Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: I bought this movie for $5 at a used CD store, and I kinda regret it. I'll start by saying I'm a huge fan of cheesy horror flicks. They provide a horribly tacky cheap entertainment. This movie entertained for the first half hour, because it was so bad it could be made fun of in an MST3K style manner quite easily. Then it got boring.

The acting is the scariest part of the movie. While great acting is not to be expected, this was laughably bad and, honestly, provided all of the entertainment that was to be had. This is the plus side to the movie. Where the movie really falters in entertaining is the writing, lighting, and the editing.

This movie provides way too many "What the %$@# is going on?" moments. There are many moments, such as the mother having strange fits at dinner, and then that having absolutely no consequence in the movie. Along the lines of dinner, someone in charge decided it was fun to watch people eat refined food for five minutes straight without dialogue every time a meal was served. During the meals and other inappropriate moments, the scene cuts away to pure darkness outside. Then cuts back in. And speaking of darkness outside, one of the funniest parts of the movie is the climate, where apparently it isn't nighttime unless it's raining. And speaking of darkness, a big problem with the movie is that it's so poorly lit you can't see what's going on half the time, which is more of a frustration than anything. In one of the climactic scenes, you can't even tell what you're supposed to be seeing that's so shocking.

And when it comes to climactic scenes, Unhinged contains one of the worst. I've seen people say "Wow, that surprised me, and that's good." I can say that the big reveal did surprise me, because I didn't see it coming. The reason I didn't see it coming is because it made absolutely no sense. I won't ruin it for you, but I will tell you that my friend and I spent a good twenty minutes rewinding to various parts of the movie to find anything that would have validated that at all, and all we found were more things saying that it wasn't possible.

All in all, this movie is actually better when you watch it with the commentary tracks that make fun of it. I love crap horror movies, but this was too much.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: TIGERLAND / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

Throughout the years audiences have seen and understood war films with every point of view possible, and somehow producers and writers always come up with new and innovative methods of portraying various soldiers on the battlefield. Joel Schumacher ("8MM," "A Time to Kill"), easily one of the riskiest directors currently working, has found resemblance with "The Thin Red Line" in the way his new drama "Tigerland" steps in an individual soldier's shoes. This movie, written by Ross Klavan and Michael McGuther, has more guts and irony than "The Thin Red Line" or even "Saving Private Ryan." Although the movie's dramatic impact is somewhat lessened due to the perversity of the material present, it certainly enlightens us on a new perspective of young men training for war.

I would want to know Joel Schumacher's experiences with the army. Are the men really this unabashed and brutal? I am sure some of them are, but the movie views its uncompromising world through the eyes of a young man named Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), who is rebellious against the ideas of war. His personality instantly counteracts with several other characters, one who becomes his best friend, Paxton (Matthew Davis), and another, Wilson (Russell Richardson), whose flamed temper often exasperates Bozz's tension with the idea of going to war. The war depicted in this production is not found on a battlefield, but on training grounds of a Louisiana-based instruction camp between conceptions and fears of the soldiers in training. This film is specifically about the preparation for war, nothing more nothing less. It ends when the soldiers finally go to war, kind of disappointing since witnessing the characters in action would have served as a supurb payoff.

Shot on location in about 28 days using 16mm stock and a minuscule budget, Joel Schumacher accurately displays a gritty, perverse, cruel, and unmerciful atmosphere using hand-held cinematography, unique lighting techniques and direct sound. Schumacher's grainy and blown-out images make the movie feel like a documentary feature. This unusual style of filmmaking only contributes to the hard core realism of the movie, quite graphic in its use of coarse language, perhaps a little too disturbing. Waves of four-letter words pound the audience, some in shock of what they are hearing. Even the extreme amount of vulgarism does not keep the dialogue from prevailing as heartbreaking, true, and emotional.

If anything, "Tigerland" provides us with a minor appreciation of how much our soldiers go through for our country in the beginning stages of combat. Such bravery must it take to enlist in the army during times of war, knowing the hardships and risks that are being taken. Such thought-provoking ideas are made possible through the heartbreaking performances by the young aspiring actors who portray the various trainees. This movie is not for all audiences, but one that young men should take a look at before enlisting themselves in the army...and adult audiences should watch to appreciate the courage needed to do such.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the "scientists" and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliche ridden.

I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: "A Brief History of Nearly Everything." There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science.