stansimpson
Joined Oct 2005
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews3
stansimpson's rating
"What if Jigsaw had a dating service?" It would look a lot like "Soul Mates". Two people are chained together and forced to go through a deadly maze as a twisted way to see if they are soul mates.
I can't tell if the writers have a cynical outlook on dating or are just having fun pushing the envelope (or maybe both?). The movie escalates with each scene, and does a good job raising the level of grotesqueness.
I expected low-budget schlock but was pleasantly surprised to find everyone doing a very serviceable job. Neal McDonough, playing the charmingly sadistic Matchmaker, is a joy to watch as he visibly loves hamming it up as this mustache-twirling sort of villain.
After about an hour of the movie, I had an idea where it was gonna go, and I would've liked to have seen that version. But I also really like the direction they went here too. It elevated it to something that might have made the movie forgettable and brought it up to something that has a little bit more weight. I could see if some people don't go for it though.
It's nowhere near the level of this year's "Sanctuary," which is also just a man and woman in a room for 90mins. That movie's a cat-and-mouse chess game of lying, manipulation, and blackmail with tons of intrigue. "Soul Mates" is less high-brow thriller and more straight-up gore and horror.
I liked this movie, and I'm glad I took the time to go see it. The high-concept minimalism delivers, and I was invested the whole time with all the twists and turns. If watching a minimal 90min darkly-fun horror movie sounds like something you'd enjoy, I recommend it. Overall, I give it a high B+.
I can't tell if the writers have a cynical outlook on dating or are just having fun pushing the envelope (or maybe both?). The movie escalates with each scene, and does a good job raising the level of grotesqueness.
I expected low-budget schlock but was pleasantly surprised to find everyone doing a very serviceable job. Neal McDonough, playing the charmingly sadistic Matchmaker, is a joy to watch as he visibly loves hamming it up as this mustache-twirling sort of villain.
After about an hour of the movie, I had an idea where it was gonna go, and I would've liked to have seen that version. But I also really like the direction they went here too. It elevated it to something that might have made the movie forgettable and brought it up to something that has a little bit more weight. I could see if some people don't go for it though.
It's nowhere near the level of this year's "Sanctuary," which is also just a man and woman in a room for 90mins. That movie's a cat-and-mouse chess game of lying, manipulation, and blackmail with tons of intrigue. "Soul Mates" is less high-brow thriller and more straight-up gore and horror.
I liked this movie, and I'm glad I took the time to go see it. The high-concept minimalism delivers, and I was invested the whole time with all the twists and turns. If watching a minimal 90min darkly-fun horror movie sounds like something you'd enjoy, I recommend it. Overall, I give it a high B+.
I live in Birmingham where this true/false story happened. This version takes place in Maryland where it was shot. With a title so good, I had to check it out.
It's a psychological thriller character study following the main character's descent into madness hitting all the memorable moments from the news.
I was expecting amateur home-movie-style visuals/editing as a quick cash grab, but it's clear these are not first-time filmmakers, er, video makers.
It still looks like it was shot with a handful of friends on a weekend. It's done competently with serviceable enough equipment. There are moments where the lighting and shots are decently composed. The editing keeps things moving and has some stylish choices. I would wager to say half the audio is news reports laid over shots of the main character just doing things. But again, that's how character study stories go sometimes.
It kind of reminded me a little bit of Sean Baker's work (Tangerine, The Florida Project), but maybe that's due to its low-budget minimal approach of hotels and strippers.
It's more effective and disturbing than I anticipated, slowly becoming a David Lynch-style nightmare. However, the last 10mins takes a sharp tonal shift where it becomes self-aware, jokey, tongue-in-cheek with faux-serious silliness that kind of derails the whole thing for me. Kind of wish they just committed to the same tone for the whole thing.
Overall, worth the $2, if anything for the sheer novelty of it.
It's a psychological thriller character study following the main character's descent into madness hitting all the memorable moments from the news.
I was expecting amateur home-movie-style visuals/editing as a quick cash grab, but it's clear these are not first-time filmmakers, er, video makers.
It still looks like it was shot with a handful of friends on a weekend. It's done competently with serviceable enough equipment. There are moments where the lighting and shots are decently composed. The editing keeps things moving and has some stylish choices. I would wager to say half the audio is news reports laid over shots of the main character just doing things. But again, that's how character study stories go sometimes.
It kind of reminded me a little bit of Sean Baker's work (Tangerine, The Florida Project), but maybe that's due to its low-budget minimal approach of hotels and strippers.
It's more effective and disturbing than I anticipated, slowly becoming a David Lynch-style nightmare. However, the last 10mins takes a sharp tonal shift where it becomes self-aware, jokey, tongue-in-cheek with faux-serious silliness that kind of derails the whole thing for me. Kind of wish they just committed to the same tone for the whole thing.
Overall, worth the $2, if anything for the sheer novelty of it.
The idea is great and could've been outstanding in more talented hands, but the the writer/director/editor's reach is far beyond his grasp. I am not surprised this is his only credit outside of a couple short films (the kind you would find on any film student's credits).
I can appreciate the plot twists and cleverness, but just because it makes the viewer feel smart for paying attention, it doesn't mean it's good. If someone is really paying attention, they'll notice that the experts rarely talk about their fields of study. They talk more about the people in the story like they were friends rather than talking about the subjects in their fields. This breaks so many rules of documentaries that you would have to know very little about what goes into making a documentary to believe any of it.
The script clearly needed more research and some more polishing. They just tried to do too much and didn't put in the effort to be believable.
I can appreciate the plot twists and cleverness, but just because it makes the viewer feel smart for paying attention, it doesn't mean it's good. If someone is really paying attention, they'll notice that the experts rarely talk about their fields of study. They talk more about the people in the story like they were friends rather than talking about the subjects in their fields. This breaks so many rules of documentaries that you would have to know very little about what goes into making a documentary to believe any of it.
The script clearly needed more research and some more polishing. They just tried to do too much and didn't put in the effort to be believable.