Change Your Image
johanleupen
Reviews
Slackers (2002)
Avoid like the plague. Save your money.
Yet another venture into the realm of the teen-gross-out-comedy, set on a college campus featuring a nerd's quest to coolness, and how he decides to blackmail a trio of popular jocks into making him get the girl. It's all been done before, and it's all been done in a far more satisfying manner. The gross-out humor that has made teen flicks like "American Pie" and "Dude! Where's my Car" so popular is taken completely out of context in this installment, appearing so completely at random that the viewer can only frown and disapprove. The film is badly written, and the actors never succeed in making any of it even slightly bearable. I won't even dignify this terrible picture by divulging, as it's a waste of my time and yours. At best, Slackers never manages to entertain or induce laughter, and at worst it is excruciatingly bad and at times completely unwatchable.
Jason Schwarzman, who impressed in his debut Rushmore, humiliates himself by appearing in this picture and one wonders how a career can end up in the toilet so fast. Please avoid, please avoid. Save your money.
Sweet Home Alabama (2002)
Formula-material, very few laughs
Sweet Home Alabama relies on the contrast between the Bright Lights in the Big City and the Homelyness of Small Town USA. Reese Witherspoon, a succesful New York fashion designer returns to her birthplace in Alabama to obtain a divorce from her first time boyfriend in order to marry her current fiancee. Sure enough, once there she rediscovers her roots and her first love and she regrets turning her back on her heritage. Formulaic as it is, Sweet Home Alabama fails to adequately describe her motivation. Her remembrance of a few pranks she pulled when she was a young girl is supposed to illustrate how Reese lost her roots. Furthermore, her reconciliation with her formerly broke hubbie is mainly triggered by his newfound wealth, which is a very poor way of telling the story of a girl who leaves material wealth behind to regain her own personality. It is also surprising how thinly spread the comedy-material is, laughs are few and the ending feels very construed and lacks any merit or believability. Reese Witherspoon, who has proven her talent in the past, has chosen some very mediocre material that leaves her unable to impress.
The Calling (2000)
Decidedly unremarkable and bland
This typical straight-to-video release (complete with washed up actors that used to belong to the C-list) goes where countless films have gone before: a young mother gives birth to a child that seems to be uncommonly fascinated by morbidity, torture, death, or generally speaking all things evil. Naturally people around the once happy couple start dying left and right and our young female protagonist, estranged from her surroundings, starts to wonder whether or not this is related to her son's need to impale his pet guinea pig. People, it has all been done before in a much more satisfying fashion, see Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, The Exorcist, Poltergeist, or even The Devil's Advocate, Eyes Wide Shut or The Ninth Gate for all I care but don't waste precious time that could be spend delving into the many great works that cinema has to offer.
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)
An interesting effort that is enjoyable but highly overrated nonetheless.
Amelie tells the story of a young girl's quest to make the world a better place by bringing people together. Rather than presenting us with grand narratives and extensive plot-devices, Jeunet starts off by focusing on the little things. It's refreshing to see a movie dedicated to detail and everyday life. For instance, every character is outlined by a micro-history catalogueing his or her likes and dislikes, which leads to some amusing scenes. Furthermore, Amelie's vivid imagination is captured by a terrific art-department and very dynamic camera-movements. However, as soon as Jeunet feels compelled to shift focus from setting up his environment to constructing a plot, he loses that which sets Amelie apart from other films. To be perfectly honest it's relatively tiresome to watch Amelie looking for and finding the love of her life. The strongest element in the movie is it's ability to steer away from (predictable) plot lines but unfortunately Jeunet eventually feels the necessity to conform to classic narrative. We are left with a movie that is enjoyable but highly overrated to be sure.
Dude, Where's My Car? (2000)
Pretty enjoyable after all...
Teen gross-out flicks like Dude Where's my Car are generally ripped to pieces by the leading names in American film-criticism, sometimes understandably so. But a critic cannot afford to put on airs when it comes to comedy. To attack the makers of this movie on account of plot-holes or lack of good taste is as pointless as criticising science fiction for lack of realism. People complaining that there is no sense to be made of Dude where's my Car (and there have been many) are pointing out the obvious: yes, it relies completely on gags, references to other films (Monty Python, Jurassic Park, Star Trek, Attack of the 50 ft. woman), gross-out effects and idiotic dialogue. Anyone intending to tie all of this material together into a well rounded whole with a message is in for a very unpleasant viewing. Expect a quick, youth oriented fix without pretensions and chances are you will enjoy this movie after all. There is no ground-breaking content here and Kutcher and Scott do not posses the comedic talents of Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey but they do inject a hint of charm into this picture, which is actually pretty enjoyable after all.
