Hello, my name is Andrew Jara. I am trying to be a writer/director. I made a film named "Last Days" that i'm trying to bring some press to.

 

movieisaw:




Plot: A documentary following several children that are the victims of bullies.    
Review: This documentary starts off with the family of Tyler Long talking about his suicide after being bullied in school. They mention how he was, how it’s affected their family and is a powerful way to open the film. But now let’s talk about Tyler Long.  After the film was released it was found out that Long had mental health problems, been performing disturbing actions before his suicide, had been seeing a therapist but neither him nor his family mentioned bullies or suicide, that he missed his last therapy session but that his family covered up for him, that he had recently broken up with his girlfriend and that he may or may not have been bullied in three years. When asked about it, the director stated that it wouldn’t help the narrative of the story. There have been more accusations against the film but we’ll focus on Tyler Long. We’ll also try to go with that the film left these out because of narrative reasons and not because of the parents lawsuit against the school board. 
The problem with leaving these out is that the film wants to present itself as an issue documentary that is shining the truth on a serious problem. With a movie like “exit through the gift shop” it isn’t as important whether the film is real or fake because the main goal is entertainment. But with this, it is neither needless or dangerous omissions. Look is bullying a problem? Of course.  But showing us that the bullied can also have more underlying problems or that bullying can be the final straw regardless of the intensity of the bullying is all prevalent. By omitting them, it paints a very black and white image of bullying and of teenagers. If the point is to show the effects of bully, leaving out backstory robs us of that. If the point is to show the effects it has on children, not letting us get to know the children makes the scenes pointless. I don’t think that the director thinks we are dumb enough to not understand that even a sad person who has some mental problems may also be bullied to suicide is as important as just being bullied. And if they left out so much on a child that was so lost as to take his life, how are we to believe anything else that we see. The omissions hurt the film more than it could ever help it. So what’s the reason for this and in turn the documentary?
Well after watching it, I feel it is to make a pandering torture porn propaganda film more than a documentary. We meet other children and we hear their story from their point of view and sometimes their family. But we don’t get other kids’ perspective, we don’t authorities’ perspective or anyone with any merit. We also don’t get any answers to how to fix the bullying problem. And that is the problem. Listen again, bullying is a touching subject and I don’t want to make it seem like I think he or the kids made it up the bullying issue but what he’s doing is wrong. He shows us a kid that is friendless but arent’ given reasons why. His sister calls him creepy but again we don’t see that. We don’t see why other kids don’t like him even enough to befriend him. We don’t see how teachers and counselors think of him other than interacting with him. All we have is the opinion of a child in middle school that feels he is hopeless and is having a camera in his face to validate his point. This isn’t about seeing how bullying is a problem or how it affects everyone. This is about parading outcasts in front of cameras with the hope that they are attacked to help the illusion of importance. 
At the end of the day, the film bullies us into trying to think what it wants us to without rhyme or reason behind it.  It’s a disgusting film that doesn’t start a conversation, it silences a problem. 
Trivia: Was the subject of a battle between the production company and the MPAA over the rating. 





I’m not falling for your tricks bully! 

movieisaw:

Plot: A documentary following several children that are the victims of bullies.    

Review: This documentary starts off with the family of Tyler Long talking about his suicide after being bullied in school. They mention how he was, how it’s affected their family and is a powerful way to open the film. But now let’s talk about Tyler Long.  After the film was released it was found out that Long had mental health problems, been performing disturbing actions before his suicide, had been seeing a therapist but neither him nor his family mentioned bullies or suicide, that he missed his last therapy session but that his family covered up for him, that he had recently broken up with his girlfriend and that he may or may not have been bullied in three years. When asked about it, the director stated that it wouldn’t help the narrative of the story. There have been more accusations against the film but we’ll focus on Tyler Long. We’ll also try to go with that the film left these out because of narrative reasons and not because of the parents lawsuit against the school board. 

