"Born in a cabbage patch? No. But, almost.

Title: The odd life of Timothy Green

Year: 2012

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Fantasy

Ditector: Peter Hedges

Writer: Peter Hedges (written by), Ahmet Zappa (story)

Runtime: 105min

Cast: Jennifer Garner, Joel Edgerton, CJ Adams, Odeya Rush, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Rosemarie DeWitt, David Morse, M. Emmet Walsh, Lois Smith, Dianne Wiest, Ron Livingston, 

Produc.: Monsterfoot Productions, Scott Sanders Productions, Walt Disney Pictures

Budget: $25 million approx. 

In The odd life of Timothy Green, Cindy (Jennifer Garner) and Jim (Joel Edgerton) can not be parents, by their own means. Then, one night, they buried a box in their house´s garden, with written inside, all the desires they would like to see fulfilled in their own child. That same night they witness a miraculous result, in the form of small Timothy (CJ Adams).

Only as a curiosity, those who, more or less closely, follow Jennifer Garner´s filmography, may have noticed that this is the second time in five years, in which she plays a woman who can not have children. Her previous role had been in Juno (2007), as the minor character of Vanessa Loring, who waited for the baby of a teenage girl.

Jim and Cindy Green are of those couples, for whom, to be parents would be the icing on the cake. To have built the, dreamed of family.

The thing is that while for some, children come to them as easily as colds, others, such as the Greens, see the time go by without anything happening. It is then, when doctors have given up, that they go back to their home, where they muy settle with being the only ones under their roof.

On this particular night, and not having now, nothing to lose, Jim decides to play that together describe the perfect son, while they take note of each of his fictitious, enormous qualities, in some notepad´s sheets of paper. To, for a moment, fantasize, letting themselves to be carried away, and adding him, every time more attributes, to someone who is one hundred percent invented. Then, they go out in the dark to bury those qualities in a box in the garden.

Both of them are sleeping when the wind gets up, and an unusual rain is unleashed on their ground. Soon, this ceases, but having left for them a very special gift.

Someone suddenly appears in the bed, next to Jim, but disappears as quickly as it came, leaving dirty ground. Immediately, Cindy and Jim are set to find the intruder. Thus, they end up finding a boy of about ten years old, covered in mud, and who they do not know where he came from. Mystery they solve right away, when looking out a window. A hole with the little boy´s dimensions reveals in the same point where they had buried the box before.

To make the event even more surprising, the child has green leaves attached to his legs.

Chances are that, for many, this whole sequence will contain an exciting magic. With a couple that began disconsolate; who later, started to play, to forget their pain; and which ended up being touched by divine hands. And I do not doubt for that to had been Peter Hedge’s goal. Yet, I find that, although a fantastic story, it would have been interesting to tie some loose ends before continuing, to give greater strength to the events to come. Details such as, that it takes so little for the couple to convinced themselves that the child came out of the ground, and that, moreover, it is their son, do not help to that cause. Or that, when discovering that he has got leaves on his feet, they do not think he can be part of a joke, is not very credible. Anyone could think that they were very naive.

After receiving a warm bath and introducing himself as Timothy, a child who feels no fear or shame immediately calls them "dad" and "mom". Something that, neither oh the two has trouble getting used to.

Already, the next morning, the Greens make to know their new member at a meeting with family and friends, where they both assume, too soon, the role of parents, which is not believable. As if they have known Timothy forever and not for just a few hours.

From now on, mother and father will endeavor for every day to be worthy. They will try to convey their love and teachings, as if the kid were ordinary, and forgetting a greater detail: Timothy was not born in a belly.

This heaven-sent, helps the couple, not only to fulfill their desire of parenting, but that, in a very short term they can commit mistakes from that position, to learn from them. Timothy even helps them to confront their own demons, as they never before, have had the courage.

But not everything that glitters is gold. And Timothy´s green leaves also begin to wilt.

Something that is never quite convincing is, for what, exactly, is that the child comes to them. If the couple was then going to want to adopt, it would have been enough for them to be responsible and sincere adults, with no terminal illnesses, psychological or financial problems, for the procedures to succeed.

