understandable, but the last film I saw that was just a love song to Australia wasn’t the best experience.

What I knew about this film in advance was that it was pretty as heck (so I had to watch it on Blu-Ray) and super long. Sounds good to me.

For an epic movie, I am only allowed to use wallpaper pictures.

Obviously this takes place in Australia. But first, Britain! Also pre WW2. Lady Sarah (Nicole Kidman) is being all rich like, when she heads to Australia to force her husband into selling the cattle farm down there, which is losing buckets of money. She gets there and her husband has a Drover (Hugh Jackman) give her a ride to the ranch, with the help of his two aborigine friends. She doesn’t like him.

BUT OH SHIT. The husband is dead, and his death is blamed on King George (David Gulpilil), an aborigine who lives in the desert. That’s weird. Why would he? No one knows, but the claims come from a neighboring ranch, lead by King Carney (Bryan Brown) and his drover associates Neil Fletcher (David Wenham). I’m sure they have no reason to lie.

Well, Lady Sarah finds out that Fletcher when working for them to move their horses has been letting a few cross the river into Carney’s territory. That thievery is unacceptable, so he is fired, but she is in a predicament. She wants to sell all the horses (preferably to the government, easier), but has no way to get the horses to them! If she sells them to Carney, he will gain a monopoly on Horses, and the government will be forced to pay outrageous fees. So why not hire Dover and his two friends?

What? Three people cant lead 1500 horses on a long trek across Europe? Well, Lady Sarah can ride a horse, and so can her house assistant. And so can Nullah (Brandon Walters), the half aborigine kid. And so can her accountant, Kipling Flynn (Jack Thompson) as long as he puts down the booze.

Great, they just need to cross a very unforgiving Australia, with hot deserts, and potentially people trying to sabotage their mission. Can they make it to Administrator Allsop (Barry Otto) in time?!

Wait. Turns out that plot doesn’t last 165 minutes. That is still only half the movie. The second half is years later, dealing with the Stolen Generation of Aborigine kids, in lieu of efforts during World War II, and other war stuff going on. Holy shit.

So much shit is going on in this movie.

Alright so, yeah, 165 minute movie. And it definitely felt like two movies to me. Once the first plot ended about halfway through, I was confused. I first thought time went by super quick, but nope, movie 2 began.

I was a bit taken aback by it too, and it took me awhile to adjust to the change of plot and time frame that eventually occurred. So a review of film 1? I loved it. The scenery, the campiness, the adventure. I was taking it all in, and it was fantastic. Movie 2? Didn’t find it as good. Felt a lot more modern, obviously with some war and guns and what not. The campiness and level of scenery were still high, just didn’t find it as interesting. Was a lot less more adventure feeling, and more dramatic/actiony. Yes, the tones change greatly.

But hey, people die. It did remind me of his last big movie, Moulin Rouge! except for a bit less craziness. But in terms of camera work, it was all definitely a Baz style.

I would recommend this movie if you have tons of time, want to go on a journey unlike any reality you know, and have a nice TV/Blu-Ray. Get that DVD/20 inch screen out of here. Won’t be as good.

Honestly, when I just read the title I knew I had to watch it. It is one of those movies.

Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel? A British Comedy? Staring my favorite British actor/comedian guy?

Well damn. Don’t have to try so hard, United Kingdom.

Oh, and this movie involves a gun!

The movie is about three friends at a bar. Ray (Chris O’Dowd) just got fired from his job for making kids cry. His two friends are Toby (Marc Wootton) and Pete (Dean Lennox Kelly), the former a cynical asshole, the latter a fellow nerd who likes to come up with movie ideas and his thoughts on shit (like time travel) in a little notebook.

Well while they are getting drunk and complaining about stuff, Ray goes to the backroom, and when he returns he sees a girl staring at him. Cassie (Anna Faris) is claiming to be a time traveler, and she just came to observe a “Great man” in his past. Can’t tell him why of course, that would fuck up time. But she leaves and Ray just assumes of course that it was a prank. He tells his friends anyways of course until he doesn’t believe him. It isn’t until Mr. Cycnical asshole Toby goes to the bathroom and returns to find the entire bar dead, including himself (with a beard?) that he starts to freak out. He returns to the bathroom and his own time, and the tries to get the group to do everything he did before in the bathroom to try it again.