I Am Sam (2001)
Forget I Am Sam and just go rent Kramer vs. Kramer instead.
I Am Sam centers on the dramas of mentally challenged Sam losing custody of his 7-year old daughter when authorities start to question his ability to raise her by himself. Penn has received a lot of criticism for his 'oscar fishing'-performance. It is remarkable how well roles portraying mentally challenged people seem to fair with the academy (think of Rain Man, Forrest Gump, Shine and more recently, A Beautiful Mind). Penn emphasises Sam's disability in each and every scene, creating a charicature, a cartoon character that never feels real. When Sam is having trouble adjusting to his new job at Starbucks, he doesn't just mix up orders, he uses the blender without the lid, he starts screaming and yelling and he drinks coffee meant for customers. He reminded me more of Tom Greene than of anything else. Penn has proven in the past he is an excellent actor but frankly i find it ridiculous the academy even considered his performance for the oscar (let alone nominated him). The tendency of director Jessie Nelson to rely on cliches and charicatures is even more obvious in her casting of child actress Dakota Fanning, portraying Sam's daughter. Dakota has 'cute' written all over her, innocently staring into the camera with eyes the size of saucers, in scenes that were written to extract tears from the audience. Furthermore, unlike her father, little Lucy seems possess the mental capabilities of an adult as she miraculously comprehends exactly what is going on around her, all the while shooting off one-liners and kodak moments. And then there is Michelle Pfeiffer in the role of the caffeine-drinking, cartier-wearing hard-as-nails-litigator deciding to take Sam's case pro bono in order to prove to her colleagues she isn't the ice queen after all. Of course during the procedings she rediscovers her own humanity as Sam's unconditional love makes her see her own failure as a mother. Because yes, with all his shortcomings Sam makes for a better parent then she does, having all sorts of troubles with her own son. This part of the plot is particularly poorly developed, showing her hysterically screaming at her son for no apparent reason, also she explains she sometimes tells her son to 'get into the f***ing car' without really knowing why.
Nelson is the first to realize that large parts of her film remind us of Kramer vs. Kramer, the quintessential movie dealing with divorce and child custody. Therefore she refers to it constantly, probably wanting to avoid criticism of going down familiar roads (passing it off as an hommage no doubt). Pherhaps the subject matter is similar, but I Am Sam never bears any resemblance to the brilliance of the aforementioned film. Forget I Am Sam and rent Kramer vs. Kramer instead.
Frailty (2001)
Intriguing but flawed nonetheless.
Frailty drew a lot of pre-release attention by citing positive response by big industry names such as writer Stephen King and directors James Cameron and Sam Raimi. Even if you take into account that director Paxton probably befriended Raimi and Cameron while working on their movies, recommendations from these people should count for something. However i found myself disappointed by Frailty nonetheless. The story, told through flashbacks, focusses on Paxton who tries to convince his two sons that he has been chosen by God to fullfill certain devine tasks, namely the killing of demons disguised as ordinary human beings. The film contains some unintentionally funny scenes in which Paxton enthousiastically tries to convey his vision on his oldest son, who tells him he might just be a little nuts. The movie subsequently wastes a lot of time divulging on the worsening family-situation and leaves the audience craving for some kind of direction. Also, child actors Sumpton and O'Leary deliver unimpressive performances, sabotaging scene after scene while Paxton's desillusionment & despair-routine becomes really tiresome after a while. Luckily, salvation (if you will excuse the pun) comes in the form of a very surprising and satisfying ending, rounding off the story. Having said that, i still deplore Paxton's tendency to rely on this ending for the succes of his entire film. Had he spend more time trying to make the (overlong) set-up an intriguing premise in itself (without just expecting the ending to make things right) then the result would have been far more satisfactory.
Panic Room (2002)
Not altogether unsatisfying but ultimately unremarkable and forgettable.