The entire film is told in a flashback, as the couple tells their story with Timothy, to Evette Onat (Shohreh Aghdashloo), the supervisor. Here, obviously, what we have is a duo that craves empathy and understanding. However, Onat proves to be a sensible veteran, with no time for jokers. She can only be convinced with facts expressing truths, not with children born between plants. They could have told her, for example, that he had been brought by the stork, and, so what? Should we understand she was supose to believe them, just by seeing their anguished faces?

At this point, Hedges ultimately choose an ending that has got holes, but that is happy and makes us smile. Let’s recall that his contract was with Disney, and the film, for adults and for kids.

My rating: 4/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Sicker, scarier and more fun"

Title: The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence 

Year: 2011 

Genre: Horror 

Director: Tom Six 

Writer: Tom Six 

Runtime: 88min 

Cast: Lawrence H. Harvey, Ashlynn Yennie, Maddi Black, Kandace Caine, Dominic Borrelli, Lucas Hansen, Lee Nicholas Harris, Dan Burman, Daniel Jude Gennis, Georgia Goodrick, Emma Lock, Katherine Templar, Peter Blankenstein, Vivien Bridson, Bill Hutchens 

Produc.: Six Entertainment Company 

In The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence, Martin is a security guard, who inspired by the fictional Dr. Heiter (Dieter Laser) prepares to carry out his own version of the insect. 

November of 1957. Plainfield, Wisconsin. The police investigating the disappearance of Bernice Worden checks Edward Theodore Gein’s house, which they see as a possible suspect. When they enter into his property, they find Worden´s body hanging from its ankles, beheaded and open at the torso. But, that is not all. They also find ten women’s heads, missing the top, lampshades and seats made of human skin, and soup bowls made out of skulls, among some crazy crafts. After being arrested, Ed Gein is declared mentally ill and locked up in a psychiatric. 

September of 1987. Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer meets Steven Toumi in a gay bar, where they drink together; to then leave to a hotel. On The next morning Dahmer finds Toumi dead, without remembering how it was that he killed him. Right away he buys a suitcase, where he takes him to his grandmother’s basement. There he has sex with the dead body, to then dismember him and throw him away to the trash, except for his head, which he boils and bleaches, to expose it as a trophy. 

The descriptions above are brief segments of the work of two of the most famous U.S. serial murderers, and that unlike Tom Six, they “where” crazy, indeed. 

Many are those who have labelled this director of abnormal, for the grotesqueness of his movies. I, however, do not think I have seen anything to prove otherwise, than his great power of imagination. I believe that taking horror to new extremes should not be a synonym of dementia, or a reason for rejection. Being this also the case of the genre of the macabre, nothing is better than a director willing to wring our intestines. 

But... The day that I found out that Six actually experiments with people, then yes, I change my mind. Meanwhile, I keep my position. 

The image is in black and white. Two girls, attached to a corpse, suffer because of a retired surgeon who is mad as a hatter, but does not lack of anatomy knowledge. The camera, then pulls back, to get away from the scene and give way to the end credits. One cannot help it but to feel confused, until suddenly, everything becomes clear. Six places us in Martin´s booth, a parking lot security guard, who, in his notebook, has just watched the movie. 

Suddenly one notices that the chrominance is still missing. The thing is that Six had had, from the beginning, the intention of shooting both films in this way. However, only now has he implemented it. His impression of that the black and white would add a greater touch of horror, was not mistaken. 

Lawrence R. Harvey´s choice as Martin could not have been more perfect. Obese, of medium height, large eyes and broad forehead, he is more than appropriate for the role of the criminal. 

As the names of the technical team run through, thoughtfully, Martin slightly grabs his lower lip. This is a man who has seen something disgusting, and meditates on it now. What could possibly come out of this? Certainly, nothing nice. 

Moving in his chair, Martin turns away to his other monitor, where it shows was it caught by the surveillance cameras. Right off, he witnesses a couple in full dispute. Martin grabs an iron, with which he stands up, and practices the way he intends to hit them, although he carries a gun as well. 

Six also includes part of his home life. Martin lives with a mother who mistreats him, and who gets to tell him, and to another unhinged neighbor, her desire to die. In one scene she intends to kill him in his sleep, but in the end, she is the sentenced one. Nothing, she knew about, what her son was capable of. 

Yet, we have not seen the most interesting, but Six has already given us something for the impatience. 

So far, The Human Centipede II has almost no dialogue. Whether Martin´s at home, or outside, we only hear him utter grunts or screams of rage. Great choice of a director, who has known how to, make use of the silences. 

