Great Product
Added 11/13/2009
Delivered on time and in perfect condition. Will buy from this seller again and again.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
claustrophobic panic
Added 9/22/2009
It's a kind of post 9/11 terrorist/disaster thing involving a series of dirty bombs set off in Los Angeles and the ensuing toxic fallout from them. The view is constricted to the claustrophobic panic of what one man sees and hears, so the viewer is left in the dark about a lot of things. It's a low-budget, independent type of film, but I was quite riveted by it nonetheless. Well, mostly. While I was dutifully chilled to the bone by the images, predicaments and consequences presented in the film, there were some things that didn't quite jell for me. Still, I give it thumbs up for scaring the bejesus outta me and turning my skin as cold as stone, like all good apocalyptic type stories do.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Taut, Chilling, and Character-Driven, This Indie Film's a Winner
Added 9/10/2009
"WOW" was the word I kept silently mouthing as I watched this film. Cinematography, flawless acting, and an endlessly foreboding tone and script come together for the most engrossing cinematic experience I've had in some time. Slight spoilers follow, but they all follow under this umbrella: "This is a small interpersonal story taking place within your typical disaster movie."
The strength of the script is two-fold: First, it employs a gritty realism via the only source of information the main characters have on hand: the radio news station. The story of the disaster that has befallen the outer world unfolds through this mechanism, the application of which should trigger memories of 9/11 for all but the most obtuse. The comparison, however, is never explicitly made, and the implied connection between the American disaster and the events in this film is applied with finesse and grace.
Second, the script and direction trust the intelligence of the viewer. In particular, subtle use of the radio provides small doorways into the current psychological states of the characters. Hence, the film isn't nearly as interesting or engaging if the viewer does not surrender their full attention. For the right viewer, however, that won't be the slightest problem. Additionally, there are any number of nuances to the relationships between the main characters; catching them all requires even more attentiveness. The director isn't hiding these things, however. These extra spices simply contribute to the feeling that the audience is watching real people. Plot points aren't telegraphed 20 minutes in advance in real life.
This riveting package comes in a small box. It was filmed on a small budget, but the claustrophobic quarters that provide the setting for the majority of the movie only add to the horror and futility of the situation. Considering that this is Chris Gorak's first film, I haven't been this excited about a debut since Shane Carruth's Primer (what's HE up to now?). Hitchcock ain't got nothin' on Chris Gorak!
Highly, HIGHLY Recommended!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The Bore on Terror
Added 7/24/2009
Lexi (Mary McCormack) gets in her car and drives to work. Brad (Rory Cochrane) seems to want to patch up an argument they had the night before. Terrorists start blowing up dirty, virus carrying bombs all across Los Angeles. In a brief and effective fashion, "Right At Your Door" begins.
Problem is, this suspense/drama doesn't have the moxy to stay interesting for its 90-some minute running time. It probably would have made a great 40 minute short or a decent made for TV hour long. Despite the realistic premise and the tightened focus of the film, it never gets a real firm pace. It really wants to be a two-actor On the Beach. Instead, it's a talky soap opera that often gets ridiculous in the "suspend your disbelief" department.
For instance, it is perfectly acceptable that, once Brad hears that bombs are going off in the city, he freaks out and rushes off to find his wife. It's plausible that the cops would start forcibly turning people away and drive Brad back to the house. It's even likely that a panicky neighborhood handyman might rush into your home looking for help. But if your wife came back and begged for help, would you be able to demand she stay out of the house, knowing she would most certainly die? If you were the one locked out and fatal toxins were snowing down around you, would you cave in or start smashing your way in? And if you were doomed to sit near each other while likely dying, would you just sit there and yack yack yack for days?
That's the problem with "Right At Your Door." The realistic scenario is undone by the illogical choices made by Lexi and Brad. The film also takes plot turns that are left undeveloped. When Jason (seemingly an ex-boyfriend) suddenly appears outside and tries to convince Lexi to leave Brad and save herself, Brad is more upset in the "what the hell is he doing here" manner than the "Don't leave me" way. But then the thread just vanishes, along with Jason. Why is he there? What did he mean to Lexi? Then there's the little kid, Timmy. He added some real artistic tension at the beginning by being the human prop that made you look at Los Angeles in flames, but his re-emergence in the film is pointless.
