La casa (Cold Creek Manor)

Could definitely be better but not as bad as some have said! Dennis, Sharon Stone, and Stephen Dorff are pretty good despite the sloppiness! I love Juliette Lewis in almost anything, her personality seems similar in all the movies she's been in. If the city isn't good enough the country side can be a bit brash with creeps and unfortunate things to deal with; just my creative thought.

I've seen way flakier movies that were smash hits. Most Hollywood thrillers & action movies have to be viewed with a willing suspension of disbelief anyhow. People do things they'd never do in real life. They ask stupid questions & accept answers that no one with a high school education and an IQ in even low triple digits would accept in real life. They walk away from falls, car crashes and burning buildings that would kill real human beings. They *split up* to look for the ghost/axe murder/evil demon! So, what's wrong with this one? I got involved. I got tense. I was on the edge of my seat.

I liked it.

The tension was built up without any reference to gory scenes, just creepy camera angles, shadows, the wind blowing curtains, the increasing feeling that Something Really Bad was just around the corner.

You get to see Sharon Stone looking almost like an ordinary human being. Dennis Quaid is his usual edgy self. Stephen Dorff does a great slide into madness.

If I'd believed everything I read about it, I never would've picked up the DVD. It's not Hitchcock, but it's definitely worth watching. Check it out.

Cold Creek Manor

Here's yet another film that I believe suffered from some poor advertising. Or, at the very least, some misguided advertising. As I recall when it was released, there was a strong vibe to those ads that indicated some sort of haunted house or ghost story or something. So it came up on Encore, I remembered those ads and wanted to see what kind of haunted house story I was going to get. Dennis Quaid and Sharon Stone? Sounds alright. I'm not generally a big fan of haunted house pictures, but I figured I'd give it a look. At least it's rated R, right?

Well, well, well... So. So where are the ghosts and sh*t? Turns out this is not the ghost story I thought it was... A big, rich family from "the big city" (I think it was Boston or New York--of course--everyone's from either those cities or LA these days) gets fed up with the hustle and bustle and insanity of living in the city and decide to move out to the middle of nowhere. They stumble upon a glorious old house in glorious old decay--Cold Creek Manor. The house is owned by a bank ready to off-load it for whatever they can get for it. Apparently, they could get around 200 grand for it. Sh*t, this house is huge! The property goes on forever! There are houses in the Twin Cities here that are 1/6th as big as the house in this film that cost more than that! Anyway, eventually, the last surviving, capable, member of the family that once lived there turns up, fresh from prison, and a little annoyed that his house is all gone. So he starts terrorizing the family all slowly and methodically and weirdly... Or does this family just have some really rotten luck...? Well, at any rate, Dennis Quaid thinks the guy is out to get them and goes mildly berserk trying to prove it. He's a documentary filmmaker, and it doesn't help matters that he's doing his current documentary on the family that lived in that big ol' mansion before he and his family moved in.

Here's the breakdown:

The Good:

--The acting is generally pretty good (one scene I'll point out later is the exception)

--Dennis Quaid and Sharon Stone after all. She's done well to prove she's more than just a remarkable specimen of femininity--she's also an actress, after all.

--Impressive sets--that house is beautiful--from the decaying look of it's years of neglect to it's remarkable half-restoration--it's a great lookin' place to live.

--Fairly interesting story.

--Pretty good chemistry between Sharon Stone and Dennis Quaid, they're characters (the married couple) endure arguments and crumbling marriage with hints of adultery.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:

--The atmosphere was pretty mild. Nothing special, and nothing doing a really intriguing job of building tension.

--The usual plot-point that one part of the mystery can only be solved by a chance discovery by the children is, of course, present here too.

--Average Cinematography.

--Some very mild blood/gore scenes. Mostly, with just some blood--and a skeleton or two. Nothing major. Looked good, but wasn't anything special.

--Only mild violence. Fight scenes, mostly.

--Very mild nudity, and one sex scene--through window blinds no less. The nudity is pretty much relegated to pictures--photographs--of the wife of the last member of Cold Creek's original family.

The Bad:

--Sharon Stone kept her clothes on. Okay, I'm kidding. She did, but that didn't hurt the film in any way.

--The music varies from average, to simply obnoxious. We get scenes that contain mild drama, but have a piano pounded on with a feverish, near lunatic intensity. Here's an example: Car driving down stretch of road, someone's worried about an argument--overcast with DUNN-DUNN-DUNN-DUNN-DUNN-DUNN-DUNNNNN!!!! as loud as the howling of hell beasts in hell.

--One exceptionally poor scene where the family is apparently threatened by generally harmless American mountain snakes. The snakes slowly slither to and fro through the house and everybody freaks out with enough overacting to match any Keanu Reeves scene. It just wasn't scary. Not at all. Maybe, if there were tons and tons of snakes--like in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" it would've been mildly scary. But whole family is running away from a terrifying torrent of roughly 6 snakes. The scene, very simply, wasn't believable. I almost laughed at it--it was that stupid.

--Some clichés and cheesiness pop up occasionally. No real surprises.

The Ugly:

--Occasionally feels like a "Deliverance"-style "big city folks out 'n their element" movie--but not as good as "Deliverance" (which is a classic).

Memorable Scene:

--Dennis Quaid punches Sharon Stone in the face. Oopsy!

Acting: 7/10 (except for that one scene) Story: 6/10 Atmosphere: 5/10 Cinematography: 5/10 Character Development: 7/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 7/10 (not much to note) Nudity/Sexuality: 2/10 (quantity) Violence/Gore: 6/10 Sets/Backgrounds: 8/10 Dialogue: 7/10 Music: 3/10 Writing: 6/10 Direction: 6/10

Cheesiness: 3/10 Crappiness: 0/10

Overall: 5/10

I'm giving it a 5 because the film suffers from a few too many problems. It's probably good for fans of horror/thrillers to take a look at, but is likely too mild for hardcore horror fanatics to care about. Better, maybe, for the average movie-goer looking for a light thriller to spend an evening with.

www.ResidentHazard.com

I didn't read any reviews prior to watching this film or I wouldn't have wasted my time. It is one of those good idea movies (maybe too many ideas at the same time) that just didn't take me where I expected or wanted it to go. I expect a "thriller" to build to a crescendo with possibly a disturbingly logical or a emotionally shocking ending. After 119 minutes I was left feeling disappointed and confused. Although there are lots of deleted scenes-it still moves too slowly. An unfortunate choice for Dennis Quaid-he tries very hard to keep the movie going-but it is dead in the water like Jaws 3-D. Some of the horror scenes are comical. Some of the scenes are truly frightening. Some are just plain redundant. I'm still not sure you aren't supposed to expect ghosts around the corner.

Naturally the only reason to watch this for me was the fact that it had Sharon Stone in it. Unfortunately, though I was expecting absolutely nothing, I somehow got less.

The movie takes place within the rustic country side, in the world of the rednecks, the folksy, "The Real America. The Small Town America". Thusly it must belong to the "city idiots move to the country side and get buggered, either literally or figuratively, by hicks" -genre. This is not merely flogging of the dead horse anymore, but waving your whip over the nearest glue factory. Yes, Deliverance was and is a brilliant film, but it also contained such elements as a plot, some common sense, mood and characters you didn't hope to die from the word go.

The story is, in all of it's generic depression, this: Sharon Stone and her husband, a documentary movie director guy, move out of the city since their children are either bred wrong or it's just natural selection that makes them run in front of cars like it's going out of style. They manage to find a huge Wayne's Manor with it's own forest, the yard the size of a golf course and a swimming pool for about $3,50, since "it's foreclosed, yo, so the bank sells it real cheap like". But who would have know, the former owner shambles in looking for a job.

I hated this character from his very first scene. And I don't mean that he is written to be a hateful character; I mean I am amazed how it is possible to write such a generic, pointless, irritating and uninteresting main antagonist. Of course also the dad starts to immediately hate this newcomer and this feeling is mutual. The audience merely hates everybody, since they are all equally boring, pretentious, over reacting bunch of monkeys.

My very favourite series of events begins when the redneck dude saves the children from a snake that is in the pool. When he himself gets fired, the whole house is suddenly full of snakes. And every family member magically places their hands on the slimy buggers at the exactly same moment. I can hardly imagine the mountain of Oscars that must adorn the window sills of the responsible parties' trailers. And somehow the horrendous musical score manages to make this embarrassing mess even stupider than it already is. Which is an considerable effort.

Of course the movie is also eternally long. After 30 minutes I had spent all my hospitality, but the thing just keeps chugging along. To my peer Sharon Stone fans: let it be known, that she does what she can with the stuff she is given, but her role could just as easily be played by a marionette made out of dead rats. Juliette Lewis is also present, wasted like everything else.

In the name of honesty I have to report that there were few rather decent scenes near the end, and they bothered to even pay off some of the things that are set in motion. This is good, because almost an hour and a half is used to nothing but these preliminaries. Also, the ending is so sickly anticlimactic and the zenith of predictable, that even the makers of silent movies would have laughed it out of the room. You could easily foretell everything that happens, and usually it looked better made and more visionary in your mind.

So, this was, in a word, wretchid. I was lucky I saw it on the television and didn't pay a dime. Even though I would like to urinate on my audiovisual equipment just to make sure no remnant of it remains within my apartments threshold.