Long before the title sequence arrives, Six dedicates his good space to the gathering of victims, and he does not exaggerate. In this way we appreciate the declining health of Martin, to whom Lawrence´s very good interpretation assures as a tenebrous atmosphere and a character that scares. We are also delighted with some scenes of tension and suspense, which Six includes without hesitation. When sweaty, attacked by the asthma, and unable to hit a pregnant woman, Martin uses the inhaler; Six has made his character to even disgust us. What happens is that Martin is ugly, aesthetically displeasing, has a pervert´s look, that is visible from a mile away, and above all, still has to do his project. 

Once we have assimilated all these traits, we understand that no athletic and well dressed Patrick Bateman American Psycho (2000) would have had the same effect. 

Martin could be criticized for many things, but never for the lack of effort. His close study of Tom Six´s flick, has led him to build a folder with notes. In it is where he keeps his drawings, about how to perform the procedures. 

Every day, he gathers new unfortunates in his hiding, whom he delivers to the obscurity of the almost abandonment, to hear others muffled screams, or to join them. 

On one occasion in which he is preparing one of the bodies, another victim manages to scream: is just a movie! from his underprivileged position, as if that would change a thing. 

Then, comes the long-awaited moment. Martin has already got the twelve pieces. These, scattered across the floor, terrified, wait for the inevitable to happen, gagged, sweaty, grimy, tearful and starving. The most fun game in which Martin has ever participated, is about to begin. From here on out will far exceed that of Dr. Heiter. The only thing, though, is that it will be messier. Martin, nothing knows about anatomy, his victims will not be sedated before being joined together, nor his method will demonstrate any skill. 

Wich his first film, Six gave shape to, what had started as a joke between friends, although, not squeezing it enough. With this sequel he gets instead to reshape and give better (and higher) dimensions, to his idea, to frighten, and simultaneously, delight us. Six discards a colorful photography, and used the spoken word only, as a last resort. 

If I had to mention any problem, I would say that the fact that Martin was inspired by a movie has sincerely, been for me needless. We are given to understand that he takes up the idea of the centipede, after having seen Tom Six´s The Human Centipede I. So, Six has designed a universe where Martin inhabits. A person who is, indeed, deranged, and willing to imitate, now yes, what he´s seen in a product of fiction, written, directed and produced by this director. Six could have left them both, Heiter and Martin, to be part of same universe, and thus avoid us seeing his name in hi security guard´s notebook. 

My rating: 8/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Watching it was hell"

Title: Suing the Devil

Year: 2011

Genre: Comedy, Drama

Director: Timothy A. Chey

Writer: Timothy A. Chey

Cast: Malcolm McDowell, Bart Bronson, Roslyn Gentle, Shannen Fields, Tom Sizemore, Chad Lammers, Annie Lee, Gabrielle Whittaker, Gemma Kaye, Robin Querre, Jeff Gannon

Produc.: Mouthwatering Productions

In Suing the Devil, Luke (Bart Bronson), a Christian and law student takes the Devil (Malcolm McDowell) into court, for believing him responsible of everything, tired of his problems and of the chaotic society.

The film begins with a white text on a black background, where we read a passage from the Bible, that refers to the king of heaven and of darkness.

We now appreciate the Mouthwatering Productions logo, followed by images of Sydney and of Luke's voice, until he appears on the scene. He works at day and studies at night, but lately, his mother´s death has discouraged him.

Luke falls asleep in the library. Then, at home he looks uneasy, for all the chaos described in the news. In the kitchen he disscusses at the phone and worries Gwen (Shannen Fields), a wife who coughs a lot.

Bart Bronson proves that he is unable to act, when talking to Gwen about the Devil and his evil. In addition, the screenplay that he has been given is unbearable, and his monologue, totally disposable. Timothy A. Chey is introducing us to a religious fundamentalist, in need of psychological help.

Shortly before, definitely loosing his mind, Luke in his truck, goes in search of revenge with a revolver, but without bullets. Something that has not happened with his Bible, which awaits to be used in the glove compartment.

Without pausing to think it over, he decides to go on with his demand, which includes distributing  fliers, inviting Satan to show his face. Here it is very funny how he delivers some to Devil worshipers, as if they knew his whereabouts.

