One Movie A Day Remix

→ in

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 39: June 8th, 2010

Funny Games

Takes Hostel & Saw And Turns It Into An Art Form.

A family head up to their vacation home when they are interrupted by two young polite boys who want to play vicious and dangerous games with them. The games result in the cost of people lives, as the family is taken hostage.

This is of course the American remake of the same film from the same director. Not only is it a remake, but it takes the Gus Van Sant route and makes the film a shot for shot remake. The film stars reservoir dog Mr. Orange himself, Tom Roth. The blonde and beautiful Naomi Watts and the always memorable Michael Pitt. Funny Games manages to take the act of violence and make us want to turn our heads. We go see the films like Saw and Hostel wanting to see the disgusting depravity of it all and Michael Haneke uses this to his advantage and play off that notion in the film. We as the audience expect one thing and are given another.

Another film I recently reviewed was Martyrs, which showed us the lead characters and how they had no hope at all of ever surviving. I didn't like that and how it was represented in the film, I had a hard time trying to connect to the characters knowing they were stuck in such a horrible place. I gave the film kudos for making me squirm. Funny Games didn't make me squirm but it did have the same feel for the characters. The moment you know everything is going to end badly is when Paul (Michael Pitt) turns to the camera and talks directly to the audience. This is further proved when the odd yet fascinating scene in which he literally rewinds the film to change the outcome of some events. This tells us that these two characters are in control of everything. Everything they choose to do to the family and everything they choose to let us see. The last shot of the film is very striking.

Michael Haneke knew exactly what he wanted to do with the film and when he first released the original back in 1997 he was quoted as saying "if the film was a success, it would be because audiences had misunderstood the meaning behind it." I can see traces of that in the film. He knows we as a society are desensitized to violence, so he made the film come off as such. But instead of the film being violent, it's merely about violence itself. Every death takes place off screen and when we finally see the image of blood, it's more striking because of the restrain used earlier. Long still camera shots are used to let the audience sit uncomfortably, waiting to cut away to another shot. We are stuck with the images of the characters in their most humiliating moments.

The two antagonists, are young boys dressed in white. Another play on societies conventions of good versus evil, black versus white. They are extremely polite, instead of rude and abrasive. The small things these characters say have such a sinister feel to them, even if they are the most harmless words. Suddenly a line like "I'm sorry, I've been so clumsy, I do apologize" feels as if he is threatening and about to do harm. They are always calm, cool and collective.

Funny Games is something of an experiment and Haneke is the one who is either laughing or disappointed. He knew what he wanted and he got it, whether or not we know of it. I won't bother seeing the original, as reviews state they are identical aside from the obvious (Language and Actors). Funny Games as a film is directed with precision and acted strongly from the entire cast. Even the young boy surprised me. At times I was reminded of Mr. Orange screaming on the floor in agony because Roth uses that same high pitch voice. I know there are people out there who detest the film, which is why it works. If you love it, you're sick, if you hate it, you missed the message. If you think you got the message, you probably didn't. Me? I don't know exactly how I feel about it, I do know I didn't hate or love it. I guess I'm that anomaly in the equation.

"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Nice review, but I'd say that both versions deserve a
. I tend to find Haneke overrated in general and I hate to use the word overrated even more than you hate the word "reimagining'. He is interesting though.
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 40: June 9th, 2010

Hot Tub Time Machine

Great White Buffalo...

3 friends and one of their nephews go to a ski resort to get away from their boring lives and to try help one that almost committed suicide by accident. The resort isn't what they remembered, it's almost in shambles. They do find a hot tub though and upon entering it get completely wasted and spill some foreign energy drink on the controls, sending them back in time to the 80's. Thinking they can't do anything to change the past or they will screw up the future. Thus, they try to recreate the events that happened back then and try to find a way home before it's too late.

The title alone is what I think got a lot of people interested in the film, it's totally ridiculous and perfect for this style of comedy. The film even plays a joke on the title when one of the lead characters looks right into the camera and says "It must be some kind of...Hot Tub Time Machine". With nudity, drugs, cursing and a lot of sexual and crude jokes, Hot Tub Time Machine manages to stay funny throughout, something I found very surprising. As much as I like the Judd Apatow comedy troupe and their films, it's always refreshing to see a different comedy actually be funny and work.