In fact, the visuals in "Right At Your Door" are more interesting than anything else. That one look at Los Angeles under attack was more unnerving than anything else in the movie. The falling toxic ash shot was also very effective, as were the ash-coated dead birds. The use of radio broadcasts helped convey the claustrophobic helplessness Brad felt locked inside his house. Had writer/director Chris Gorak stayed more with these kind of cues, maybe cast a pair of more believable actors and tightened the script, "Right At Your Door" might have been more like Cloverfield and less like AVP - Alien Vs. Predator. 2 and 1/2 stars rounded up.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Great movie that makes you wonder what you would do . . . and if it would be the right thing
Added 7/9/2009
Having seen the positive reviews and the negative reviews for this movie, I had to enter in my own for the first time because I believe that the reason people are reviewing it negatively is because they were A) expecting a horror movie, which this is not, B) don't seem to understand that in a crisis situation such as the one depicted here, yes, people in reality WOULD be screaming at each other, cursing, not thinking straight, panicking and worse, and that it's hardly overdone in this movie, or C) just mad at the characters for not being smarter or more able to anticipate the nature of the mysterious toxic threat since, well, you know, everyone and their mother these days are apparently experts on biological/chemical/radiologic agents.
If you think you can watch this movie without A, B, or C, then I think you're going to enjoy it, and at the very least, it will make you think about some of the hard questions that emergency personnel must ask when they are responding to a large-scale event . . . and the questions we must ask ourselves as possible victims of such an event.
The characters are a realistic couple (reminds me of Rashida Jones's character, Ann, and her boyfriend from Parks and Recreation!), and although you don't get too much character development before the terrorist attack, in my mind they were very believable, very real, and everyday people with realistic responses to the situations presented in the film. Most of the negative reviews seem to rip on the characters and their reactions to what occurred in the movie as atypical and unbelievable, but I found them to be quite plausible and consistent for people under stress and threat of death, and who were simply trying to survive while being pummeled repeatedly and emotionally by the evolving disaster.
I won't give away the ending, but through it all, you, the viewer, can't help but ask yourself what you would do in the situation. Presented with an unbearable decision to make, what would you do . . . would you survive at any cost, would you be true to higher moral standards, would you want your loved ones to sacrifice themselves for you, would you trust in your government and neighbors to see you through, would you sacrifice yourself for the good of others? And what, if any, consequences could you eventually face for your decisions?
The one thing I will agree with as far as the negatives surrounding this film involves the biochemical agent in question. It is 100% unrealistic for the agent, as described (but I won't give it away), to demonstrate the properties it does in the movie from a purely scientific perspective. However, if one can suspend their disbelief on this one aspect of the film, and instead commit to the uncertainty of the nature of the biochemical threat as a core part of what moves this film, the rest of it is quite a ride.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Great Product
Added 11/13/2009
Delivered on time and in perfect condition. Will buy from this seller again and again.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
claustrophobic panic
Added 9/22/2009
It's a kind of post 9/11 terrorist/disaster thing involving a series of dirty bombs set off in Los Angeles and the ensuing toxic fallout from them. The view is constricted to the claustrophobic panic of what one man sees and hears, so the viewer is left in the dark about a lot of things. It's a low-budget, independent type of film, but I was quite riveted by it nonetheless. Well, mostly. While I was dutifully chilled to the bone by the images, predicaments and consequences presented in the film, there were some things that didn't quite jell for me. Still, I give it thumbs up for scaring the bejesus outta me and turning my skin as cold as stone, like all good apocalyptic type stories do.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Taut, Chilling, and Character-Driven, This Indie Film's a Winner
Added 9/10/2009
"WOW" was the word I kept silently mouthing as I watched this film. Cinematography, flawless acting, and an endlessly foreboding tone and script come together for the most engrossing cinematic experience I've had in some time. Slight spoilers follow, but they all follow under this umbrella: "This is a small interpersonal story taking place within your typical disaster movie."
The strength of the script is two-fold: First, it employs a gritty realism via the only source of information the main characters have on hand: the radio news station. The story of the disaster that has befallen the outer world unfolds through this mechanism, the application of which should trigger memories of 9/11 for all but the most obtuse. The comparison, however, is never explicitly made, and the implied connection between the American disaster and the events in this film is applied with finesse and grace.
Second, the script and direction trust the intelligence of the viewer. In particular, subtle use of the radio provides small doorways into the current psychological states of the characters. Hence, the film isn't nearly as interesting or engaging if the viewer does not surrender their full attention. For the right viewer, however, that won't be the slightest problem. Additionally, there are any number of nuances to the relationships between the main characters; catching them all requires even more attentiveness. The director isn't hiding these things, however. These extra spices simply contribute to the feeling that the audience is watching real people. Plot points aren't telegraphed 20 minutes in advance in real life.
This riveting package comes in a small box. It was filmed on a small budget, but the claustrophobic quarters that provide the setting for the majority of the movie only add to the horror and futility of the situation. Considering that this is Chris Gorak's first film, I haven't been this excited about a debut since Shane Carruth's Primer (what's HE up to now?). Hitchcock ain't got nothin' on Chris Gorak!
Highly, HIGHLY Recommended!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
