initiated by navjeet on October 02, 2008 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348461/)
First, a disclaimer: I saw this on TV, so I may be referring to a shortened or bowdlerized version. That said, I can't imagine what a coherent cut of the movie would look like.Now. I was in the middle of drafting out a detailed review of this movie when I realized it was neither necessary nor worthwhile to review it. While I do not regret having seen it, I would not recommend it to anyone. It more
First, a disclaimer: I saw this on TV, so I may be referring to a shortened or bowdlerized version. That said, I can't imagine what a coherent cut of the movie would look like.Now. I was in the middle of drafting out a detailed review of this movie when I realized it was neither necessary nor worthwhile to review it. While I do not regret having seen it, I would not recommend it to anyone. It is simply not a good film. The first segment is flat-out bad; the second is an interesting concept poorly developed; the third is a mixture of good and bad which might have fared well on its own, but is impotent within the anthology format.The entire film is characterized by lacklustre acting, bad editing, and probably bad writing (though I suspect the original script got savaged in the cutting room). The characters' dialogue is on the nose even as their motivations are off the wall.The segments are crowded with pointless minor characters, unexplained incidents, and unnecessary comic relief, but skimp on plot, characterization, and appropriate visual style. The wraparound is worse still, full of arch, unfunny dialogue, and with a Surprise Ending that's certainly unexpected, but somehow isn't a surprise.I saw this on a local TV station's late show, where I've also seen the conventional horror movie "Bleeders" and the charming romance "A Business Affair." Neither of those are particularly good movies, but both are miles above this one. What were the filmmakers thinking?