The cast is an odd one, John Cusack plays Adam, the straight laced guy who finally let's loose when he is stuck in the 80's. Craig Robinson is Nick, the married one from the group and Rob Corddry is Lou, the self proclaimed ******* of the group. Clark Duke is Jacob, Adams nephew. He tags along for the trip because he is staying at Adam's house while his mom lives with her new boyfriend, whom he hates. The young actor manages to keep up with the older gents and even though may seem out of place at first, fits in as the film rolls on. Speaking of being out of place, John Cusack doesn't seem like he would be in this type of film, it's nice to see him play against type, sort to speak. He plays his usual self, just not in his usual self film. If you know what I mean. Corddry and Robinson play their roles perfectly and are the two highlights of the film, sharing the funniest scene involving a bet gone wrong and a bathroom.

I won't go into the time travel properties of the film, it doesn't for one second try to explain or even attempt to have a serious thought about the state of time travel. This isn't Back To The Future, even though George McFly himself has a supporting role here. As long as you can get pass the implausibility of the plot, you'll be fine. You should be able to judge that yourself by the trailer...or even the film's title.

Some minor problems involving characters for me though. Why does the reporter take a liking to Adam? Why was Chevy Chase so cryptic and did he really exist? These things are minor gripes on my end and if you are going into this film just wanting to laugh and not give two craps about that sort of thing, then you'll be able to overlook these details. It's definitely a teen comedy with an R rating. Sometimes it's fun to laugh at immature things.

I can see the film having a cult following. It seems to stand in the shadow of last years The Hangover, but people shouldn't be comparing the two. The only thing the two share in common is a drunken aftermath of problems. See the flick with friends on a Friday night and you will enjoy yourself. If you like comedy that involves oral sex, foul language, a man crying while having sex, and Chevy Chase, you'll be fine. If not, just look to the future.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Nice review, but I'd say that both versions deserve a
. I tend to find Haneke overrated in general and I hate to use the word overrated even more than you hate the word "reimagining'. He is interesting though.
I've only seen this film from him, but am looking out for Cache.

Thanks for the comments on the review though. It makes me wonder one thing. I got 7+ rep on Spongebob and I think that's my worst written review of the bunch, yet it's one of the more popular ones? Is it the review or is it the film?

Questions my friend...questions.

Welcome to the human race...
But then he wouldn't be from a 'good' family, would he?
That's not the definition of "good" I had in mind. The film implies that Bender comes from a white trash household and has a father that's both physically and verbally abusive. By "good" I mean that he comes from a more affluent background similar to Andy's or Claire's, but his parents either don't care about him or don't know what to do with him. You could probably make a similar case for the other kids' parents as well.
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Thanks for the comments on the review though. It makes me wonder one thing. I got 7+ rep on Spongebob and I think that's my worst written review of the bunch, yet it's one of the more popular ones? Is it the review or is it the film?

Questions my friend...questions.
I usually (though not always) play it like this with + rep for reviews.

If I've seen the film and your opinion agrees with mine, obviously that's a +. If you don't, but you articulate what you saw/thought differently well, at least to my mind, that's a +. If I haven't seen the film and the review makes me want to see it (either because of the writing or just because the film sounds good) that's a + and if I'm not sure about a film and a review pushes me one way or the other (into seeing it or not) that's a +.

Hot Tub Time Machine is something I've toyed with seeing since its release. Some things look/sound good others not. Your review enforced both, but I've yet to make a decision and, after reading the review, I'm not moved any further either way. Therefore, I've not + repped it.

It may sound odd or harsh, but that's how I usually do it for all the reviews on this site.

That's not the definition of "good" I had in mind. The film implies that Bender comes from a white trash household and has a father that's both physically and verbally abusive. By "good" I mean that he comes from a more affluent background similar to Andy's or Claire's, but his parents either don't care about him or don't know what to do with him. You could probably make a similar case for the other kids' parents as well.
I see. Thanks for cleaning that up.

