Wow...not at all the movie I expected to see.  Not at all, no how, no way shape or form, no sir.

This is a tough one to even discuss without ruining it.  Don't worry, I won't ruin it.  I'll be very careful what I choose to say, and won't even begin to go into plot/story details.

First of all, let's get some details here.  Released overseas, but direct to video here, in the states.  Reported $18 Million budget, which always amazes and confuses me - why an entity would spend that kind of cash and then not release the finished project, I just don't understand, as there's no way it will recoup the investment without a theatrical release.

This was written and directed by Pascal Laugier, of Martyrs fame.  This guy is one twisted motherfucker, but of course I say that in a positive way.  He's also a very talented, out of the box guy, as far as I can tell., which is what I appreciate in a writer and director.

There is much talent on display here, in terms of really everything - performances, sets, look, editing, story, and most of all, impact.  I continually was asking myself WTF is going on, why, and where are we going, much as I did during Martyrs.

Now, don't get me wrong, this ain't no Martyrs, nor does it attain to be, but Laugier has a way about his scripts and film making that I'll call unique and intriguing.

It appears there were a number of different production companies together here, but the result doesn't come off that way, which is a good thing.  Even Studio Canal is in the credits.

This was shot in Nelson, BC and Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, but set in a fictional small mining town of Cold Rock, WA, with some insinuations involving Seattle and even Vancouver.  The dreary, rainy/snowy outdoor scenes were well executed and really delivered a spooky vibe throughout.

There is obviously a big twist here and it comes completely out of left field, but that's not always a bad thing, but it sure had me confused when it hit.  Does it make sense completely?  Do I even understand exactly what this was all about?  I'm not sure, but it sure got me thinking and really was a welcome relief to all the cheapass DTV horror clones I sit through.

After thinking about this for awhile, I've come to the conclusion that something was missing in the reveal or the aftermath that needed to be here...and clear.  I have a feeling this was most likely the reason it didn't get an official release - and if it did, would it have worked for the mainstream?  I doubt it...I highly doubt it.

If you watch, and I recommend you do, don't do it late at night when you're groggy.  Pay attention and if you have to, rewind to make sure you're up with what's happening, because once it alters course, it doesn't go back.

I gave it 3 stars, as in "like", but I actually considered going with 4.  There's alot to like here, but overall, it's a bit too depressing and even slow at times for me to go with a 4 star rating.

Jessica Biel gives a very impressive performance here, in a very understated way.  At times, she's barely recognizable, and is so far from glamorous, it's surprising she'd take such a role.  But that's where the beauty is in such a role.  She had a chance to shine here and in my book, she sure did.

Recommended!!!!

Straming... must be a new service.

Ooops...corrected.

Nelson (where the film was shot) is my home town, by the way!

Glad to hear a mostly positive review.  I've not seen it yet, but it's always scary when great foreign directors come to do work here.  Nice that it worked out.

Actor Katharine Ramdeen, who stars in my upcoming film April, was also in this one.  She said Laugier was great, though actors always say that.

Chris, I was actually thinking about you when the credits rolled and I saw Nelson.

Hey, mostly positive review?  I think it was very positive.  The more I think about it, the more I liked it.  Any well put together film that has me thinking WTF as I'm watching (in a good way, of course), gets my vote.

Pascal is a force, IMO.  I see big things in his future.  I really do.

Thumbs up on the film, and thanks for the suggestion.

Definitely an original story with a couple of twists and a strong theme.

The intention of the film is strongly moralizing, and though I think the creators want people to draw a certain conclusion, it's not preachy and it has enough flexibility where people can draw different conclusions in that regard. It sparks debate, which is always good.

Plenty of suspense. Holds your attnetion.

I thought the actor who played the fed did a superb job.

UPDATE: Jeff, what do you think is missing in the reveal?

Quoted from leitskev UPDATE: Jeff, what do you think is missing in the reveal?

Not sure, exactly, but I'm referring to well before the end, when I/we were wondering what the fuck was the motivation here?  I mean peeps paid with their lives and I didn't quite get exactly why...

SPOILER

Jessica Biel and her husband, who was not really dead, had seen children around the world grow up in hell. Thus the pictures on the wall.

When they saw the same thing happening in their town, they decided to do something. So they invented Tall Man, and started stealing kids from the worst households, and bringing them to better households in Seattle.

The Doctor had the resources to develop a newtwork to bring these kids to wealthy people who would give them a good life.

So no one was really dying. The young woman who helped Biel with the children committed suicide, but I don't think anyone else died.

Biel let the authorities take her so everyone would think it was over and stop trying to solve the puzzle. Meanwhile, her husband will continue to grow and expand the network into other towns.