Panic Room comes from director Fincher whose body of work up until now can be characterized as refreshing and unconventional, even if not all of his efforts have been succesful. It is therefor surprising to see him turn out something that is relatively run-of-the-mill and unremarkable. Panic Room relies on the premise of a mother (Foster) and her child finding themselves trapped in their own house by criminals, having to retreat into a so-called panic room, their only safe haven. In this sense at least it fits into the paranoia-realm that Fincher made his own. Panic Room doesn't suffer from any obvious flaws. Stilistically, the film bears the Fincher-trademark: the sets are dark and gritty, a lot of attention has been spend on detail (especially on the dimly lit panic room itself). Also, the opening-credits sequence deserves special mention. Furthermore, Panic Room features many acrobatic camera-movement as previously seen in Fight Club, although i have to say i sometimes found it too distracting from the narrative. Whitaker is unremarkable as on of the criminals suffering from a morality-attack in the middle of his operation, his acting-range is basically reduced to looking really sad and troubled. Few can be said concerning Foster's acting: it is solid but lacks depth. This is probably not her fault as her role is underwritten; we constantly see her heavy-breathing with eyes bulging out of their sockets but there is relatively little dialogue for her to excell at and there is little complexity to her character. Twists are few and none of it made much of an impression on me. Panic Room is violent but not earthshocking in any way (as we have come to expect from Fincher, eventhough it may not be fair to compare this to his other work). The problem with Panic Room lies in it's subject matter or lack thereof. One of the strengths of Fight Club was it's tendency to cover a lot of ground, tying together many loose ends that didn't seem to add up. The same holds true for The Game, which is extremely cleverly constructed in retrospect. In Panic Room storytelling is chronological, restricted to one space and one (all-seeing) perspective, all of these restrictions add up to a film that isn't altogether unsatisfying but ultimately unremarkable and forgettable.
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Remarkably accurate and remarkably hollow.
Black Hawk Down avoids dealing with the political side of the story and basically restricts itself to combat situations between American soldiers and Somalian rebels. It must be said that most of these scenes are brilliantly executed, wonderfully shot with pale filters and edited with a very hectic and effective pace. But BHD suffers from an overkill of technically superior firefights, that eventually deadens the senses just as the action sequences in Pearl Harbor tended to make viewers numb after prolonged bombardments and such. Scott undoubtedly succeeds in depicting a realistic and impressive report of what happened in Mogadishu, but he also ignores content in favour of style and thereby fails to make any statement about the events whatsoever (apart from stating that these soldiers were tremendously brave maybe which is of course a statement that will not raise any eyebrows); our heroes remain anonymous to us, also there isn't any character development to speak of. At one point i expected the film to focus on the executive mismanagement that may have played an important role in this military tragedy, but unfortunately Scott never really adresses this aspect of the events (and i have a feeling the military gratiously providing the actual Blackhawk craft for the shooting had something to do with this). Also I found it surprising to see BHD was practically devoid of patriotic sentiment (in the sense of American flags in the wind, accompanied by trumpets and horns) unlike almost all of Bruckheimer's other productions. What we're left with in the end is a remarkably accurate but also remarkably hollow war-film, not a waste of time, but certainly not worth the hype it has caused.
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
There's nothing remarkable here, but Ocean's Eleven is very entertaining nonetheless.
In this eagerly awaited, star-studded remake of the 60s rat-pack crime-caper of the same name, Soderbergh manages to combine his dry sense of wit, beautifully stilized camerawork and a few enjoyable performances in a very pleasant way. Admittedly, Soderbergh ignores the fact that his plot doesn't really hold together at times, also the insertion of various catchy one-liners feels fabricated and forced on a few occasions, but all things considered there's a lot of fun to be had here if you don't take it all too seriously as some critics have. Granted, Ocean's Eleven doesn't tacklesocial problematics (nor did Soderbergh aim to in the first place of course) and it certainly isn't a masterpiece but it creates a very uncomplicated, laid-back vibe that is really enjoyable most of the time. This must be largely accredited to the dialogue which is very witty most of the time. The actors all seem very at ease and it is easy to sympathise with these charming crooks, a special notice goes to Versace-clad ex-casino bigshot Elliot Gould. Which leaves for a few minor mishaps which I will address briefly. First of all the character of Julia Roberts isn't very essential to the plot, nor is her appearance special in any way. Therefore it's a shame her storyline with George Clooney takes up so much time in the later part of the story, which concludes in an unnecessarily predictable and well rounded ending. I believe a cameo-appearance would have been more than enough and I'm afraid the scribes were forced to squeeze Roberts into the story. Secondly there is very little character-development or motivation for that matter. Also, no effort is taken to bring any nuance to the 'villain'-character of Andy Garcia, whereas it would have been more interesting to see any redeeming traits in his personality. Garcia delivers a very unremarkable performance that won't raise any eyebrows. Just don't expect Ocean's Eleven to change cinematic landscape for the years to come and you will be fine after two hours well spent.