So this wasn't anything that was actually in the film, just something someone came up with. So, for instance, I could say that Andrew's father is gay and that he thinks that, by pushing his son to be the best (i.e. most macho) he's trying to ensure that his son isn't, as he blames his own father for his homosexuality. There's nothing in the film to suggest that's true, but I can theorize that it is.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 41: June 10th, 2010


Carriers Is A Good Epidemic Film.

An unknown virus eliminates the better half of the country/world. It is highly contagious and if you have it, you're already dead. Four people, two brothers and two females travel across the countryside to find a place to settle, away from this horror. Along the way they come across moral dilemmas and even though they have a strict set of rules, end up breaking a few.

Those rules I spoke of are pretty simple. 1. Avoid populated areas at all costs. 2. If you come in contact with other people, assume they have it. 3. The virus can survive on surfaces up to 24 hours. Never touch something that is not disinfected. 4. The sick are already dead and they cannot be saved.

So it is safe to assume that in order to have an entertaining film and some high tension conflict, some of these characters need to break those rules. The so called leader of the group is Chris Pine, who plays Brian. He's the one who made up the rules and will kick you out of the car as soon as you become infected. He has no problem leaving people stranded and left to die in order to further his own survival. His brother Danny, played by Lou Taylor Pucci is a little more compassionate for others. He's not as tough. Bobby is Brian's girlfriend, played by Piper Perabo. She doesn't have too much to do in the film except play that girlfriend type. Finally we come to another underwritten character Kate, played by Emily VanCamp. Her thing is checking to see if pay phones still work so she can call her family, even though they are most likely dead.

As stated before, the two females in this film are underused and underwritten. They seem like background characters to add the missing feminine aspect of the film. Chris Pine is great as the older brother, his no nonsense and cocky attitude are also qualities seen in the recent Star Trek film. The most emotional character that I think people are going to be able to relate to is not even one of our four. Instead it's a minor character that we are introduced to early on, Frank, played by Christopher Meloni of Oz and Law & Order fame. He has the unfortunate task of looking after his infected daughter. He meets our leads and they take his car, striking a deal to bring him along to a hospital for a cure he thinks exists. A very heartfelt and depressing scene involves his daughter needing to go to the washroom. He asks her to be a big girl and go herself, so he can stay with the car, fearing they will abandon him and his daughter. Christopher Meloni is an underused actor who needs more work people.

The film never explains the virus or how global it really is. I'm assuming it's the entire world and not just the country. The unexplained events on how or why it happened leaves it all up to the viewer to decide. All that is known is that the virus is highly contagious and if you get it, you'll be dead soon. The characters make usual stops here and there for sleep and gas, at every stop they encounter some kind of problem. It becomes a bit predictable, but it never ceases to keep you interested. I found the film to be quite thrilling at times.

The thing that Carriers does well is leave you with questions to ask yourself. What would you do in this situation. Would you leave your loved ones to die because you don't want to get infected, or would you try to help them and work around this obstacle? The film shows those two choices put into action. Carriers is not a horror film, even though people seem to think so, nor is it an action filled thriller. There are some intense scenes, but to me it mostly played out like a drama. It is only 89 or so minutes, so it goes by fairly quickly, even though some people have been complaining about it's sluggish start. I think the setting of being in a desert added to the desolate and slow feel at times. In the end, Carriers is a good epidemic film. Not a lot happens in it, but the story and my personal thoughts on what I would do in this situation are enough for me to recommend it.

Welcome to the human race...
I see. Thanks for cleaning that up.

So this wasn't anything that was actually in the film, just something someone came up with. So, for instance, I could say that Andrew's father is gay and that he thinks that, by pushing his son to be the best (i.e. most macho) he's trying to ensure that his son isn't, as he blames his own father for his homosexuality. There's nothing in the film to suggest that's true, but I can theorize that it is.
Yeah, why not? Fan theories are always interesting at worst.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 42: June 11th, 2010


More Violent & Bloody Than I Thought It Would Be.

A business woman has to work late on Christmas Eve, when she finally finishes and heads down to the parking garage, her car won't start. She asks the parking attendant to help her, but what she doesn't realize is that he is a deranged psychopath who has been watching her and wanting to be with her for quite some time now.