The problem with leaving these out is that the film wants to present itself as an issue documentary that is shining the truth on a serious problem. With a movie like “exit through the gift shop” it isn’t as important whether the film is real or fake because the main goal is entertainment. But with this, it is neither needless or dangerous omissions. Look is bullying a problem? Of course.  But showing us that the bullied can also have more underlying problems or that bullying can be the final straw regardless of the intensity of the bullying is all prevalent. By omitting them, it paints a very black and white image of bullying and of teenagers. If the point is to show the effects of bully, leaving out backstory robs us of that. If the point is to show the effects it has on children, not letting us get to know the children makes the scenes pointless. I don’t think that the director thinks we are dumb enough to not understand that even a sad person who has some mental problems may also be bullied to suicide is as important as just being bullied. And if they left out so much on a child that was so lost as to take his life, how are we to believe anything else that we see. The omissions hurt the film more than it could ever help it. So what’s the reason for this and in turn the documentary?

Well after watching it, I feel it is to make a pandering torture porn propaganda film more than a documentary. We meet other children and we hear their story from their point of view and sometimes their family. But we don’t get other kids’ perspective, we don’t authorities’ perspective or anyone with any merit. We also don’t get any answers to how to fix the bullying problem. And that is the problem. Listen again, bullying is a touching subject and I don’t want to make it seem like I think he or the kids made it up the bullying issue but what he’s doing is wrong. He shows us a kid that is friendless but arent’ given reasons why. His sister calls him creepy but again we don’t see that. We don’t see why other kids don’t like him even enough to befriend him. We don’t see how teachers and counselors think of him other than interacting with him. All we have is the opinion of a child in middle school that feels he is hopeless and is having a camera in his face to validate his point. This isn’t about seeing how bullying is a problem or how it affects everyone. This is about parading outcasts in front of cameras with the hope that they are attacked to help the illusion of importance. 

At the end of the day, the film bullies us into trying to think what it wants us to without rhyme or reason behind it.  It’s a disgusting film that doesn’t start a conversation, it silences a problem. 

Trivia: Was the subject of a battle between the production company and the MPAA over the rating. 

I’m not falling for your tricks bully! 

movieisaw:




Plot: With a meteor days away from destroying the earth, a man and a woman venture out to fulfill last wishes.    
Review: I wanted to like this movie. I really did. It had a great premise and a great cast. The problem is it never fully utilizes it and what it gives us instead is super generic. The first twenty minutes deal with the coming end of days with people trying to live normal lives while also dealing with their lives ending. It’s cute if not predictable with wives cheating, riots, and maids refusing to quit. Steve Carell plays a insurance salesman whose wife leaves him at the news of the meteor. It’s Steve Carell playing a sad sack which he does well but maybe something different nowadays. But then Carell meets Keira Knightley and it all falls apart. 
The problem is once they meet, they get out of the city and the film turns into a road trip movie that makes sure to stop at all the indie cliches it can find. It has it all, the insurance salesman protagonist, the never takes risks protagonists, the pixie girl, the girl who loves her obscure records that aren’t really obscure (i mean do people not hear Herb Albert? Cause he’s awesome!) All of those and more are here and they are just as boring as always. From there it’s a beat by beat of the Garden State playbook until we reach the very end. Even the emotional beats don’t hit home because the characters are so generic, so bland, so quirky that you can’t even relate to them. It doesn’t work. 
The worst thing is thing is that it plays with themes in the first ten minutes but then disregards them all for no theme. It starts off with the theme of a man who is doomed that is unwilling to partake in any kind of emotion at this or at his life. It’s interesting and it’s original but it has no ending. Any character development or other themes explored are dashed by the time the love story starts, the film ends and that’s too bad. Skip this. 
Trivia: The film takes place in 2014. 




Ugh, movie! 

movieisaw:

Plot: With a meteor days away from destroying the earth, a man and a woman venture out to fulfill last wishes.    

Review: I wanted to like this movie. I really did. It had a great premise and a great cast. The problem is it never fully utilizes it and what it gives us instead is super generic. The first twenty minutes deal with the coming end of days with people trying to live normal lives while also dealing with their lives ending. It’s cute if not predictable with wives cheating, riots, and maids refusing to quit. Steve Carell plays a insurance salesman whose wife leaves him at the news of the meteor. It’s Steve Carell playing a sad sack which he does well but maybe something different nowadays. But then Carell meets Keira Knightley and it all falls apart. 

The problem is once they meet, they get out of the city and the film turns into a road trip movie that makes sure to stop at all the indie cliches it can find. It has it all, the insurance salesman protagonist, the never takes risks protagonists, the pixie girl, the girl who loves her obscure records that aren’t really obscure (i mean do people not hear Herb Albert? Cause he’s awesome!) All of those and more are here and they are just as boring as always. From there it’s a beat by beat of the Garden State playbook until we reach the very end. Even the emotional beats don’t hit home because the characters are so generic, so bland, so quirky that you can’t even relate to them. It doesn’t work. 