Brother (2000)
Comparing this to the likes of Goodfellas and The Godfather is a disgrace, pure and simple.
Brother is Kitano's first picture financed by western production companies and produced on American soil. It centers on Yakuza-member Yamamoto (Kitano) being exiled from his home country by rival gangs. He travels to the U.S. where he teams up with his brother, formes his own Yakuza-force and climbs the ranks of the underworld by violently disposing of his enemies. Kitano is known for using extreme violence in his pictures and Brother is no exception. On the contrary, Brother features some of the most graphic scenes in recent film history. Unfortunately, Kitano fails to create any sense of direction or unity in his effort. Brother consists of consecutive scenes depicting violent assasinations of rivals, followed by scenes featuring retaliations by the aforementioned rivals. The is no sense of allegiance or even alignment with Yamamoto and his associates (including Omar Epps, in one of his worst performances yet). We never get inside the mind of Yamamoto and Kitano leaves us with a ruthless, stoic, unendearing zombie wearing sunglasses all day long, hardly talking and thus failing to make us care about him or his actions. I have no problems with scenes of people cutting of their thumbs as long as they serve somekind of purpose in the plot. Kitano seems to have no motivation whatsoever for showing us these images, beside maybe shocking us. Furthermore, he includes various scenes that don't have any purpose in the movie at all. It all makes for a very confusing and uneven piece of work. Acting-performances in Brother are bland and very poorly delivered, with the actors saying their lines without any sense of conviction or purpose. Kitano's poor writing only makes matters worse. Also, cinematography in this picture is handled very poorly (just as every other aspect of Brother). There is no direction in most of the shots, beside making sure the actors appear in them. All in all it makes for a very tiresome and unsatisfying viewing. I've heard Brother being compared to the likes of Goodfellas and The Godfather and i have to say it's a disgrace as Brother doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with these masterpieces. Not recommended, to be sure.
The Contender (2000)
Powerhouse acting, refreshingly realistic.
The most important reason for me to go see this picture was the stellar cast, first and foremost. Jeff Bridges has been one of my favorite actors for a while, most importantly because of his impressive acting range. And Gary Oldman is always a dependable villain, adding a sort of excentric, almost endearing quality to his characters. Christian Slater, well his work ranges from very good (True Romance) to appalling (Hard Rain and a host of others misfires). But that's beside the point: what i meant is Oldman and Bridges together in one film is enough to make me go see it. What strook me at first was a refreshingly realistic approach to the politics and intrigues within the white house. Long documentary style takes, no polished movie-one-liners but real dialogues between real people. The dirty tricks and the backstabbing reaches to the the top of the government and we get to see all of it. Cool. Furthermore, both Oldman and Bridges deliver one of the best roles of their respective careers. Bridges airs class and respectability with a seemingly casual ease while Oldman is fittingly terrific as a driven, ruthless rightwing representative. Joan Allen's main character was interesting but it paled in comparison to the aforementioned heavyweights. But my only real disappointment lies in the fact that the writers did not follow through to the end. To explain exactly what i mean would spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, but suffice it to say that the bold, adventurous tone that is set in the first half hour is not upheld in the conclusion. Aside from a conservative Hollywood ending however this is still a very satisfying and rewarding picture to go see, even if it's just to see Bridges and Oldman together in a standoff. Recommended!
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
I saw this movie during a pre-screening and i'm glad i didn't pay any money for it because it isn't worth one dime.