I had pretty low expectations for this film, after all it is set in a parking garage. Yet P2 surprised me, not only was it suspenseful, it had great performances and a pretty surprising amount of violence. With a lot of horror/thrillers these days they seem to skim out on the bloody violence, but P2 uses it very well here. It's not overly done, only used sparingly. When it is used, it's gruesome, which adds to the ick factor. P2 gets a thumbs up from me because of that.

Wes Bently plays the parking attendant and he plays crazy very well. His calm demeanour is even more sinister than what a loud lunatic would be. He wants to be Rachel Nichols' friend desperately, he is madly in love with her. In his sick and twisted way, they need/have to be together. He is there to help her realize this and is willing to kill those who either get in the way or mistreat her. This takes us into our first death and one of the most gruesome parts of the film. For those that are squeamish, they should look away because one characters gets beaten repeatedly and then some. I find myself liking Bently more and more with every film I see him in, with the exception of Ghost Rider...ew.

Rachel Nichols is the female lead, she is suppose to be the clichéd blonde bimbo in distress. P2 switches the tables around, no longer are we stuck with a stupid character who falls over when they are running away from the killer. We are given a smart and determined business woman, who is constantly showing off her cleavage. Yes, this movie for some reason has put our heroine in a white dress that was most likely done to please the male audience.

P2 isn't for everyone, I'm sure there are dozens of things wrong with it. Such as why doesn't she simply pull the fire alarm, just for starters. But the film did what it was suppose to do. Put a female in danger, have a strange and sadistic murderer follow her and the film becomes a cat and mouse game. In the endless list of films that do this, P2 is surprisingly well done. It's definitely underrated as many people seemed to have overlooked it. I wouldn't suggest you rush out and rent this today, but if you were ever interested even a little bit, check it out. That is, if you've ever heard of it.

I was tempted by this when it was released, but decided against it. This is the second positive review I've read here in a week or so. I'll give it a look next time the opportunity presents itself.

Welcome to the human race...
No, they're usually stupid, like the one I made up.
Perhaps. I still find some of the stupid theories interesting if only because of the strange logic behind them all.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 43: June 12th, 2010

Hot Fuzz

Forget it, Nick. It's Sandford.

Nick Angel is the top cop in London, with arrests that are 400% higher than anyone else in his department. This doesn't look so good for everyone else, so the decision to ship him off to a small village is made. Angel arrives and finds it difficult to cope with the lack of real crime and the lack of policing in the village. That is until bodies begin to pile high and Nick suspects something sinister is up and about and he goes an action rampage trying to solve this mystery.

If the names Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright sound vaguely familiar to you, then you've probably seen the insanely funny Shaun of the Dead. After the release of that film, it became an instant cult classic that ran a thin line between comedy, romance and horror. Or what people now call it, a Rom Zom Com. Now these guys are at it again, this time in the buddy cop action genre. It's safe to say they've knocked it out of the park, yet again. It's refreshing seeing talent delve into more than one specific genre.

Hot Fuzz does for action films what Shaun of the Dead did for horror. It brings a unique comedic style and touch to a genre that has been done to death and somehow manages to pull off a great film. Just like Shaun, Fuzz has the same actors making the appearances, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. There are a few cameos in the film, Steve Coogan, Bill Nighy, Martin Freeman to name a few. Much to my surprise there were two more cameos, I don't want to give them away, but look closely at the Santa Clause who stabs Nick and his masked girlfriend.

From the beginning of the film you can tell that Wright is behind the camera. The quick action cuts of every little thing (from taking your jacket off to putting your keys in the door) is done in such a fast paced way and so often, that it has somehow become his 'trademark'. In Shaun this was used a couple of times, but here it's in almost every scene, yet it somehow compliments the film. When you're homaging and parodying action films, everything should be exaggerated, tightly shot and quickly edited. Even the small things like doing paperwork.

For film buffs, it's neat to pick out the references to other films. There are dozens scattered throughout Fuzz. If it's not blatant and in your face like Point Break or Straw Dogs, it's subtle and only spoken. "Forget it Nick, It's Sandford". Obvious reference to Chinatown.

The townsfolk all play their parts well, with James Bond himself, Dalton, standing out as the devilish supermarket boss. Seeing these townsfolk being so ordinary and timid make for the climax of this film even more enjoyable. The climax itself is the entire third act of the film, which is where most of the laughs are, which is unfortunate. The film is a slow starter, but once it reaches that climax, it's no holds barred.