The worst thing is thing is that it plays with themes in the first ten minutes but then disregards them all for no theme. It starts off with the theme of a man who is doomed that is unwilling to partake in any kind of emotion at this or at his life. It’s interesting and it’s original but it has no ending. Any character development or other themes explored are dashed by the time the love story starts, the film ends and that’s too bad. Skip this. 

Trivia: The film takes place in 2014. 

Ugh, movie! 

movieisaw:



Plot: A thief is betrayed by his crew and comes to get revenge.    
Review: There are two kind of Jason Statham movies: the action movie where Statham plays an indestructible bad ass and the action-drama where Statham still plays a bad ass but at least he can get hurt. The problem with Parker is that it wants to have the Statham from the first one with the story from the second one. 
What do I mean is that this movie is all over the place. It starts off well with Statham setting up his character and the code he lives by. The scene where he is betrayed is good too as we see him get really hurt. But after that, it all falls apart. It’s not fun seeing Statham only fighting one guy every ten minutes if he’s not going to get hurt. It’s not fun seeing him collect clues in something that isn’t a detective story. It’s not fun having Jennifer Lopez show up for no reason and do nothing that helps the plot.  All those things are boring. And that makes the film not only not work but also not watchable. 
Trivia: Based on the same characters as in the films, Point Blank and Payback. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A thief is betrayed by his crew and comes to get revenge.    

Review: There are two kind of Jason Statham movies: the action movie where Statham plays an indestructible bad ass and the action-drama where Statham still plays a bad ass but at least he can get hurt. The problem with Parker is that it wants to have the Statham from the first one with the story from the second one. 

What do I mean is that this movie is all over the place. It starts off well with Statham setting up his character and the code he lives by. The scene where he is betrayed is good too as we see him get really hurt. But after that, it all falls apart. It’s not fun seeing Statham only fighting one guy every ten minutes if he’s not going to get hurt. It’s not fun seeing him collect clues in something that isn’t a detective story. It’s not fun having Jennifer Lopez show up for no reason and do nothing that helps the plot.  All those things are boring. And that makes the film not only not work but also not watchable. 

Trivia: Based on the same characters as in the films, Point Blank and Payback. 

movieisaw:



Plot: A private detective takes a job from the mayor that may not be what it appears to be.   
Review: So this is day one of movies that were boring trilogy that started in Fun Size. I didn’t know that I was starting this trilogy but it was handed to me. Okay so this film is more about how the characters are bad. All the characters are one note, generic and uninteresting but the movies needs them to be all of those things. The theme is about motivations, right and wrong, politics and the justice system. The problem is you can’t really explore these themes with one note characters. In fact, it undermines everything you are trying to do and say if there is a clear cut case of right and wrong. Allen Hughes has never really been the best with pacing and this movie moves at a snail’s pace. It never works, they throw in plot lines that literally disappear and leaves you wanting something more. 
Trivia: This was Allen Hugh’s first movie with his brother. Even more interesting, Tupac Shakur got in a fight with the Hughes Brothers, bragged about it on Yo MTV Raps and was arrested. RIP PAC! 

movieisaw:

Plot: A private detective takes a job from the mayor that may not be what it appears to be.   

Review: So this is day one of movies that were boring trilogy that started in Fun Size. I didn’t know that I was starting this trilogy but it was handed to me. Okay so this film is more about how the characters are bad. All the characters are one note, generic and uninteresting but the movies needs them to be all of those things. The theme is about motivations, right and wrong, politics and the justice system. The problem is you can’t really explore these themes with one note characters. In fact, it undermines everything you are trying to do and say if there is a clear cut case of right and wrong. Allen Hughes has never really been the best with pacing and this movie moves at a snail’s pace. It never works, they throw in plot lines that literally disappear and leaves you wanting something more. 