It doesn’t work. Instead they find themselves in a House in the future. Well fuck.

Obviously things start to get a bit confusing, as they are trying to figure out this time leak going on, with Cassie only ocassionally showing up. They also go into the far future full of destruction, and less far future where they find themselves at a costume party, where everyone is dressed like them from the bar that night. But why? Why are they worshiped? Can they also avoid the people who like to go back in time and kill influential people right after they hit their peak for fun? I’m sure Meredith MacNeill isn’t one of those people.

Oh the things people must do for science.

I like that the movie is about three “Average guys” or at least nerdy ones. Unless you think nerd is a bad term, in which case “Imagineers”.

This movie is pretty crazy and it is very easy to get confused, especially early on when they don’t even understand what is going on. There aren’t helpful subtitles to say when in time they are, because they don’t know. They are just trying to survive and not break any time travel rules they are aware of. I also thought it was pretty funny, even though most of it was just based on awkward people in extraordinary circumstances.

I heard they originally planned to make a whole series of these low budget comedies, the next one being FAQ About Parallel Universes, staring the same people, and going through these crazy ass adventures. But they had to stop it, which was a shame. The movie is pretty refreshing in terms of topic, how they handled it, and the potential for more. Also, they say fuck you fate/predetermination.

Big Miracle? Some whale movie?

Originally I wasn’t going to watch Big Miracle, but then I remembered I watch everything. “Oh yeah! Might as well watch it asap then,” I thinks to myself.2

This is the best intro I have wrote for a movie.

Bitches love whales?

Based off of actual events in the 80s (and thus I don’t know about it), this takes place in a very Northern Alaskan village. Yes, that means Eskimos. For whatever reason, Adam Carlson (John Krasinski) is a reporter in their town reporting on random shit, for the main Alaskan news. People love him there, overall nice guy. He finds one extra report before leaving though, thinking people will love it. Turns out three California Gray Whales are trapped under the ice! The vast water froze quicker this winter, and three whales are sharing a small hole, miles away from the ocean to breath from. Damn, that is sad.

This story gets LOTS of attention. Wildfire amounts. The director of Greenpeace Rachel Kramer (Drew Barrymore) is already around protesting the selling of territory for oil, and of course the guy who bought the land for Oil (Ted Danson). Also tons of media shows up, including Jill Jerard (Kristen Bell) who is willing to take any story to get a leg up. The head reporter at their department (John Michael Higgins) thinks it is silly though.

Fuck, even the government gets involved! Cold War is still looming, and the government gets a Russian ship nearby, made for cracking ice to help. Because they have no idea how to help these things. Initial tries are failing. Even bring in some boys from Minnesota with ice melting technology meant for rinks to try and speed up the process. Eventually they get the only idea that might work. To constantly make holes in the ice a few meters apart, big enough for the whales to come up for breath, and lead them to the ocean, hoping that they follow said holes.

Sounds crazy? Well because it is. All the locals and news reporters end up helping, including Tim Blake Nelson playing some guy from Alaska! The main kid in the movie is played by Ahmaogak Sweeney, as they had a lot of real locals play the appropriate parts. But will the Whales follow? Will the Russians save the day? Will anyone die along the way!?

Hopefully none of them decide to jump on the ice. That would suck.

So, in terms of Family movies involving saving animals, this one is actually quite refreshing. True stories can be annoying like in Dolphin Tale, where the just poop on everything that matters and give a random inspirational tale nothing like the real events. But this stuff seems to be a bit more spot on.

First off, the main kid in the movie isn’t even the main character? Everyone seems to play an important role, and it isn’t from a kids point of view, like most “family movies”. That is cool.

Secondly, the oil people arent the bad guys. Literally everyone helps out in this movie. And people don’t even need convincing, all sides actively work together and want to save the whales. Sure, some also enjoy the positive PR, but damn it, there is no one stopping them and reluctantly letting it happen. No, it just happens.