It's right to say that Wright and co. brought their horror specialties to Fuzz, as so many scenes seem like they could have been brought right out of a horror film. All of the deaths are bloody and really do belong in horror films. I did not expect it to be so graphic in this style of film.

In the end, Hot Fuzz indeed delivers the laughs and the action, which is all saved for the third act. It doesn't reach the greatness of Shaun, but it manages to separate itself from it and for that I can recommend it. I say that because I love horror and Shaun of the Dead came out of nowhere. So we didn't really know what to expect, with Hot Fuzz there was an already built in fan base. Hot Fuzz is the better made film, more polished and on a grander scale. Ah, what the hell, both films are great.

Nice review, but I'd say that both versions deserve a
. I tend to find Haneke overrated in general and I hate to use the word overrated even more than you hate the word "reimagining'. He is interesting though.
I'm too interested to not check this out now. The director, directing a shot for shot remake of his own movie ... brilliant ?

Originally Posted by TUS
Hot Fuzz is the better made film, more polished and on a grander scale.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 44: June 13th, 2010

The A-Team

"Ten years ago, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team."

That voice over was used for the show every episode. This film is the story that precursors the show, sort to speak. They are double crossed while doing a job and are sent to prison. They break out and look to clear their names. If this sounds really familiar, but you've never seen the show, it might be because a film that is almost identical to it was released earlier this year, The Losers. With almost every review, you'll most likely get comparisons to this film. I'll try to get it out of the way quickly. The A-Team is a better film, you'll have more fun with it.

I never followed the show, so I can't comment on how reliable the film is to the characters, but to me they pulled off their roles nicely. Cooper has the playboy handsome role down pat. Neeson, I am starting to like more and more. I usually find him a tad boring, but with Taken and now The A-Team, it seems he has found a calling in action films. Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson plays the famous role of B.A., originally played by Mr. T. He throws out some catchphrases here and there and is used as some comedic relief. The star of the film is without a doubt Sharlto Copley. I give the producers credit for giving such a role to someone who's only had one screen credit from the year prior. Copley pulls it off, yet again. Two roles that are outstanding.

When I first saw the trailer, it had the scene in which a tank is falling through the air and Cooper gets to the gun and shoots a plane down. It was over the top and ridiculous. This film is full of moments like this, so I knew going in that I had to be in the right mindset. I tend to forgive films for being over the top if they are in on the joke themselves. Wanted would be a nice example of this. The A-Team is full of next to impossible stunts that would never work in this world of physics and gravity. We go to films to escape and be entertained, The A-Team does this.

Joe Carnahan does a good job at keeping the action intense and the pace of the film at a brisk pace. We only settle down for a minute here and there to catch our breath and advance that thing we like to call a plot. The film is predictable and by the numbers, but you can expect that. People seem to be hating on Carnahan, just like they did with Smokin' Aces. I liked both films. The A-Team isn't a critic film, it's a movie for action junkies who can appreciate unique ways of upping the ante.

Jessica Biel and Patrick Wilson show up in supporting roles. Biel is Sossa, ex-girlfriend of Cooper and on their heels wherever they go trying to catch them after breaking out of prison. She looks great and does the job that is needed. Which is to look good with Cooper. Wilson plays Lynch, a CIA guy who first gives the job to them. He helps them break out of prison and wants them to continue on with the mission. For some odd reason his role did remind me of Jason Patrick's role in The Losers. Patrick also had that weird vibe about him and both roles were a little similar, minus the lame jokes Patrick used.

Some shoddy CGI bits at the climax of the film might take you out of the experience for a moment or two, but The A-Team works as a summer movie popcorn flick. I don't know what the critics were expecting, but movie does what it is suppose to: Have good looking women, comedic bits to have the audience laughing, explosions, shootouts, car chases, foot chases and actors who look to be actually enjoying themselves. Both The A-Team and The Losers are good films, one is better than the other. So if you were choosing between the two, I'd pick The A-Team. If you've seen The Losers and thought the story was ridiculous and didn't like it, you might want to skip this one. The comparisons, again, are inevitable.

