|
‘Guys’ (2005, 216 Films)
Directed by Joe Ostrica
Whaddaya’
know, an independently made low budget film from Ohio that doesn’t
involve zombies, vampires, or serial killers. Rather than go the horror
route, Cleveland area filmmaker Joe Ostrica has crafted a fun little
slice of life comedy about, well, guys. The movie concerns four
friends: one a married guy, one about to get hitched, and the other two
caught in varying degrees of permanent adolescence. The four get
together to drink and talk, and humorous situations arise naturally out
of the characters.
Like I said, this is a slice of life movie. It has
the same kind of feel as indie comedies like ‘The Brothers McMullen’.
The plot is the sort of thing one might expect to see in a sitcom, but
handled with subtlety and believability instead of the broad strokes of
TV comedy. There’s no big message and little in the way of wacky
hi-jinks, it just feels real. Because of that, good acting is
essential. Thankfully all four leads are solid. Bryan Jalovec
especially stands out as the biggest loser of the group, and gets the
best laughs. Most of the supporting cast is decent, too, although a few
bit players come across a bit stilted.
‘Guys’ is only 30 minutes long, and although it
works well enough as is, it’s easy to see how it could be expanded into
a feature length film. It’s sort of the cinematic equivalent of a good
band demo. Ostrica shows he has the skills necessary to make a
professional looking movie, and this short is compelling enough to make
you want to see what happens to these characters. For more info, go to
http://www.216films.com. (Bob Ignizio) |
'Nightstalker' (2002,
Columbia/Tristar)
Directed by Chris Fisher
Lately,
it seems that every well known serial killer from the past is getting a
straight to video made about them. Some of them, for the most part, are
pretty well done (‘Ed Gein’) and some of them (‘The Zodiac Killer’) are
pretty damn bad. This one falls in the middle. Richard Ramirez killed
many people in the Los Angeles area in the mid 80's. This movie shows
his story and the story of the police detectives that were searching for
him. The movie moves along at a fairly good pace, the scenes divided
between scenes of the Nightstalker and the detectives chasing him.
There is definitely some iffy acting, like the main
white lead detective, who hams if up as the typical "this is a male only
job". Also, the lady who plays the reporter sucks, too. The guy who
plays Richard Ramirez is pretty good, though, which is a major plus
since the movie would completely bomb if he had done a poor job. On the
other hand, Danny Trejo, a proven good actor, is completely horrible
here, overacting and under acting like a moron. His game as a beer
drinking patrol officer is just plain bad and took a lot of seriousness
away from the movie.
That brings me to the movie's major downfall. The
bizarre "Nightstalker-vision". I guess in an attempt to show the
madness of the Nightstalker, the director decided to make a lot of his
scenes in this weird, jumpy, shaky camera work style that is so
annoying, I almost turned the movie off multiple times. I understand
that some guy went bugfuck and killed a lot of people but I could have
done without the obnoxious camera work which tries to show that. Also,
he sees this devil beast thing, which is a cool idea, but he is part of
the nasty camera mess, so I have to hate it. The gore is aftermath
stuff, for the most part.
Overall, this is a decent video item, which is
taken down fifteen notches because of the camera work. Some of the
factual stuff is altered, most likely for dramatic effect, and that is
plain stupid if you ask me. Also, the female lead is completely
fictional. The foot job scene is funny though, especially when the
hooker calls the Nightstalker a pussy.
Before the
movie starts we are notified that this was an official Cannes selection
one year. Right. I'd sooner believe that JFK and Elvis are still
alive. (Edward Black) |