The already tired joke of recurring characters Jay and Silent Bob (starring in Kevin Smith' pictures) has become even more trite. For one, I wasn't amused by these characters even when they made short appearances in films such as Dogma and Chasing Amy. I was surprised to say the least when I found out these characters were now expected to carry an entire movie. And believe me, they cannot. Before I begin I must point out that I have no problem with puerile humor perse (I quite enjoyed American Pie, Rat Race and Scary Movie even), but I do have a problem with puerile humor that is utterly pointless and effortless. One of the main themes in this movie seems to be mocking Hollywood, or more specifically: Miramax (which is distributing this picture by the way) Smith takes a few stabs at Paul Thomas Anderson for instance. Whatever takes the attention off Kevin Smith and his own creations. Hence the problem is that this picture is a complete nothing aside from a few admittedly funny cameos performed by Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Chris Rock. And once the attention is taken off these gimmicks it becomes painfully obvious that this entire production amounts to nothing at all, at least, nothing worth mentioning. In short: stay clear of it.
Patton (1970)
A brilliant role for George C Scott.
Powerful acting performances, George C Scott is absolutely insurpassable as the iron fisted general. The scenes of him visiting the sites of ancient Roman battles are brilliant. It is fascinating and in a way tragic to see how Patton's harsch and old-fashioned manners, along with his romantic perception of war, don't seem to fit in with contemporary efficient warfare anymore. Note his opening speech directed towards his troops. It is classic material and it hasn't lost any of it's impact. Highly recommended.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
A testament to Kubrick's versatility and genius.
It is really astonishing to see how versatile Kubrick really was. Personally i was surprised to see that he could even succeed in comedy, but he does so, excellently i might add. At least as impressive is Peter Sellers in three different roles, each of them brilliantly distinctive and amusing. Pay special attention to Sellers' scene in the phone booth. Also noteworthy are his telephone-conversations with prime-minister Kissoff. In addition i would like to add that the cynical opening and closing credits-scenes are sensational. Watch for the rythmic editing accompanying "Until we meet again."
Exit Wounds (2001)
one of seagal's more profound outings. the revival of american arthouse-films.
We all have days we just walk into a theater and see whatever is playing. And we all know the plot of a Seagal-movie is not going to impress us. But i just have to state for the record that the plot in this movie is waferthin and as fragile as a house of cards. Director Bartkowiak tries to liven things up a little by playing old tricks on the audience. For instance, the effectiveness of the plot-twists is based on making us like certain characters, who turn out to be on the bad-guys, and vice-versa. After a while that gets really tiresome. If you still find yourself surprised after a few of these 'twists', you might want to consider having your head examined. But as i indicated, the plot is not the most important part of a Seagal movie; it's the action. On that department Exit Wounds is pretty solid, albeit routine and unremarkable. Cracking limbs, whizzing bullets and lengthy car-chases; nothing you haven't seen yet. The really disappointing element here however is rapper DMX's acting-capabilities (or lack thereof). The man has a very limited range of expressions: there's 'menacing', and then there's 'REALLY menacing'. Keep practicing, X. Also a little disconcerting were various scenes that were just completely ineffective; for instance there's DMX buying a car, the attempt to tie-in jokes with a black car-salesman-trying to-be-down falls flat. It's a shame Exit Wounds doesn't work on a comedy-level; that's the department this kind of movie can use to make up for lack of story, by writing tongue-in-cheek for instance. A disappointing effort.
Kiss the Girls (1997)
Suffers from a strong resemblance to Seven. Freeman's character is all but identical.
Well executed first half, however Kiss the Girls suffers from a poorly written and implausible climax. Solid acting, Freeman is expectedly good but apparently his talent doesn't stretch too far; his character is virtually identical to his role in Seven, to which this movie has a strong resemblance altogether by the way. Overall it's a moderately succesfull endeavour.
The Mummy Returns (2001)
Unpretentious fun.
The term roller-coaster ride is most befitting this movie. The storyline is intentionally thin and tongue-in-cheek. The cast seems to be having a lot of fun (just like last time). A lot of time was spend on great special effects and set-design. A string of great action sequences is tied together with lost of gags and pace. The pigmee-creatures were especially funny by the way. No complaints here. Just grab your bucket of popcorn and sit back.
Coyote Ugly (2000)
Your grandmother would fall asleep watching this.
