tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3809167151867491968.post3296894668890204357..comments2023-10-08T08:46:05.107-05:00Comments on James Yates: Roughly 39 ProblemsJames Yateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08318633423894546202noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3809167151867491968.post-22654955001196920562011-10-20T11:26:49.448-05:002011-10-20T11:26:49.448-05:00Bob, you make an excellent point...I had completel...Bob, you make an excellent point...I had completely forgotten about <i>Nurse Betty.</i> She was very good in that one. <br /><br />Another angle...some movies we go into expecting them to be bad, but just mindless entertainment, especially in the horror realm. I guess in a way, this film is insulting, since it strives to be a genuine, "intelligent" thriller and fails on so many levels. If this was supposed to be a silly B-movie, then it would change my review drastically.James Yateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08318633423894546202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3809167151867491968.post-64427180124198017302011-10-18T21:19:39.745-05:002011-10-18T21:19:39.745-05:00I saw this earlier this year and can only remember...I saw this earlier this year and can only remember two things about it: 1) Zellweger was really, really bad in it and 2) the entire film was stinky.<br /><br />I would likely argue against calling Zellweger a bad actress in general since she has done pretty good stuff in the past - but I probably wouldn't spend a lot of time doing it. B-)<br /><br />Jamie, I would recommend The Ring and give the original Ringu a shot too. If you want creep and dread, I loved Ju-On: The Grudge.Bob Turnbullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02243657105760780425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3809167151867491968.post-12689694220989984082011-10-18T14:51:23.918-05:002011-10-18T14:51:23.918-05:00Andrew, thanks for your comments. This is slightly...Andrew, thanks for your comments. This is slightly embarrassing to admit, but I still haven't seen <i>The Ring</i> (as I mentioned, I'm behind on horror films, and this review was a case of wanting to do one for the season and the film annoyingly staying with me). <br /><br /> Your mention of the reason for its existence is important, since it was filmed in 2006 and didn't get a release until 2010 (in the United States, at least). That's pretty telling.James Yateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08318633423894546202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3809167151867491968.post-51654023145896793592011-10-18T14:44:51.893-05:002011-10-18T14:44:51.893-05:00I've seen this film. It stinks! It's worth...I've seen this film. It stinks! It's worth mentioning that there is only one reason this film exists: the financial success of Gore Verbinski's 2001 remake of <i>The Ring</i>. Same gray cast (pun intended), same creepy kid, same distraught parents ("Oh, what am I to do?!? I guess I just have to kill this child!"). <i>The Ring</i> cast a long shadow, and is still influencing very recent horror films (i.e. <i>The Unborn</i> or <i>Insidious</i>). But it's worth mentioning that scary kids are scary, though (SPOILER!) scary kids that are really demons pretending to be scary kids are decidedly NOT scary, and Renée Zellweger is indeed a terrible actress whose presence in this film negates any scariness it may have formerly possessed in script form.Andrew Reahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12411686646379964750noreply@blogger.com