In charge of the case is Judge Woods (Roslyn Gentle), who at first does not know if it is a joke, or if the man is crazy. When she realizes that he is doing it for real, the process continues.

One day before Luke files for default judgement, and to the surprise of Luke himself, a tall, slim and gray-haired fellow appears in court, claiming to be the defendant. Woods laughs, recognizing the good sense of humor, and asks about hidden cameras, that in fact, do not exist.

At this time, the unexpected visitor argues that there is no evidence of him beeing the Devil ... but neither, otherwise. Affirmation, that although unsustainable in any wise movie, can be overlooked, as its other, so many atrocities.

The Devil also makes them see the reach of his powers, as he raises the room´s temperature without moving a finger, and making it clear what he is capable of. So we realize that this individual is not normal, although nobody in the film notice it, as if they were all blind.

Given the nature of the case, this is televised worldwide. Then, from everywhere, people will be able to have fun with the the lawyers incompetence. Having already a judge, a jury, a claimant and a defendant, everything that follows is a sample of that Timothy A. Chey had no idea of what was he doing. His no common sense is seen in a film full of potholes. So many, that amazes that this director would receive financial support.

Prior to the trial, The Devil meets who are supposed to be the best ten lawyers in the country. All of them of high coefficients, and excepcionally gifted for this matter, provide impeccable answers to his questions. However, it is understood that he is only looking for fun. If not, why would anyone with his powers, put to his services these despicable beings, whose rules, for him are worthless, and for then, having to pay them?

Regarding his opponent, Luke is either very naive, or just not too bright. Because "he who defends himself has a fool for a client" and although, he gets the support of a friend, is him who ends up going to the front.

As the trial progresses, the plot coherences are conspicuous to be found. This is the case of a subject, able to change the color of his eyes, become transparent or spit fire, but whom no one is afraid to approach, or becomes convinced that he is telling the truth.

Nor should we forget of it´s director´s audacity, for taking entirely, one of the best phrases of A Few Good Men (1992). Not only Timothy A. Chey has not written a good script, but he has chosen to copy from others.

Each new session of "Luke O'Brien vs. The Devil" seems like a joke, with lawyers whose titles could be snatched away. So it is so that, one by one they take turns, as the arguments from the defense begin to fail. What, however, is not to panic too much, because Luke O'Brien himself can not handle things properly.

It becomes even contradictory to understand how those talents are unable to distinguish the antichrist from an impostor, even after his deployment of powers. And worse. In this group are not even able to agree with each other, to the point of fighting or disavowing each other.

Once we have reached the final stretch, the only rescatable thing is Malcolm McDowell´s interpretation, whom could have given acting classes to the rest of the cast.

Almost at the end, Luke is still fighting, and now knowing that his wife has a tumor. Therefore, her cough. However, he prioritizes the demand to his wifes condition.

If all this way A. Chey work was laughable, it would not be unusual not to give us a break. Both, the closing of the trial and what comes next, would be like not to give him a camera ever again. All A. Chey achieves is for us to ask ourselves what the hell he wanted to do.

Suing the Devil may be summarized, as a very misguided religious propaganda, which bores and, above all, offends, by its shortcomings.

My rating: 1/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Teddy loves you: friends for ever"

Title: Ted

Year: 2012

Genre: Comedy, Fantasy

Director: Seth MacFarlane

Writer: Seth MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild (written by) and Seth MacFarlane (story)

Runtime: 106min

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Seth MacFarlane, Mila Kunis, Joel McHale, Giovanni Ribisi

Produc.: Universal Pictures, Media Rights Capital, Fuzzy Door Productions, Bluegrass Films, Smart Entertainment

Budget: $50 million approx.

In Ted, John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) is a lonely and unpopular boy, that on Christmas morning receives a teddy bear (Seth MacFarlane). That night John makes a wish, with no idea that this will be fulfilled.

At the age of 8, John (Bretton Manley) has troubles to relate with others. Every time he tries to approach other children, they reject him, making him someone lonely. Christmas arrives and with it, a special gift. A stuffed bear.

No other gift could be more harmless. However, when the bear becomes a substitute for other children, the matter becomes quite different. A bear that only says "Teddy loves you" is now his only friend, and its affectionate recorded message, something that makes John feel appreciated.

If already, in itself, the situation was not good, John makes at night a wish, with similar characteristics to the one of Pinocchio´s Geppetto. Of course, who would have thought that it would come true.