This movie is nothing like the trailers would have you believe. A very predictable little tale about a girl who comes to the big city to chase her dreams. There is truly nothing remarkable about this picture. No rough edges, no risky stuff, no violence (unless you want to qualify the "bar-fights" as violence, a few guys pushing each other...please). The conversations between Piper Perapo and Adam Garcia drove me nuts after a while. Stop the charming crap already! This is not how people talk! And Perapo's only talent seems to lie in the fact that she knows how to look really really sad. Boohoo! Don't expect to see any kind of excess here (remember Bruckheimer is behind this), this is a gushy romantic tale without any merit whatsoever. Your grandmother would fall asleep watching this.
Mad Dog and Glory (1993)
Small, amusing and unpretentious.
Mad Dog & Glory unites timid forensic police officer De Niro and flamboyant mob-boss Murray in an unlikely and comedic friendship. A very amusing, breezy film with a few remarkably dark scenes. Pleasant atmosphere is provided by excellent cinematography and clever writing. Nice acting all round, even from Caruso, who was up and coming at the time (after NYPD Blue), now his career seems to be all but over.
Almost Famous (2000)
although undeniably enjoyable, calling it an instant classic would too much praise
almost famous is a small movie that easily wins our appreciation as it evokes nostalgia and is full of endearable characters, such as those portrayed by Frances McDormand, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Kate Hudson. It conveys a pleasant atmosphere with a strong soundtrack and colourful cinematography. It's also nice to see the music business shown from both sides. We're not made to believe it's all glitter and glamour. However enjoyable it may be to watch Patrick Fugit play out portions of director Cameron Crowe's own experiences, Patrick's portrayal is sometimes lacking, and although it all makes for a nice watch, that's about the extent of it's appeal. recommended none the less.
Sisters (1972)
Revolutionary filming-techniques. Haunting murder sequence.
This story about schizophrenia and voyeurism unfolds as we watch Margot Kidder trying to establish whether or not she saw a murder. Remeniscent of Hitchcock's Rear Window and Psycho, some consider this to be plagiarism, others consider it to be an ode. The ambiguity in the story is to be admired, and the split-screen technique (which is of course related to the duality-element) is very revolutionary as well as effective. The plot isn't completely flawless, and some scenes are admittedly dragged out, but watch for the excellent murder-scene.
Men of Honor (2000)
Men of Honor suffers from it's melodramatic tone. Cuba's Brashear is so optimistic, you start to wonder whether he might be insane.
Men of Honor is the story of a hero. We learn of Carl Brashear's struggle dealing with racism, poverty, terrible misfortune, etc etc. And although there is no denying Brashear was truly a hero, the problem here is that Cuba Gooding is so incredibly heroic he has ceased to be a person of flesh and blood. The odds are against him, in such a manner that things are blown completely out of proportion. Cuba's Brashear is so optimistic you wonder whether he might be insane. What makes his character so unconvincing is the complete lack of human flaws. It would have been far more interesting to see how even people like Brashear make mistakes. I'd also like to add that Charlize Theron is completely useless in her role as De Niro's wife (even though she is half his age and there is no chemistry between them).
15 Minutes (2001)
doesn't live up to it's own standards
15 minutes seems to be critical of the extent to which media-hypes are utilised to exploit violence. and although that may seem like a just cause to some of us, 15 minutes uses many extremely graphic scenes which reeks of hypocrisy. furthermore, it doesn't seem to take it's own subject very seriously, as the director slips us joke after joke. this creates a tongue-in-cheek feel, which is slightly out of place in my opinion. very snappy editing and a nice plot-twist halfway through the movie (i'm not going to spoil it) are not enough to redeem it unfortunately.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
Surprisingly hollow, a waste of time.
Extremely disappointing to see how superficial this movie is, as the mythical aspects of dungeons & dragons could have made for a pretty decent picture. The story feels like a way to tie the various set-pieces together. It's like the director rushed his way through the dialogue and events just to get to the special effects, which don't always hit the mark by the way. The various characters in this movie are virtually interchangable (except for Marlon Wayans' character, whose cheap jokes really start to irritate after a while) , and this is not intentional i assure you. We never learn about motivations, backgrounds or any other detail which could be used to make us care. Which leaves the ending. Suffice it to say it is completely inexplicable, i suppose we are expected to use our own imagination to figure out just what the hell is going on here. I won't even bother to explain the contents, it would just be a waste of time, just like the entire movie. Oh, and Justin Whalin needs to return to daytime television; hold on to your dayjob Justin!