Last year, between the two of us, we watched an average of 317 movies.
This year our goal is to top that by watching at least one a day.
And as an extra special torture, we've decided to write about all of them.

29 March 2008

Bone Dry, dir. Brett A. Hart (2007)

NIKKI says:
And still I keep trusting the opinions of my video store public. This, they told me, was great. Actually, it's the lowest-grade kind of schlock out there. It looks terrible, the script is embarrassing, and the director clearly fashioned his brand of suspense off a Rice Bubbles box.

What will the treasure inside be? Oh, look, it's something plastic and lame!

Lance Henriksen plays a man stalking another man in the desert in sort of a Hitcher-esque way. Only Lance drugs his guy (played by the cute twin from Bros, Luke Goss) and puts him in horrible Saw-like situations he must the get out of. He cuffs him to a cactus, buries him up to his neck, makes him drink salt water, that sort thing.

Now, my problem with this movie was that we never knew why Lance was torturing Luke. Turns out, maybe Lance isn't the bad guy. Wow, how long did it take you to guess that? So, why then does Luke shout at one point: "Why are you doing this?!" to the sky like Jennifer Love Hewitt does in I Know What You Did Last Summer? Considering his line of work, he'd pretty much have a fair guess why someone would want revenge. Especially revenge this sticky.

So, the flaws mount up. Luke, who's balding, should have a burned head by about the third hour of his capture. He should be that worn down from dehydration, too. None of it makes sense. Don't try to figure it out, it's impossible. Just rent something else. Like Hot Rod.

1/5

STEVE says:
Bone Dry ("A Brett A. Hart Vision" as we're oh-so-pompously informed in the credits) was infuriating, no question about it. The grab on the packet assured me that it was a cross between Duel and Deliverance, which would have been great if it had been true. Instead, I found it to be yet another take on the Saw/Hostel school of filmmaking where the audience is subjected to various scenes of torture that do nothing to advance the story. Or "story" as is the case here, because it doesn't even come into play until the last act, almost as an afterthought, so let's add "bad screenwriting" to Bone Dry's list of offenses, as well.

We're supposed to believe that Lance Henriksen is the Bad Guy from the beginning, the way we're introduced to him in the diner. Fine. He's already Lance Henriksen, that's the baggage he carries, so I buy him as the Bad Guy. But when he's subsequently shown only in silhouette, from behind, or with binoculars obscuring his face for the next half-hour, the mystery of the character is undercut because He's Already Lance Henriksen.

There's nothing in the way of development for either Henriksen's or Luke Goss's characters, just the stereotypical Good Guy/Bad Guy bullshit - and we only get that because Goss is the one being tortured, he must be the Good Guy and Henriksen the John Ryder-esque psychotic Bad Guy. But when the reveal comes in the third act, we're way ahead of the movie because we've been filling in the blanks on our own for the last hour and fifteen minutes.

Problem here is, the reveal should have been made at midpoint. That's the point of midpoint - it reverses the action ("You thought Henriksen was the bad guy, but no!), and keeps the second act from getting dull. As it is, our midpoint was meeting up with a fella named Marty. The only thing this reverses is the fact that Goss is alone, but when Marty is killed ten minutes later, this negates the reversal - thereby negating the midpoint altogether.

This movie sucked. It will, however, appeal to fans of the Saw and Hostel films - people who don't care much for story and wouldn't know a plot hole if they fell head-first into one. If this was Hart's vision - and one has to assume that it was because he served as Bone Dry's writer, director, producer and editor - it's myopic at best.

1/5

Lonesome Jim, dir. Steve Buscemi (2005)

NIKKI says:
I'm annoyed we waited this long to watch this film. I think we've had it on the shelf about two years. I think the cover always turned us off. It looks quite dreary, even the title makes you feel like it'll be somewhat of a slog.

Turns out, it was an absolute joy. It was sad and tragic in a few places, but it had this absurd kind of humour that just made it so heartwarming. I feel gypped now that Little Miss Sunshine and Juno and these apparently ultra-quirky films get all the praise while these smaller, more deserving films just blend into the background.

This one began as films of this sort do -- man comes home to small town after spending time away and must re-adjust to a world that knows far too much about him. Jim comes to live in his house, where his mum walks in on his bath time, and where guys in bars still know him by name regardless of the years gone by.

Jim struggles to fit in here. He's searching for something beyond this life. We know that New York didn't work out, though we don't know exactly why for much of the film. We know there's trouble in his family, with his relationships. Again, we must wait for some explanation of all this, and it's in this waiting, watching Jim as he skulks about felling sorry for himself, that we find the honesty in this story. It's especially hard-hitting if you've shared Jim's experience of returning to small town after significant time away.

Jim meets a girl and things begin to turn around for him. But it's not quite so easy. Especially when Jim just thrives of on his "chronic despair" and his mum is accused of drug-smuggling.

I enjoyed so much about this movie. The writing, the comedy, the performances. Casey Affleck is fast becoming just my favourite actor. His naturalness is fascinating to watch. He makes every line feel like an ad-lib. Seymour Cassel was subtle and hilarious as always, too.

I'm so glad we watched this. March has been so light on ratings above 2.5.

4/5