The message of the movie is that if society will not do something to change the conditions these children are raised in, the doctor, Tall Man, will take them from the parents and give them to people able to give them a good life.

So at the end, when the girl is finishing her story, she's basically asking why it has to be this way, why can't society fix things so this is not necessary.

You probably already knew all this, but I can't think of any loose ends.

Yeah, I did know all this, but again, I say, why"  Why would whoever that young chick was that hung herself, hang herself?  Why would Jessica's character take the fall for being a mass murderer?

For me, it didn't quite add up, but I liked it all the same for sure.

They kind of explained Biel's surrender: someone had to take the fall for the operation to continue. I think the girl said this in her narration near the end. You might have stopped watching by then.

The suicide girl, who knows. Maybe she just couldn't live with herself knowing what they had done. Maybe she was dependent on Biel.

I was a little disappointed there was no Tall Man. Or anything supernatural. But it's better this way, as a story.

Good call!

No, I saw that and every single reel, including every single credit.

The mute girls actually said that she had 3 mothers, most likely Jessica first.

My point is "why"?  Why would any of them really do this and give their lives?

Her first mother is her real mother, the woman fighting the red neck, the woman in the trailer.

Her second mother is Biel, though she never lives with her. She just calls her her second mother.

The third is the woman she ends up with in Seattle, or wherever that city is.

The people give their lives for the sake of the children. Just like they were before, as seen in the pictures, when they are in Africa and places like that. Only now they do it at home, and now they have to abduct the children.

Part of her motivation, psychologically, is that she can't have children. So who knows, there could be an element of anger that these other people that don't deserve children have them.

That's also why she spends time playing with the children before sending them away.

Glad to hear you had more or less good things to say about this one, Jeff.

Personally, I was pretty happy with it. The first act was a little weak but lesser directors at their best might've produced the same work. I also think some of the shortcomings might've come from English not being Laugier's first language; some potential eloquence might've been lost in translation.

In any case, I'm glad it didn't suck and more importantly, that it was something fresh, for better or for worse. More than anything, I was worried the guy might turn in something conventional, even if it was really good. But his voice still shined through on this one. I think he might be the real deal and am hoping for good things from him in the future.

Holey Guacamole am I way off from everybody on this one. I can honestly say that this is the only movie I have seen this year that I didn't like, I saw this a while ago, and it just felt like a cheap lifetime movie. I think in a horror or suspense film there should at least be some kind of danger or peril, there is not really a villain in this film other than some redneck asshole who is in it for a couple minutes. I never thought anyone was in any danger at all throughout the film.

This felt like a typical lifetime save abused children move. It looked shotty, which I forgive because it is obvious they didn't have any money so they did the best they could, so I can't really fault them there. But the movie is just so dull and lifeless with no danger or excitment or any ideas, it was like watching paint dry.

Jessica Beal does have a nice scene in the end which was effective, but 90 minutes too late. This is the kind of movie my grandmother would watch on a sunday afternoon on basic cable, which is never a good sign

It's almost like you didn't watch the same movie, Boy. I'm not saying that because you didn't like it, but rather because you describe something different.

No danger? Biel's son(or we think he is) is taken from underneath her; then she climbs onto the edge of the truck; faces the dog a couple of times; and so on.

Then there is the menace from the townspeople, and the "tall man" in the factory.

Not saying it's the scariest moment in the history of film, but "no danger" hardly seems accurate.

No villain? Ah, the Tall Man. He turns out to be something different than we thought, but you don't know that until the end.

No ideas? Well, we might not like the idea, but the notion of creating a fake monster in order to abduct children from bad situations and put them in better ones does seem to be original. It certainly counts as an "idea".

But your grandmother sounds cool!

Quoted from The boy who could fly It looked shotty, which I forgive because it is obvious they didn't have any money so they did the best they could, so I can't really fault them there.

Looked shotty?  Shoddy?     No money?  They had a nice $18 Million budget, and IMO, the film looked excellent all around.

I'm really surprised to hear you say this.

I watched this on bootleg a month or so ago. That's right! bootleg! I'm from Cleveland dammit.

I haven't read through all of the reviews, but I dug this until the end. The twists come at you constantly and you want to try to figure it out, but you can't. Jessica did a great job, not surprised. I think she was also a producer on this film?

James

there is no tall man in this film so there is no real bad guy, just a lady who takes underpriviliged children and puts them in a good home, thats reallly all this movie is, just so safe, this movie needed some enegery, or at least try something new, or interesting, and the townsfolk, i mean this ain't 1930, they seemed to be in the wrong decade. It's sad cuz the tall man could have been a cool movie if it really had a tall man instead of taking the easy way out and making it a movie for a knitting circlke, oh well to each their own I guess.