I will note I found it weird that everyone seemed to be against letting the locals kill the whales for meat. Kind of rude. Their logic was sound, and would supply them food for quite awhile. Oh well, we love guilting other cultures into living like us.

But yeah, this touching story actually was a good watch, with mostly believable characters. Had some normal family jokes you would have guessed, but overall was pretty decent.

BONUS TEXT!

I wrote this review in June, 2012, the summer before I moved to Iowa. I lived in North Carolina at the time, and Blockbuster I worked at was already closed. So I had even more free time for films, and watched anything I could.

In Iowa, I met my now wife in the summer of 2013. Days after I met her she had to fly out to Alaska to go to the funeral for her uncle, Randy Roosdett. Why is any of this relevant? Well, he apparently was an extra in this film as an oil man. And that is kind of neat.

This is going to be one of those slightly different reviews folks.

Not only is it based on true events, but most of us know about it all. Okay, I mean we are aware of the events around it, without knowing both sides and all the problems and complications. I am talking about the Recount of the 2000 Presidential election ballots in Florida, the decision between who would be the next President, Bush or Gore.

This is not Bush and Gore.

Not sure what I am talking about? Here is some light reading (and thus plot review of the movie!).

TL;DR Florida done fucked up. Some of their ballots were confusing, some machines didn’t punch through enough, the sheet had a front and back, etc etc. Bush supposedly won the state and thus the election, but according to AP news the votes was too close to call, and Gore canceled his concession. Then lots of court stuff. Lots of stuff no one understood, but man was making fun of it easier.

And the whole thing is explained in this nice Hollywood rendition! Woo woo! So yeah, fictionalization happens, but the events are roughly correct, if I have been told correctly.

Kevin Spacey plays the main guy, some Democratic guy. I could tell you everyone’s role, but really I don’t remember them much since they are all real election political people. The closest thing to a villain is Laura Dern as a Florida Secretary of State.

We also got roles for other people! Roles everywhere! For Bob Balaban, Ed Begley Jr., Denis Leary, Tom Wilkinson, John Hurt, and more.

Major woman character is the biggest villain? Don’t blame Hollywood, blame politics in 2000.

Given that I was 11 or so when this Florida stuff happened, I must say I really didn’t understand it at all. I just assumed Gore was being a baby and demanding recounts, I didn’t know what a Chad was. Easy to joke about, and I guess my perceptions were just based on where I lived. I am glad this HBO movie was done as a movie and not a documentary. It made it a lot more exciting and natural feeling to me.

Technically both sides are shown, but it is clear the Democrats (I think) are supposed to be the good side, when both sides had good and bad people in them. Can blame that one on Kevin Spacey probably. But overall it is very informative and entertaining.

Now I feel like I could answer maybe one more question on Jeopardy, thanks to this movie.

If you have heard of Take This Waltz, there is generally only one reason why.

Because this is the Indie-Canadian movie originally rumored, then confirmed, to have a naked Sarah Silverman. I am sure there is 95% of you that just don’t know the movie, but the other 5%? Yeah, it is because of that reason.

To be fair, there is tons of naked women in this movie. All shapes and sizes. Fully. Let this not be the main reason to watch the movie, mmkay?

We got this girl, Margot (Michelle Williams) who is on vacation! Woo, she feels lonely there, but some guy in the tour group keeps joking around. Same guy ends up being next to her on the plane. Same guy ends up leaving “near her” so he can just walk from her house when they share the cab. Dude lives two houses over and across the street. How crazy! (And potentially stalkerish).

Pretty amazing how they never really met. Especially if Daniel’s (Luke Kirby) job is one of those cart things, where people can ride, being pulled by someone running. Probably decent pay, and good for working out. But also, Margot is married. To a Lou (Seth Rogen) who makes cooking books, dealing with chicken recipes. They eat a lot of chicken.

They have been married for five years, but Margot doesn’t feel loved as much. Lou jokes around a lot, and she feels like her advances are being ignored, while he has become complacent. But this neighbor, he is a new, and interesting, and probably can fulfil her sexually. Should she leave her husband for him, or just fool around a bit?