Trivia: This was Allen Hugh’s first movie with his brother. Even more interesting, Tupac Shakur got in a fight with the Hughes Brothers, bragged about it on Yo MTV Raps and was arrested. RIP PAC! 

movieisaw:

Plot: A teenage loses her brother on Halloween and must find him before she can go to the cool kids’ party. This and other tropes abound.   
Review: Oh man was this terrible. It had every bad trope ever. The nerdy yet beatiful girl? Check. The popular crush? Check. The nerdy neighbor that actually loves the girl? The horny best friend? The slutty best friend? The dead parent? The thing the dead parent left that the child now loves? The kid who doesn’t talk since the parent’s death? The scorned lover? The jockey bully? Check, Check, All Check. 
It isn’t even trying to play with these tropes or anything. It’s just paint by numbers. I got bored so many times but it has one or two moments that made me smile. And Victoria Justice is pretty but man this movie does her no favors. She doesn’t even really have to act and her jokes always fall flat, which I’m not sure was her as much as the script. At least with Jane Levy, who is also terrible, her character is at least different enough from her tv show so you get something. Everyone else is terrible and the movie is as well. 
Trivia: This was Gossip Girl’s creator Josh Schwartz’s first film. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A teenage loses her brother on Halloween and must find him before she can go to the cool kids’ party. This and other tropes abound.   

Review: Oh man was this terrible. It had every bad trope ever. The nerdy yet beatiful girl? Check. The popular crush? Check. The nerdy neighbor that actually loves the girl? The horny best friend? The slutty best friend? The dead parent? The thing the dead parent left that the child now loves? The kid who doesn’t talk since the parent’s death? The scorned lover? The jockey bully? Check, Check, All Check. 

It isn’t even trying to play with these tropes or anything. It’s just paint by numbers. I got bored so many times but it has one or two moments that made me smile. And Victoria Justice is pretty but man this movie does her no favors. She doesn’t even really have to act and her jokes always fall flat, which I’m not sure was her as much as the script. At least with Jane Levy, who is also terrible, her character is at least different enough from her tv show so you get something. Everyone else is terrible and the movie is as well. 

Trivia: This was Gossip Girl’s creator Josh Schwartz’s first film. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A mysterious stranger terrorizes a family, that is full of it’s own dark secrets.  
Review: I will say I was totally drawn in by the poster. I mean look at it, that thing is bad ass! But the movie is not so much. It’s a cool idea. A serial killer essentially has to fight another serial killer. The problem is it’s executed like garbage! The movie suffers from thinking it’s smarter than it is. Like they try to hold off who the serial killer in the family is but it’s so obvious that when the reveal comes you are just kind of like “no shit.” Also everyone acts like a dumb ass. At no point do characters make smart choices and they are made bored. This was a waste of time. 
Trivia:  Seriously, the poster was amazing. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A mysterious stranger terrorizes a family, that is full of it’s own dark secrets.  

Review: I will say I was totally drawn in by the poster. I mean look at it, that thing is bad ass! But the movie is not so much. It’s a cool idea. A serial killer essentially has to fight another serial killer. The problem is it’s executed like garbage! The movie suffers from thinking it’s smarter than it is. Like they try to hold off who the serial killer in the family is but it’s so obvious that when the reveal comes you are just kind of like “no shit.” Also everyone acts like a dumb ass. At no point do characters make smart choices and they are made bored. This was a waste of time. 

Trivia:  Seriously, the poster was amazing. 

movieisaw:

This week I will hopefully be looking at Parker, Now you See me, Broken City, and Fun Size but this may change! 

movieisaw:

Plot: Three sisters (Zooey Deschanel, Elizabeth Banks, Emily Mortimer) must deal with their overly joyous optimistic borther (Paul Rudd.)  
Review: This movie shouldn’t work as well as it does. And the main reason it works is because of the charm of the cast, especially Paul Rudd. Basically the story is that the sisters are each self absorbed or oblivious for one reason or another and they are each forced to take care of their brother after being put on parole for selling a joint to a cop. So the movie is pretty much a series of vignettes and each has it’s own short comings and strengths. 
First up is Emily Mortimer’s. She is married to Steve Coogan, a documentary filmmaker who is having an affair while showing no interested in the once beautiful Mortimer (not that’s she’s not beautiful but the story seems to think so.) Paul helps Coogan on the film until he finds out about the affair and is rushed away. This has the most interesting premise but also suffers the most from the brother. Mortimer’s character is so interesting that Rudd seems more of a distraction and it ends too quickly. 
Next is Banks, who is so focused on her career, she can’t see that she is in love with her best friend played by Adam Scott. This is the least engaging of the stories and ends pretty quickly. It’s also here where the story starts to lag and it’s mostly due to the actions because the characters are all entertaining. 
Finally Zooey is a once promiscuous bisexual who has decided to settle down with her lover, Rashida Jones. But out of fear, she sleeps with a man and gets pregnant. This one should be the most forced but it’s actually the best story. Mostly due to the chemistry between Rudd and Zooey and by making Jones a real interesting character. It’s the most fun and I would have been okay if they just followed these three together. 
If it sounds like they just inserted Paul Rudd’s character into different romantic comedies, it’s because they kind of did. It works on certain level but it’s mostly superficial. If it was trying to say something about the tropes, I don’t know what it was and if it was trying to be realistic and sincere, it fails miserably.  Overall the story is nothing to write about but the characters are worth a watch. 
Trivia:  Paul Rudd has played the love interest of two of his “sisters.” 