MacFarlane passes, in just a few minutes, to show how the new Ted, first frightens John parents, then becomes a public figure, and finally ends up being just another citizen, only hairy and lower. If something the director has not intended, is that this bear called the attention.

Shown the title and the initial credits, MacFarlane jumps directly to what has come to be, nowadays, the buddies relationship between man and bear. Already in the first shots we distinguish in the duo, clear signs of decay. 27 years after the so innocents John and Ted met, his plush friend is now a disordered, a foul-mouthed and an avid drug´s lover. Meanwhile, John has had some progress. He talks with his officemates, besides having his girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis).

As a determining element for the film to fail, is that between conflicts there are too long scenes, and which end up not being functional. About this, the only thing I can say is that, to see it and understand it, it is required patience. Evidently, the director not always sought to give us information, but sometimes he simply expected the public to just laugh.

When one has already psyched about what has got in front, will notice that John is a character, to whom to cling to his childhood doll has hindered him to mature. With Ted at his side, for John it is impossible to maintain a responsible bond with the woman he loves, to still continue stalled.

There is also a sub plot about a father (Giovanni Ribisi) who wants to give his son (Aedin Mincks) that bear that he never got, after seeing it on TV, as a kid. With the inclusion of these two characters, we are given a little more suspense, with a kidnapping and a car chase, but above all, that for a brief moment we have another persepctive about suffered childhood.

Beyond its excessive length and some forced situations, Ted anyhow has a resolution that gives us to think, besides having some wise moves. To see how this plush, that previously distanced John from Lori, is at last what unites them, has no waste.

Unfortunatelly, globally speaking, MacFarlane´s lack of seriousness as a librettist is clearly visible, in a film that has too many minutes to be skipped.

My rating: 4/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Homage... or imitation?"

Title: Alien Trespass

Year: 2009

Genre: Comedy, Horror, C. Fiction

Director: R. W. Goodwin

Writer: Steven P. Fisher (written by), James Swift and Steven P. Fisher (story)

Runtime: 90min

Cast: Eric McCormack, Jenni Baird, Robert Patrick, Jody Thompson, Dan Lauria, Aaron Brooks, Sarah Smyth, Andrew Dunbar, Sage Brocklebank

Produc.: Rangeland Productions, Accelerator Films

In Alien Trespass, Urp (Eric McCormack), the extraterrestrial, is forced to take human form, to mingle among the inhabitants of a town and save them from the Ghotas.

If one tarried to think what the world was like six decades ago, would find a society that was very different from the present, and in which many of the advances we now assume of everyday, not even existed. Think, for example, in cell phones, computers, or in the possibility of going into space and to the moon.

It would be in that society, still far away from the XXIst century, where also would appear movies such as Destination Moon (1950), The Man from Planet X (1951) or The Blob (1958).

Undoubtedly, to refer nowadays to this cinema, is to talk about something primitive. In the same way as before, certain technological advances were not even imaginable, that was on par translatable to the seventh art. Surely no one would have been able to bear with the nearly two hours of Alien (1979) by Ridley Scott. Movie for which the society would first have to undergo a series of changes, both social and psychological. Or in other words: the public of the 50s would have yet to evolve.

It is in this way thay, if we, people of the new millennium suddenly saw this cinema of yore, rather than get frightened, would surely end up laughing. Because what before used to impress an adult, hopefully today, could scare a kid. Although, considering all the possibilities of audiovisual consumption that have today´s little ones, I see this, in fact, as difficult.

R. W. Goodwin directs this product, from which all I have been able to get, is that it was a failed homage to the horror and science fiction movies from his youth. Otherwise, I would say that it has been a waste.

What is, exactly, what he proposed to us? The typical little tale about space invaders, and that applies all seen in our grandparents' times. Aliens usurping human bodies, to mingle among us; laser weapons; one-eyed monsters; and youngsters who speak the truth, but whom the police treats as liars. As if this were not enough, you see teenagers making out in a car, when we would now see them doing much more than that.

As I said before, with it is intended to pay homage to the alien movies from another era. However, honoring should not be confused with copying. And here, it is basically that, what was accomplished. I think all tributes should necessarily have a personal stamp of the director and not be a mere imitation. To have a joke, or "something" distinctive, wherewith making us clear that it would not be a reproduction of identical characteristics, in this case, to an old-fashioned cinema. By contrast, using in 2009, a language that directly does not fit with the new audiences, I doubt it makes much sense. Why shoot something like this, having already got, lots of movies in the style?

