I don't see a thread for this one, so let's start one up.

Watched this "little" film Saturday night on my beloved Netflix.  I had never heard of it.  I see Balt actually put this down as one of his best films of the 2,000's, and although I won't go quite that far, I will say that I absolutely loved it.

Just for your info, this is the 2nd film written and directed by Jennifer Lynch (Boxing Helena), daughter of Mr. David Lynch.  It was released in 2008, in an extremely limited fashion, and then went straight to DVD.

Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond head the strong cast of quirky, crazy characters.  Standout performances from Pullman, Ormond, Pell James, and 9 year old Ryan Simpkins.

Really don't want to give anything away here, as I think it's the kind of movie you're either going to love or hate.  It's very, very wacky.  It's quirky.  It's extremely violent and pulls absolutely no punches.  It's a slap in Hollywood's face, but it's the kind of wake up slap I think it also needs.

This was exec produced by David Lynch, with a budget of about $3.5 Million.  Shot in Saskatchewan, Canada by the same crew that did the hugely inferior "Walled In" later.

It's not perfect.  There are several things that were messed up, or could have been done better.  A larger budget probably would have helped, but based on how flipped out this is, I guess that wasn't going to be happening.

The biggest downfall, IMO, was that basically, every single character was downright weird in some way...or many ways...as in a bit too weird.  But then again, in some other ways, this is what gave the movie its heart, and maybe why it worked so well for me.

Give it a shot with an open mind and don't give up on it.  It's a wild ride!

I definitely have to agree with you on this one. I really liked this film and it so far has received very little buzz. It is definitely in my list of favorite movies.

I really don't get it why this received so little buzz.  What's the deal?  I think it's just too wacky and violent for the usual movie goer.

There are numerous scenes I can't get out of my head and that's saying alot.

I'll keep pumping it in here and see if we can get a few more responses.

Saw a review for this by Ebert & Roeper. They didn't seem to care for it. In fact, I'd say they were turned off... in the right way. Sounds good. I'll check it out.

Quoted from Dreamscale Watched this "little" film Saturday night on my beloved Netflix.

Maybe a little off-topic, but I will bet there are a bunch of us browsing the bargain-bin movies to be found in the Netflix instant play list.

This one sounds good.  I will check it out, and toss another into the hat.

I found "Altered" to be a very enjoyable surprise the other night -- and worth a watch for us folks as a textbook example of what can be done with a single location.

Well worth a look, provided you are not in the mood to think too hard.

Any other overlooked gems in the Netflix slush pile?

[Edit:  And I just remembered "Tokyo Gore Police" -- originally recommended (somewhere) by James.  Those Asians are totally off their rocker sometimes, aren't they?  That is another good instant play if you are in the right mood.]

[And another edit: I have no idea how many of us use Netflix Instant Play, but maybe we should start a new thread just for that -- when we find something good?]

Good idea, Bert.  I watch a ton of movies on Netflix.

I also liked Altered...didn't love it at all, but definitely enjoyed it.  It was done by 1 of the guys who did Blair Witch.  A little bigger budget would have really helped that one as well.

Tried to watch Tokyo Gore Police, but gave up quickly...just too...well...to everything for me.  I love gore and the like but this one was just way overboard in everything it did.

Alien Raiders is also a good watch, but it's not available on streaming.

Set up a Netflix thread and I've got a ton of insight for sure!

Just finished this. Indeed, the characters were pretty out there, the gore was brutal and there were some interesting twists and turns. For a while, I was quite enjoying how things were panning out. The big payoff was no big thing at all. We've seen this sort of thing before. Then after a while, it started to pick up again and just about followed through until the end. Might not've been the case had it not been for Pullman's acting. He actually surprised me in this one.

Overall, I thought this was pretty good. Hardly see how it was a slap in Hollywood's face though. Hollywood loves twist endings, sexually humiliating violence, sadism... I did think the overall story structure was quite unconventional but thematically, it doesn't stray too far from the Hollywood path. Not sure how throwing more money at it would've helped either.

I'd say it's worth a recommendation though. Tonally, I found it quite different from most mainstream horror movies. Structurally, I found it different from most police thrillers. Police thrillers tend to put me to sleep, even good ones like Seven. There's a couple exceptions out there but not many. This one was able to hold my attention for the most part and had some pretty decent characters so I think it's safe to say it's a successful film.

Hey James, glad you liked it.  For me, it's the kind of movie that sits with me and leaves a lasting impression.  There is a certain scene that I bet I'll never forget, as I thought it was just so cool, brutal, and well done.

I wonder what "big payoff" you're referring to early on.  The crash?

Yes, Pullman and Ormond were great, weren't they?  I also thought Simpkins and James delivered fine performances as well.  Really, all the acting was top notch.

IMO, everything about this movie was anti-Hollywood.  The structure, the brutality (again, that 1 scene comes to mind - know what I'm talking about?).

I didn't mean "throwing more money at this", but I was referring to a few scenes (most notably the crash scene) obviously needed more money to pull off some FX that weren't handled properly and because of that, came off as unintentionally confusing.

C'mon, everyone else...check this movie out!!!!!!  Good shit!

I thought it was OK. A decent time waster, better than I expected for this kind of thing (it tends to be on the scifi/horrro channel about midnight in the UK).

Overall I enjoyed it, but found it pointless. A well crafted story about nothing much at all.

Not a film i would suggest people rush to see, but a decent piece of entertainment for those who w atch a lot of films.

Quoted from Dreamscale Hey James, glad you liked it.  For me, it's the kind of movie that sits with me and leaves a lasting impression.  There is a certain scene that I bet I'll never forget, as I thought it was just so cool, brutal, and well done. I wonder what "big payoff" you're referring to early on.  The crash? Yes, Pullman and Ormond were great, weren't they?  I also thought Simpkins and James delivered fine performances as well.  Really, all the acting was top notch. IMO, everything about this movie was anti-Hollywood.  The structure, the brutality (again, that 1 scene comes to mind - know what I'm talking about?). I didn't mean "throwing more money at this", but I was referring to a few scenes (most notably the crash scene) obviously needed more money to pull off some FX that weren't handled properly and because of that, came off as unintentionally confusing. C'mon, everyone else...check this movie out!!!!!!  Good shit!

SPOILERS!!!

The big payoff would be the twist of the two feds being the killers. Seemed so cliche. The crash was brilliant as was the whole "the hostage is the suspect" bit. Really top notch stuff. Like I said, the two actors saved the second half of the film. I also enjoyed the "twist" with the little girl.

Didn't think the brutality was anti-Hollywood. Rob Zombie's films are way more brutal even though they're terrible. Those are still Hollywood films. The days of PG-13 horror are gone is all I'm saying. Hollywood loves sadistic violence without a point. I don't know how many times I've seen villains tell people to lie on the ground, put guns in their own mouths or sexually humiliate female characters. It's nothing new. I don't think Surveillance was playing to the same effect as those films nor did it carry the same tone. But in terms of how graphic it was, I don't feel like it was going against the grain.

I thought the crash scene was fine. Didn't feel confused. Loved the guy under the car getting splattered.

SPOILERS - DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS YET!!!!!

The "big payoff" was right near the end of the movie.  I actually predicted it immediately when Pullman first walked into the police station.  He acted very odd by talking and moving his neck in strange ways, which just kind of jumped out at me.  I said it again later to my girlfriend.  Of course, I wasn't sure, and I was still surprised when it was actually revealed, but I did enjoy this angle for sure.

There was a major problem with the crash scene.  The driver's face was blown out, as if from behind, but I think it was intended to be shot from the front by the surviving cop.  When they showed the dead driver later, his face was fine.  I'm not sure how the surviving cop injured his hand either...are you?

The scene I'm talking about, is near the end when Ormond's character starts going at it with James' character.  The stuff she says, the way they go at it, and then when Pullman suffocates her from behind, she sucks out her last breath and gives a big old shotgun to Pullman. Classic!  Well done, creepy as shit, and even quite erotic, in a sick way.  Don't recall ever seeing that before.

And you're right, Zombie's flicks are hugely violent.  But remember, his first, House of 1,000 Corpses barely got released.  It was hung up for years based on it being too violent for wide screen release.  There have been and always will be movies that push the envelope.  This one does as well, only in a little bit different way.

Innocent mothers, children, cops, everybody...shot at point blank range as if it's no big deal at all.  Violence doesn't have to be over the toply graphic to be intense and brutal.  It's all in the way it's handled, and IMO, this is not only handled well, it's also very, very brutal.

Quoted from JCShadow I definitely have to agree with you on this one. I really liked this film and it so far has received very little buzz. It is definitely in my list of favorite movies.

I didn't think it was too bad. However, the distributor was Magnolia/Magnet. There isn't a whole lot of promotion in thier pick ups, since most of them hit VOD/HDNet cable before a limited theatrical screen run, mstly in Lakeview theater chain.

That's why I missed out on Neil Marshall's Centerion and am pissed about the planned US release of Black Death.

The thread here prompted me to check out the film tonight.
I thought it was overwhelmingly mediocre with standout performances.
Pullman, Ormond and the cop duo do fine work.
I thought the first act was the strongest, filled with possibility.
When Pullman and Ormond are off screen only the wacky cop duo hold my interest.
There's only so long you can pull the "we know stuff we haven't shown the audience".
The crash sequence was brutal, face exploding lack of continuity aside.
Michael Ironside had nothing to do in the film. Waste of his talent.
The big twist...blows donkey balls. Could not have been more boring.
The young Lynch grasshopper has much to learn from Master David.
This could be a stepping stone to greater things for the writer/director.

E.D.

Quoted from Electric Dreamer The big twist...blows donkey balls. Could not have been more boring.

HUH?  Why does it blow anything, let alone donkey balls?

What's boring about it?

Are you saying you saw that coming from miles away?

Quoted from Dreamscale HUH?  Why does it blow anything, let alone donkey balls? What's boring about it? Are you saying you saw that coming from miles away?

Jeff,

Nah, I didn't see it coming.
To me, the twist reduced the two most interesting characters to caricatures.
I found them so much more fascinating as they were, performance wise too.
I wanted much more time with them and less witness whining.
Alas, the production was probably lucky to get those big names for a limited time.
I neither loved nor hated the film, I'll look forward to her next effort.
BTW, is Jennifer Lynch any relation to David Lynch? Nothing on IMDB about it.

Thanks for the recommendation.
I had not heard of this neat little production until you mentioned it.

Regards,
E.D.