movieisaw:

Plot: Three sisters (Zooey Deschanel, Elizabeth Banks, Emily Mortimer) must deal with their overly joyous optimistic borther (Paul Rudd.)  

Review: This movie shouldn’t work as well as it does. And the main reason it works is because of the charm of the cast, especially Paul Rudd. Basically the story is that the sisters are each self absorbed or oblivious for one reason or another and they are each forced to take care of their brother after being put on parole for selling a joint to a cop. So the movie is pretty much a series of vignettes and each has it’s own short comings and strengths. 

First up is Emily Mortimer’s. She is married to Steve Coogan, a documentary filmmaker who is having an affair while showing no interested in the once beautiful Mortimer (not that’s she’s not beautiful but the story seems to think so.) Paul helps Coogan on the film until he finds out about the affair and is rushed away. This has the most interesting premise but also suffers the most from the brother. Mortimer’s character is so interesting that Rudd seems more of a distraction and it ends too quickly. 

Next is Banks, who is so focused on her career, she can’t see that she is in love with her best friend played by Adam Scott. This is the least engaging of the stories and ends pretty quickly. It’s also here where the story starts to lag and it’s mostly due to the actions because the characters are all entertaining. 

Finally Zooey is a once promiscuous bisexual who has decided to settle down with her lover, Rashida Jones. But out of fear, she sleeps with a man and gets pregnant. This one should be the most forced but it’s actually the best story. Mostly due to the chemistry between Rudd and Zooey and by making Jones a real interesting character. It’s the most fun and I would have been okay if they just followed these three together. 

If it sounds like they just inserted Paul Rudd’s character into different romantic comedies, it’s because they kind of did. It works on certain level but it’s mostly superficial. If it was trying to say something about the tropes, I don’t know what it was and if it was trying to be realistic and sincere, it fails miserably.  Overall the story is nothing to write about but the characters are worth a watch. 

Trivia:  Paul Rudd has played the love interest of two of his “sisters.” 

movieisaw:

Plot: The secret tale of what happened to the apollo 18 space mission.  
Review: All in all this movie isn’t the worst in the world. It’s bland, has some jump scares and isn’t super long, getting to the point right away. The problem of course is that the film could have been great. It was a found footage film where you could justify the weird edits and jumps in the footage as it was coming from the moon. They could go a million ways with it. They could make it a cabin fever, astronaut goes crazy, or an alien film, which is what we got. Now again we could have had a great story.  Even with what we are given (some of the moon rocks are actually rock-like aliens that can possess people) we could have been given a good movie. 
The problem is that the characters are so boring! They aren’t even a bit different or worth the time. The problem being of course if they have to carry the whole film, it doesn’t work and you get bored really fast. They just have nothing and it makes you really uninterested so by the time the aliens attack you don’t care anymore about the characters or story. Which is the worst thing about it. 
Trivia:  Was marketed as a true story.  

movieisaw:

Plot: The secret tale of what happened to the apollo 18 space mission.  

Review: All in all this movie isn’t the worst in the world. It’s bland, has some jump scares and isn’t super long, getting to the point right away. The problem of course is that the film could have been great. It was a found footage film where you could justify the weird edits and jumps in the footage as it was coming from the moon. They could go a million ways with it. They could make it a cabin fever, astronaut goes crazy, or an alien film, which is what we got. Now again we could have had a great story.  Even with what we are given (some of the moon rocks are actually rock-like aliens that can possess people) we could have been given a good movie. 