To take into consideration, is what would happen if we traveled to the past and showed it in a movie hall and in black and white. It occurs to me that the only thing that would attract attention, would be the unknown cast. Otherwise, they would be seeing the usual.

The way of narrating Alien Trespass is so out of time, resulting in that it becomes boring and predictable, from the very beginning, and that with this, all the suspense immediately dissolves. But again. Five decades ago, it would probably have delighted fans of the genre.

At best can highlighted the very good reconstruction of the late '50s and the choice in the color palette. That is to say that, only in those terms, it stands out. Other than that, it is not worth it.

My rating: 2/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Some times we would like the stork to come"

Title: The Babymakers

Year: 2012

Genre: Adventure, Comedy

Director: Jay Chandrasekhar

Writer: Peter Gaulke, Gerry Swallow

Runtime: 95min

Cast: Paul Schneider, Olivia Munn, Michael Yurchak, Wood Harris, Kevin Heffernan, Nat Faxon, Jay Chandrasekhar

Produc.: Duck Attack Films, Alliance Films, Automatik Entertainment, IM Global

In The Babymakers, Tommy (Paul Schneider) and Audrey Macklin (Olivia Munn) are a young couple, who on the date of their anniversary, decide that they want to be parents. Something that will have its drawbacks.

First scene. Tommy and Audrey sleep in their bedroom with the door open, when they hear the baby mourn. Audrey, still half asleep, tells Tommy that it is his turn, and he, not in better conditions, gets up, closes it and returns to bed. The neighbor´s baby is again only, the neighbors problem.

Tommy returns to his resting, and meanwhile, Audrey remains anxious and thoughtful.

Second scene. They are both in a restaurant, where they have gone to celebrate their three years together. For Audrey, tonight is doubly significant. Smiling, she expresses her husband that she is ready for the next step. Tommy agrees, but then we find out that they do not speak about the same thing. She refers to motherhood, and he, to try new alternatives in bed.

With this introduction, two things are accomplish. It reveals, creatively, of the emptiness that Audrey is feeling, at the lack of kids. To then, trample the good work, with an out of place Tommy and very unromantic. It makes us wonder, how someone would choose an evening like that, to talk about something so intimate, with so little delidacy.

Not long ago, I had the opportunity to watch Maybe Baby (2000). A british film that touched exactly the same issue. In it abounded a sober humor that, although composed by spicy jokes, always tried to prioritize the concerns of Sam (Joely Richardson) and Lucy Bell (Hugh Laurie), the main characters. One could laugh, but never forgot that they suffered.

Unfortunately, Jay Chandrasekhar takes the wrong way, him yes, forgetting of the real problems of Tommy and Audrey. Have they evolved properly, they would have been crucial for constructing a good movie. On the contrary, the director chooses the silliness, creating improbable situations, that only help one to go losing interest, with the passage of the minutes.

At first, both films start from the need of medical examinations, and which give identical results: Lucy and Audrey are in perfect conditions, while Sam and Tommy are those who are failing. The british director keeps us clinging to the marital conflict, while his american counterpart prefers to be funny.

Without going into excesive details, we discover that today´s Tommy is not, reproductively speaking, the same as before. That one, still single and who would become a sperm donor, to get some money and pay for an engagement ring. At the same time, those pre marital donations had been from the good ones, and Tommy now, wants them back. From the moment that he locates the last beneficiary couple, is that the film is no longer, properly counted.

Tommy meets the lucky ones. Two homosexuals, too happy with their purchase as to give him a refund. One of them, however, ends up being more flexible, but in exchange that Tommy makes him happy. By the way, his partner does not have to know.

A joke like this might even be passable, if anything Tommy had said no from the beginning. As instead he consults it with his best friend Wade (Kevin Heffernan), it stops being funny and becomes stupid.

By the end, what abounds more that nothing is the silliness, with Tommy and his unintelligent comrades, Wade and Zigzag (Nat Faxon), planning a robbery at a sperm bank. For that, they engage contact with Ron Jon, an Indian mobster, played by the director himself, and whose contribution in front of the cameras, perhaps for the better, could have been avoided.