I'm gonna knit me some sox. Yeah, that's a plan.

Just had a chance to watch the end of this one. I think I'm with Jordan. It started out great, but the second half and the twist, just turned it into a drama and all the suspense and intrigue went out the door.

PS. I have never seen anything where I liked Jessica Biehl. Don't know why, but she turns me off completely.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Just had a chance to watch the end of this one. I think I'm with Jordan. It started out great, but the second half and the twist, just turned it into a drama and all the suspense and intrigue went out the door. PS. I have never seen anything where I liked Jessica Biehl. Don't know why, but she turns me off completely.

I'm with Jordan and Pia on this one...

The twists came via voice over, exposition and dialogue.
Very little visual visceral discovery in this tale.
And that's what ultimately made me tune out.
A promising premise undone by convoluted twists and drab execution.

E.D.

I have to admit to enjoying this one. I was really surprised by it as I expected something completely different.

It was your typical thriller until about halfway and then it just threw it all out the window with twist after twist which left me, well, confused.

On the same note, it kept me engrossed to the end to see what it was all about and I have to be honest and say that when the ending came, it left me thinking and I like it when movies do that.

I thought it was brave to leave it as they did, the little girl questioning if she or the situation was right. She wanted this life but the younger ones didn’t have that choice and would never remember their first parents.

Also liked Jessica Biel in this one, probably the best I’ve seen from her. Actually, I found all the acting good in this one.

Good stuff.

It's all relative, too, Steve. If I paid $10 to see this in the theater, I'd be annoyed. But seeing it on Netflix, I respect that they did something different, created a solid mystery, generated some tension, and like you said, stimulated some thought.

The IMDB listed 18 million budget, but I don't know how reliable those numbers are. This was low budget, and I respect that they could achieve what they did on that.

Finally, I've watched a lot of movies in the last year, and as a result, my expectations for films are greatly diminished. I have not found a lot of very good movies, and all of them have their flaws.

Quoted from leitskev It's all relative, too, Steve. If I paid $10 to see this in the theater, I'd be annoyed.

Quoted from leitskev Finally, I've watched a lot of movies in the last year, and as a result, my expectations for films are greatly diminished. I have not found a lot of very good movies, and all of them have their flaws.

Kev, these 2 comments leave me very confused.

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly that one's expectations should be very low for literally any movie, because the vast majority of all movies seem like they were conceived by pre-teens.

It always surprises me when I see peeps quote $10+ for seeing a movie at the theater.  Why?  The only times I've ever paid $10 + for a movie is if it's 3D and IMAX.  Don't you people know what a fucking matinee showing is?

Whether or not I like a movie or think it's good, I rarely am annoyed when I see a movie at the theater, because it's the experience that makes it for me.  And, it doesn't hurt that I just enjoy seeing movies period.

Quoted from leitskev [quote=leitskev]The IMDB listed 18 million budget, but I don't know how reliable those numbers are. This was low budget, and I respect that they could achieve what they did on that.

How do qualify $18 Million with low budget?  What looked low budget here?

I have this funny feeling that the peeps who would call this low budget are the same peeps who only see "big budget" flicks at the theater, and don't know what a low budget piece of shit really is.

Not trying to start anything with you, bro, but your comments leave me very confused.

Man, I am so not in the mood for a fight. I'll oblige if I have to.

Ok, you win: I usually pay 6.75 and hit the matinee.

So I will amend my comment: I would not have been happy paying 6.75 for this film. Especially if I bought popcorn.

Budget: I've never produced a film, so I am not qualified to assess budget. My impression is that nothing was expensive in this film. There did not even seem to be a high scene count number, with a lot of wandering in the woods or similar locations.

While I cannot assess budget with any level of expertise, I can say that I have seen films that have been budgeted(according to IMDB) much lower and had similar or higher quality.

For example, Memento is listed as 5 million. I do know that a big part of cost is the number of scenes. That's why FF is so cheap, because there are long, uninterrupted scenes. Memento seems to have a lot of scenes, and also has bigger name actors.

Memento was the one that came to mind, but I've seen decent movies with even lower budgets that came out reasonably well.

Yes, I've also seen real low budget crap. They don't have the same appeal to me that they do to you, to each his own. But I'm not really talking about those.

What is the average budget for a studio movie? I suspect it's much higher than 18 million.

You say you're not trying to start something, but I am skeptical. You began this thread because you liked the film. My comments indicate that I generally agree with your opinion in this case. Others very strongly did not. Which is fine. But for some reason, it's my remarks that you've seized on.

If you just feel like arguing with me, can't we agree to pick a more interesting topic? If you are bored, I'm sure I owe you that. Let's move to another thread and find an argument with some entertainment value.

The Pats are on at 4, I will have my lap top, so I am available to argue with until about 7.

You two are funny!!!

I'm no expert at budgets either, but I'm pretty sure a script I'm familiar with *cough* that will shoot in January if things go according to plans will be low budget. Just a few million... To me, anything over $5M is not low budget. It's not BIG BUDGET, but not low budget. I think $18M for  The Tall Man seems high for what I saw.

No, not looking to argue or fight, Kev. Seriously.  I've been down all weekend with a really bad back.  I can literally barely move and walk.

I guess it was your comment about being annoyed if you paid to see this movie that caused my response.  But rest assured, all my questions and comments were not meant to upset you.

Yeah, Pia is right...anything with a budget over $5 Million is definitely not considered to be low budget.

Memento was released 12 years ago, first of all, but if you think about it or watch it, I'm pretty sure you'll see that it's actually a very small movie with no set pieces and very little action.

And for the record, although I definitely enjoyed The Tall man and its writer and director, I too had my doubts after it veered way off course.  Like Coop said, it made me think, and that's a good thing.  It was unique and contained the kind of twist no one will ever see coming, and again, for that alone, I give it kudos.

I believe IMDB adjusts for inflation. But that could just be gross numbers, I don't know.

But my point was that I don't think the real budget was anywhere near 18 million. And Pia agreed with that.

I Googled the average Hollywood budget, and it's over 100 million. So 18 is low for a studio level project. Very low, actually.

Quoted from leitskev I believe IMDB adjusts for inflation. But that could just be gross numbers, I don't know.

No, there is no adjustment for inflation.  A budget is a budget.

Quoted from leitskev I Googled the average Hollywood budget, and it's over 100 million. So 18 is low for a studio level project. Very low, actually.

Be careful thinking what is meant by "average Hollywood budget".  There's no way the vast majority of theatrical releases have a budget over $100 Million.

In fact got to boxofficeguru.com and you can get pretty much any and all the data you'd ever want to see.

There are only a total of 337 movies in the entire history of film that have grossed over $100 Million (at the NABO).

Also, keep  in mind that this movie was not (really) theatrically released even.  $18 Million is a very large budget for a DTV film.

Quoted Text First of all, let's get some details here.  Released overseas, but direct to video here, in the states.  Reported $18 Million budget, which always amazes and confuses me - why an entity would spend that kind of cash and then not release the finished project, I just don't understand, as there's no way it will recoup the investment without a theatrical release.

The film itself was aquired by Image Entertainment for domestic. They did not have much budget for marketing and release, so the plan was a VOD/ DTV platform after a brief limited theatrical run - which also effects distribution as not many theatre chains will book films like that - and with other big tent-pole studio films in the offeriing, Tall Man would get squeezed out. That seems to be the case. Another factor could be Pascal Laugier's past work as well - can a "mainstream" moviegoing audience get into his work? New French Extremism might be a hard sell in the US ? (I think it is a possibility, and I don't really agree with it if there is something to it)

But there's something else. I don't think Image had much faith in thier aquisition. Where's that friggin' artwork...



Do you see what I see? Jessica Beil "is" The Tall Man...?
I dunno. Maybe it's a reach. I do know it's probabaly just coincidence.

By the way--when horror fans think of The Tall Man...

Quoted from Grandma Bear I think most people would consider LionsGate a major Hollywood studio and since it's a publicly traded company their financial info is public. " Lionsgate has historically produced motion pictures with production budgets of $35 million or less, compared to the major studio average of $70.8 million. Films intended for theatrical release are generally budgeted between $5 million and $35 million, and films intended for release directly to video or cable television are generally budgeted between $1 million and $5 million."

Lionsgate made a calculated move into studio territory with The Hunger Games.
Before that, they didn't do much of anything for more than $30 million.
Dredd's a bloody nose in that arena, but their tween franchise made tons.

E.D.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

As I said, JEff, I knew they adjusted ticket revenue. And they do. I can;t say for budget.

Kevin, we're talking about budget, not revenue.  C'mon now...

Quoted from Electric Dreamer Lionsgate made a calculated move into studio territory with The Hunger Games. Before that, they didn't do much of anything for more than $30 million. Dredd's a bloody nose in that arena, but their tween franchise made tons. E.D.

Shame Dredd struggled in the US.

Class film. So nice to see an adult action movie for once, and no-one goes to see it.
Still, even if there's to be no more...at least it wipes out the memory of the last one....Dredd is one of the greatest characters in history, but I guess you have to be a fan.

I kept asking myself one question during this movie...

Where's Angus Scrimm?!?!

E.D.