The problem is that the characters are so boring! They aren’t even a bit different or worth the time. The problem being of course if they have to carry the whole film, it doesn’t work and you get bored really fast. They just have nothing and it makes you really uninterested so by the time the aliens attack you don’t care anymore about the characters or story. Which is the worst thing about it. 

Trivia:  Was marketed as a true story.  

movieisaw:

Plot: A group of friends find themselves at odds with some ex-soldiers after one of the soldiers tries to rape one of them. Directed by Katie Aselton.  
Review: I’m actually really glad I saw this film. You see I tried to watch Lola Versus this week but it was so terrible, I had to shut it off. But I had something I wanted to say about it but couldn’t get through it and I never review films if I don’t finish them. But luckily I had the same complaint with Black Rock! Awesome.
You see like Lola Versus was a film that was trying to be a different kind of break-up film but ended up falling on all the old tropes and cliches of romantic comedies to tell it’s story. The fact that it’s striving for a more realistic tone makes me more critical to the film and also makes the film harder to believe or get sucked into. The actions should feel real but come off like jeans with holes in them. They are trying to look worn in and earned but are really just a shallow husk. This can also be applied to Black Rock. 
Going into Black Rock, I had hoped that it would tell a more progressive thriller being directed and starring women or at the very least an interesting take on one. Instead we get cliched characters, wooden dialogue and the same old tropes that we have seen since deliverance. The villains are bland characters that manages to mix the “crazy vets” trope with the “crazy hunter trope” into a lifeless fusion. Now it may be unfair for me to judge the film for just being a generic thriller but really if you are going to make an indie film and do something outside of the system (especially after the success of The Freebie and the Duplass Brothers) why go for such a bland route?
And not only that but the characters are very interesting. They are distinct and different and well-written… until the terror starts. Then they lose all characteristics and become nothing more than stereotypical woman. (Spoilers) At one point, one of the females is killed because she was complaining too much. At this point, I started to really think about whether this was supposed to be a send up of past thrillers and the misogyny of horror films, (which would have been more interesting.) But sadly, it’s just the product of lazy writing. If only the film hadn’t tried to be a thriller or tried for something new and fresh, it could have been worth watching.
But at the end Black Rock is just a bland thriller that appears like it has something to say but doesn’t. 
Trivia:  The cast stayed in one house for the entirety of the shoot. 

movieisaw:

Plot: A group of friends find themselves at odds with some ex-soldiers after one of the soldiers tries to rape one of them. Directed by Katie Aselton.  

Review: I’m actually really glad I saw this film. You see I tried to watch Lola Versus this week but it was so terrible, I had to shut it off. But I had something I wanted to say about it but couldn’t get through it and I never review films if I don’t finish them. But luckily I had the same complaint with Black Rock! Awesome.

You see like Lola Versus was a film that was trying to be a different kind of break-up film but ended up falling on all the old tropes and cliches of romantic comedies to tell it’s story. The fact that it’s striving for a more realistic tone makes me more critical to the film and also makes the film harder to believe or get sucked into. The actions should feel real but come off like jeans with holes in them. They are trying to look worn in and earned but are really just a shallow husk. This can also be applied to Black Rock. 

Going into Black Rock, I had hoped that it would tell a more progressive thriller being directed and starring women or at the very least an interesting take on one. Instead we get cliched characters, wooden dialogue and the same old tropes that we have seen since deliverance. The villains are bland characters that manages to mix the “crazy vets” trope with the “crazy hunter trope” into a lifeless fusion. Now it may be unfair for me to judge the film for just being a generic thriller but really if you are going to make an indie film and do something outside of the system (especially after the success of The Freebie and the Duplass Brothers) why go for such a bland route?

And not only that but the characters are very interesting. They are distinct and different and well-written… until the terror starts. Then they lose all characteristics and become nothing more than stereotypical woman. (Spoilers) At one point, one of the females is killed because she was complaining too much. At this point, I started to really think about whether this was supposed to be a send up of past thrillers and the misogyny of horror films, (which would have been more interesting.) But sadly, it’s just the product of lazy writing. If only the film hadn’t tried to be a thriller or tried for something new and fresh, it could have been worth watching.

But at the end Black Rock is just a bland thriller that appears like it has something to say but doesn’t. 

Trivia:  The cast stayed in one house for the entirety of the shoot.