If anyone remained unconvinced about whether it's worth to see it, just to say that during the robbery, Wade slips in semen, in a scene that is a mess, I believe, should be enough to know the answer.

My rating: 3/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Now the customers have fins"

Title: Bait

Year: 2012

Genre: Action, Horror, Thriller

Director: Kimble Rendall

Writer: John Kim and Russell Mulcahy (written by) and Shayne Armstrong, Duncan Kennedy, Shane Krause and Justin Monjo (additional writing)

Runtime: 91min

Cast: Xavier Samuel, Sharni Vinson, Julian McMahon, Phoebe Tonkin, Cariba Heine, Alice Parkinson, Lincoln Lewis, Alex Russell, Dan Wyllie, Richard Brancatisano, Joel Amos Byrnes, Ashton Chen, Adrian Pang

Produc.: Bait Productions, Screen Australia, Media Development Authority (MDA), Pictures in Paradise, Blackmagic Design Films, Blackmagic Design, Story Bridge Films

Budget.: AUD 30 million approx.

In Bait, after a tsunami, several people get trapped in a supermarket. The survivors must find a way out, without being eaten by white sharks, that have been brought by the current.

The morning after a bachelor party, Josh (Xavier Samuel), who is a lifeguard, fails to save his girlfriend's brother in a shark attack. That day he loses them both, as Tina (Sharni Vinson) takes it up with him.

Six months later, Josh arrives at his work in a supermarket, in a day that will be full of surprises. Suddenly, two masked men have broken into the place, immediately executing a woman. Something that is not much, compared to what is to come. Moments later, a giant tsunami sweeps away, beach and city, flooding the supermarket.

Survivors in there are to help one another out of the water, to safe places. The lucky ones have been Tina and Steven (Qi Yuwu), her new boyfriend; Jaimie (Phoebe Tonkin) and Todd (Martin Sacks), his police father; Collins (Damien Garvey), Josh and Naomi (Alice Parkinson), local employees; and Doyle (Julian McMahon) and Kirby (Dan Wyllie), the assailants.

Nor has the parking lot had better luck. Because Ryan (Alex Russell), Jaimie's boyfriend, has been trapped in his wagon, like young Heather (Cariba Heine) and Kyle (Lincoln Lewis), a little couple caught in their own car. The only thing left, in both scenarios, is that they realize they are not longer alone. The tsunami has brought two twelve-foot sharks.

I do not know if it was due to little inteligence, lack of interest in the argument, or total ignorance, concerning human psychology, but none of the characters is going to show to be too much nervous about what happens. They almost drowned and now they could be eaten alive, and yet, are unable to shiver, mourn or cry of fear. I am not saying the three had to ocurr, but at least one. With behaviors that do not fit with the situation and regrettable interpretations in itself, it makes it difficult for one to empathize with them. Instead, some survivors find the time to be heroes, or to bring up repressed feelings. Even Steven, turns out to be an asian with such ridiculous survival ideas, that amazes the others would listen.

Living a similar situation we have Heather and Kyle, who in their car look like tucked in a aquarium, with an interesting 360º panoramic view. At first they hear noises or think they can see movements in the water. Once they discover what the threat is, instead of panicking, they prefer to argue over stupidities. The animal rams against them a couple of times, being these the only moments when Heather and Kyle yell. Moreover, it is easy to realize that their characters have been written to make us laugh, something that does not suit with the film.

Lets now continue with the most prominent characters. Because here, the sharks do not get behind. I will forever be in doubt, whether it waser be in doubt, whether it will due to budgetary problems, or to the unwillingness of the FX team and the disinterest of its director. Either way, I believe to have distinguished, both animatronics and digital sharks, and in the second case, they have not gone farther than the most basic and elemental 3D design, insufficient to convey the drama.

I can, however, stand out, that at least some effort was put into the attacks. The death of Mr. Jessup, with the animal leaping from the water and tearing him half body, should be considered of the best. Once the shark dives back, it can be seen in detail what the man has been reduced to below the hip. Only exposed flesh, dripping blood and guts, is what we have now, instead of his legs.

In short, the movie is not good and has many more flaws than attributes. The only reason not to leave it before the end, I think would be the curiosity of seeing the great whites attack, or the humor (though misplaced) of Kyle and Heather.

My rating: 2/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí