dgaither
mar 2004 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas20
Clasificación de dgaither
I saw this at Cinequest, the San Jose Film Festival in March of 2006. The story is about a middle-aged detective, beaten down by life and bureaucracy, until he seems just barely able to pull himself through each day. He's also a drug addict, smoking something, but I'm not sure if it's hash or opium. He's investigating a series of murders of prostitutes in the slums of Tehran? The movie is in Farsi, with English subtitles, so I didn't catch all the details.
What makes this movie different from the other 100 serial killer of prostitutes being pursued by a burnt out detective movies you've seen is it's presentation of the physical and cultural deterioration of Iran. The rain-soaked scenes in the ancient alleyways look like something out of Blade Runner, except this isn't some sci-fi fantasy, but modern reality. There's a religious school that figures in the story and the rituals that these disciples engage in are truly frightening, particularly the lengths they go to for self-punishment and repentance.
It's relentless in its portrayal of corruption and cynicism at the higher levels of society, even as those at the lower depths literally give their lives for their piety. Not all those in power want the killings to stop because they're "cleaning up the city".
This movie is chilling in its portrait of a culture deconstructed by religious fundamentalism and it will make you despair of being able to reason with those fundamentalists at the heart of the Islamic Jihad.
What makes this movie different from the other 100 serial killer of prostitutes being pursued by a burnt out detective movies you've seen is it's presentation of the physical and cultural deterioration of Iran. The rain-soaked scenes in the ancient alleyways look like something out of Blade Runner, except this isn't some sci-fi fantasy, but modern reality. There's a religious school that figures in the story and the rituals that these disciples engage in are truly frightening, particularly the lengths they go to for self-punishment and repentance.
It's relentless in its portrayal of corruption and cynicism at the higher levels of society, even as those at the lower depths literally give their lives for their piety. Not all those in power want the killings to stop because they're "cleaning up the city".
This movie is chilling in its portrait of a culture deconstructed by religious fundamentalism and it will make you despair of being able to reason with those fundamentalists at the heart of the Islamic Jihad.
I saw this film at Cinequest, the San Jose Film Festival, in March of 2006. The Hamiltons is a movie with writing and directing credit going to "The Butcher Brothers". I think this is a name we will be seeing more from in the future. They've managed to put together a good old-fashioned scare fest, with some very powerful shocks along the way, all while using very basic gore and makeup effects.
The movie is about a group of grown siblings, whose parents have died, who are living together as a family unit, trying to be a "normal" suburban family. But they have a terrible secret. Part of that secret is that they abduct and kill people (mostly lovely young women). The rest of the secret is what keeps us involved throughout the mayhem that follows.
They've managed to create an atmosphere similar to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, without being quite so gruesome or so unrelenting. Mixed among the powerful killing and torture scenes are scenes of banal domestic dysfunction. They are obviously big horror fans and sprinkle the movie with references to the movies genre fans love.
My only complaint is that they overindulge in camera tricks. Some of the tricks are very effective. In the pre-credit scene a woman is killed, but the violence occurs in a series of extremely rapid cuts (I'm guessing maybe 3 per second) which keeps us from quite seeing what's happening. This allows our bloody imaginations to do much of the work and keeps us from noticing how simple the make-up effects are. I would like to have seen them use this technique again, but instead they went on to try every camera trick they could think of.
The youngest brother is camcording much of the family action, he says for a school project. This gives the directors an excuse to have many square-cropped, bouncy scenes, with jagged edges around the objects and low resolution. Other scenes are grainy with a shot-on-videotape-in-poor-lighting look. Much of the movie is in high-resolution, beautiful 35mm. Then, even more distractingly, they start mixing up the resolution and cropping mattes, so that we get a high resolution square shot, supposedly from the camcorder, so the actor can look good in close up. There's a couple of scenes where the shot alternates between two actors in dialog and one of them is shot in the grainy tape-look format while the other one is in high-res 35mm. Nearly all of the violent scenes are augmented? by quick-motion, tracers, vibrating cameras, or something else to add impact not present in the action itself. I'm sure they had fun playing all these camera games. The problem is that it draws us out of the story. I spent much of the movie's time thinking about such things, instead of wondering what they were going to do to those poor girls next. There are a few soundtrack scares, but they don't overdo this.
If it ever gets released, I'll want to see it again. The camera tricks do not make the movie unwatchable, they're just distracting. It's a much better movie than a lot of low-budget horror and it left me with the kind of feeling I get from the old 70s and 80s slashers, but it's not as graphic.
The movie is about a group of grown siblings, whose parents have died, who are living together as a family unit, trying to be a "normal" suburban family. But they have a terrible secret. Part of that secret is that they abduct and kill people (mostly lovely young women). The rest of the secret is what keeps us involved throughout the mayhem that follows.
They've managed to create an atmosphere similar to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, without being quite so gruesome or so unrelenting. Mixed among the powerful killing and torture scenes are scenes of banal domestic dysfunction. They are obviously big horror fans and sprinkle the movie with references to the movies genre fans love.
My only complaint is that they overindulge in camera tricks. Some of the tricks are very effective. In the pre-credit scene a woman is killed, but the violence occurs in a series of extremely rapid cuts (I'm guessing maybe 3 per second) which keeps us from quite seeing what's happening. This allows our bloody imaginations to do much of the work and keeps us from noticing how simple the make-up effects are. I would like to have seen them use this technique again, but instead they went on to try every camera trick they could think of.
The youngest brother is camcording much of the family action, he says for a school project. This gives the directors an excuse to have many square-cropped, bouncy scenes, with jagged edges around the objects and low resolution. Other scenes are grainy with a shot-on-videotape-in-poor-lighting look. Much of the movie is in high-resolution, beautiful 35mm. Then, even more distractingly, they start mixing up the resolution and cropping mattes, so that we get a high resolution square shot, supposedly from the camcorder, so the actor can look good in close up. There's a couple of scenes where the shot alternates between two actors in dialog and one of them is shot in the grainy tape-look format while the other one is in high-res 35mm. Nearly all of the violent scenes are augmented? by quick-motion, tracers, vibrating cameras, or something else to add impact not present in the action itself. I'm sure they had fun playing all these camera games. The problem is that it draws us out of the story. I spent much of the movie's time thinking about such things, instead of wondering what they were going to do to those poor girls next. There are a few soundtrack scares, but they don't overdo this.
If it ever gets released, I'll want to see it again. The camera tricks do not make the movie unwatchable, they're just distracting. It's a much better movie than a lot of low-budget horror and it left me with the kind of feeling I get from the old 70s and 80s slashers, but it's not as graphic.
I've heard that this move was put together by a bunch of high-school students. As a high-school art or theatre project it's not too bad. Unless you lived near milpitas in the seventies or knew someone involved in the making of the movie, this is pretty awful. Most of the actors are clearly not actors, but locals who volunteered. Bob Wilkins (the original host of Creature Features on KTVU in Oakland appears, but only for about a minute). Some of the monster effects are done with stop motion animation and some with a man in a monster suit and each works okay on it's own, but there is no continuity between the two. Watching without dialog, you'd assume that the movie had 2 monsters. I guess the most unsupportable aspect is that even the main characters, who I assume are the kids behind the movie, cannot even pretend to act. These kids must have been involved in theater in some way to want to do this project, but they display zero believable emotion in front of the camera.