Hos be hoin’.

Sarah Silverman is also barely in this movie. Just a sober sister. Michelle Williams is naked way more often.

I was ready to bash this movie so hard. Fucking double standards in film. Women cheating on their spouses tend to be acceptable because they are finding themselves, or something. Men cheating are generally always pigs and bad people. Fuck that. She does try to be open with her emotions, but she does a bad job of it, and apparently “too late” for Seth to see anything as wrong. Generally the best time to deal with problems is not when you are walking out of the door.

But hey, the movie ends up not painting her as some hero figure. (Spoilers?) By the end, turns out she just wanted something new. But eventually new things become old things (a quote from an old black woman in the shower scenes), and she gets bored of it too. She realizes she done fucked up, and she is kind of a horrible person. I loved that ending a lot more.

I’m not saying you have to stay with the one you marry (although it’d be nice). Just you know, try to work shit out. Don’t run away from your problems. Realize that couples can fight. Etc.

In other news, this movie felt very real in the good way. Nice emotions going on, and pretty nice acting. Those Canadians can make some good things people.

A couple of days ago I asked an open question to some friends to try to get me some crazy, whacked out documentary to watch. Nothing unfortunately really matched the level I wanted, so I instead found Dear Zachary to watch, hearing it was at least powerful, and a bit fucked up.

But real life, fucked up, not the the made up conspiracy theories way.

Either this is really touching documentary, or a really creepy one.

Basic gist of the story:

Andrew is a guy who people apparently like. Went to Med School, was in training to be a doctor, meets with a Shirley Turner girl, who no one really knows about. Bit later, Andrew is dead, shot six times, while trying to break up with Shirley. She flees back to Newfoundland, and now claims to be pregnant with a baby from Andrew.

The documentary director/friend Kurt Kuenne originally sets off to gather all the information on Andrew that he can, through his old family video recordings (used to make fake movies) to interviews with all of his family and friends, so that someday, his son can learn about his passed father, and also more of the circumstances that lead to his demise. The piece also follows Andrew’s parents, as they move to Newfoundland to begin a long custody battle through the Canadian government to gain the rights to the son, from the woman who is slowly being convicted of killing the husband.

Sounds messed up, yeah? Because it is. And I can’t say more about it. Will ruin the story.

I liked the story a lot, in a “WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT” sort of way. Lot of real emotion in it, given the topic that was probably obvious. The only reason I don’t give it a 4 is just because of weird editing that kept bugging me throughout.

Mostly occurred at the beginning, when the documentary didn’t flow very well at all, not to mention a few times when they said they would get to something later and then barely touch on that topic later. This is the world of wikipedia damn it, we need more information!

I like this title. It makes me ask questions. And it makes me want to say it a lot.

We Need To Talk About Kevin! Clearly Kevin is up to something, and me and you refuse to talk about it. Like elephants. No one talks about elephants. AND NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN.

I have also been substituting Kevin for other nouns. Just always seems appropriate. Can’t stop, talking about the need to talk about Kevin.

Jeez, I think we need to talk about the size of Kevin’s head.

Seriously, am I just making that up, or is his head really big right there? Clearly the best course of action involves zooming in to make it all pixelated and scary.

If you are reading this at night, I apologize.

Either way, something is up with Kevin. Kevin does something bad, but the movie doesn’t want you to know about it. The beginning is super weird, with the mother (Tilda Swanton) in what appears to be a giant tomato fight, like that giant tomato fight festival. Lots of red liquid in this movie. She is living alone, and people tend to dislike her. Kevin (Ezra Miller) is in prison now, for something, but what?!

At the beginning of the film, it is very disjointed. Scenes after the fact, before the birth, and during an event, all quickly stipulated together. Eventually it slows it the hell down, but definitely overwhelmed me at the beginning.

Kevin’s mom is married, with a Husband who works a lot (John C. Reilly) and dreams of being an author and traveler. They have a boy, Kevin, and she is originally left to raise him on her own. She can never seem to make him stop crying, and finds that other loud noises are a reprieve from his shrieks. But of course he is completely normal when the dad is around.