Oh yeah...I Pity The Fool.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 45: June 14th, 2010

Crank: High Voltage

Crank 2 Is Off The Wall Insanity.

After surviving a fall from a helicopter, Chev Chelios is kidnapped directly from the spot he landed in and is taken to a place where they remove his heart. He is given an artificial one that requires an electrical charge to keep running, every hour or so. Now Chelios is on the run trying to find his old heart and to keep charged.

I had an appreciation for the first Crank, it was a live action Grand Theft Auto. Creating as much chaos as possible within the running time. It ended perfectly, with his death. Crank 2 comes around and ruins that. At least, for my own sanity, right from the beginning they have a telecaster look directly to the viewer and tell them how implausible all of this is. Could this be the writers and directors telling the audience that this was a studio decision?

Crank 2 doesn't hold any punches, it goes all out and doesn't stop. It somehow finds a way to be even more chaotic than the original, but it sacrifices any kind of logical straight forward story. The first, even though it was far fetched, seemed like it might possibly happen. Crank 2 doesn't seem to be based in any kind of reality. I do still like the city and world these characters live in. It's just like a video game/comic book come to life.

Statham once again shows us why he is the new face of the action genre. The Rock has moved on to Disney family films and Statham continues to be in films that he knows his fans will love. Crank 2 is violent and obscene. Just like it wants to be, Chelios is a despicable character, just like he wants to be. Statham plays the role with a bit of charm that makes him likable. Amy smart is here again, but she seems even more useless now than before. Was her purpose in this one just to re-enact the famous sex in public scene from original?

The Crank films are without a doubt a guys film. Crank 2 even more so. Sex, violence, harsh language and insane sequences like a shotgun shoved up a guy's ass or two characters transforming into Godzilla like creatures, it's something that requires a viewer to leave their brain not only at the door, but at the door of another house. The comedy is unique and in your face, it doesn't hold back with any subject matter. It's degrading to women and homosexuals and maybe even intellectuals. If you liked the first Crank, you'll like this one.

For what it is worth, I dug the craziness of the film. The style it was shot in was fast and dirty, that reflects the story and the characters in it. I can see a third film coming out, just wondering what they plan on doing with it makes my head hurt though.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 46: June 15th, 2010

Chopping Mall

At Least They Got The Mall Part Of The Title Right.

8 teenagers decide to spend some extra time in the mall after it closes. They party it up in one of the stores, drinking beer and having sex. What they don't know though, is that the mall has a new security team. A team of robots, which have coincidentally, had their mother computer struck by lightning and thus rewiring their system. They are set to kill. And kill they lame and uninteresting ways.

Chopping Mall is one of the numerous horror films that I would see sitting on the shelf of a local video store when I was a kid and I would be intrigued by the great, at the time, VHS cover. A robot like hand holding a shopping bag with body parts in it. With the tag line"Where Shopping Can Cost You An Arm And A Leg". Unfortunately, Chopping Mall suffers from too many things to even make it a pleasurable B horror movie.

The killer robots, or killbots, looks pretty ancient. Even for the 80's. They look like a mix between Short Circuit, the Daleks and every other robot. Nothing too imaginative here. The deaths, with the exception of one awesome head explosion, are tame and lame. With a title like Chopping Mall, I was surprised too see not one chop. At least they got the mall part of the title right.

The acting is horror cheese, as expected. The special effects are horror cheese, also expected. The suspense, is nonexistent. The main problem this film has, are the villains. These robots are not threatening in the least. They look like toys. The film doesn't even feel like a horror film. Instead it plays out like an action sci/fi.

The continuity is appalling. In a film like The Evil Dead the continuity mistakes propel the film to a better level of awesomeness. It helped that they were trapped and going crazy from the evil demons. Here, it is too distracting. One hand holding a propane tank, cut to close up and both hands are on gun. Cut between the two shots 5 or 6 times and it is jarring.

Chopping Mall is a poor film, it's poor even by cult film standards. I can see myself giving this film two ratings. A film rating, and a trashy horror rating. One would be better than the other.

Trash Rating

Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.

Where's Midnight Cowboy? Little Big Man? Cabaret? Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Casablanca? Raging Bull? Rear Window? Paths of Glory? Or even, God forbid, Elmer Gantry?