But when they are alone, as he grows, he takes forever to talk. He takes forever to get potty trained. To roll a ball, and enjoy life. Always staring with those damn dead eyes. Some abuse might be present, but it doesn’t last long, as he realizes the potential for black mail, and soon he seems to be running their lives, doing whatever he pleases, and she cannot stop him.

But soon they have another child, a daughter (Ashley Gerasimovich), and subconsciously he gets jealous. Then he gets all pissed off. And does a certain bad thing. The marriage also at that point was falling apart, divorce papers being filed.

The after math of the “incident” which I guess they try to keep secret, involves the mom living alone, in a community where no one wants to talk to her, and finding a cheap office job to make a salary, and try to get her life back on track.

I already explained a bit of this, but man, that beginning, did not like it at all. When it slowed down, and gave us longer scenes, before and after the event, I was able to enjoy the film a lot more. I don’t want to have to work too hard to understand it. Thankfully she has different hair styles before and after, so it isn’t hard to realize when in time we are.

The film is based off of a book, which is based off of a fictional event. But obviously based off certain real events, while taking its own unique and fucked up spin on it.

And I thought it was super powerful by the end. I kind of was told what the event was that occurred, but I didn’t see the “Extra events” coming by the end, and I was definitely shocked. Powerful acting, and a lot of big heads. Even John C. Reilly has one.

Gone is pretty much like Taken.

You know, if the main character is a young adult women, not an older man.

And if the younger sister is taken, not the daughter.

And if the main character has no training in any government field.

And if it takes place in a small town not half of France.

And — okay, not much like Taken.

Next thing you know I will be comparing everything to Top Gun.

Amanda Seyfried is just a girl. She works the night shift at a local diner, and lives at home with her younger sister, Emily Wickershaw. Possible drug use is happening. And vague references to a park. But why? Well, two years ago Seyfried was abducted from her house, and allegedly thrown in a hole in the middle of the forest. She wasn’t alone, bu there was bones too. She was trapped all day, but at night, heard a voice saying that it was time to die, and managed to escape when the mysterious man got her out of the hole. Since then she has lived her life in fear.

Unfortunately the local police don’t believe her story. Couldn’t find the hole, no signs of any abuse, and other complications. She was even put into a mental hospital for the story (severe!). But she lives with the sister now, and after getting home in the morning (and after some weird encounters with her coworker, Jennifer Carpenter) she finds her sister…missing! Based on very little evidence, she knows for a fact that the abductor has come back and meant to get her, but instead found just her sister.

Of course none of the detectives (Daniel Sunjata and Katherine Moenning) really believe her, but the new guy, Sebastian Stan kind is willing to believe her. Even though she has only been gone for hours, not really a missing person case. But Seyfried is freaking out, knowing that the killer “kills at night (from her one time being there)” and that she is running out of time!

So using what little she is given, she follows clues, and talks to many people who seem to remember an awful lot about their previous day, hoping to catch the killer in time. Wes Bentley also plays Emily’s boyfriend. Tons of other guy actors I know in this film, but you know, don’t want to give away which ones are important and which ones are not.

But will these strangely placed convenient clues and people who know way too much information, will they lead her to the killer? Or will she run into a trap? Or is she just making it all up again?

Or will her life revolve around a series of flashbacks that could be fake? Fakebacks.

For a film I didn’t even hear about until I saw it for sale (when I was going to pick up my copy of Goon), I was surprised that I liked it that much. Honestly, I assumed the only reason it was even supposed to be a big movie was because of Amanda Seyfried. I couldn’t recognize any of the actors on it besides her (and until I watched it, when I obviously knew Jennifer Carpenter).

But I thought it was nicely done. Seyfried’s acting was great, and had to carry the film. Lots of red herrings. Believable enough plot, but very believable ending. The police chase throughout the film wasn’t as believable. Tons of bumbling idiot cops I guess. And it also didn’t feature tons of shots of Seyfried kicking ass or anything. Mostly running away, and being sneaky.

I’d definitely say its worth a watch.