“Hell”
Year: 2012
Director: Tim Fehlbaum
Stars: Hanna Herzsprung, Stipe Erceg, Lisa Vicari
Studio: Arc Entertainment
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 89 Mins

Even though I liked “The Divide” and “Stake Land, the post-apocalyptic genre isn’t one of my favorite types of subgenre. I was really going into this film thinking that this is going to be a very awful film, but was curious anyway. Thankfully my curiosity turned me on to “Hell”.

The film follows Marie, a young woman who’s traveling with her young sister Leonie and her companion Phillip through the ruins of a scorched earth. They are heading to the mountains, where there it is rumored to contain one of the last sources of water. On the way, they meet a mechanic who joins them in their search. But can they trust him, as he might have his own plans. The situation gets worse, when they’re ambushed, by a group of people. This leads them to fight for their own survival.

I had doubts going into “Hell”, since it was being produced by Roland Emmerich. Yes, the same man behind awful films like “Godzilla” and “2012”. But I was surprised that those doubts were put to rest in the first half hour of the film.

Director and co-writer Tim Fehlbaum does very job keeping the tone of the film very dark and intense. He’s able to do that, by making the way that he makes the film’s shots have an apocalyptic feel and look to it. Some of the shots were very dark and gloomy. It was needed, so you buy into the fact that the world has in fact gone to hell. If the shots didn’t look that way, it would’ve been tough to believe the story. The other thing that makes his direction good, he’s able to get the performances to fit the film’s tone perfectly. Fehlbaum does a very good job getting the actors to put a lot of energy into their characters, while not turning you off with the film’s very dark tone. It makes the film move at a good pace and doesn’t make you turn the film off.

Post apocalyptic dramas usually never work well for me. They tend to be very boring, but there are exceptions like this film. The screenplay written by Fehlbaum, Oliver Kahl and Thomas Wobke does a very good job making the story very dark. One of the things that I liked about the screenplay, it did a very good job setting up and building towards the action sequences. I like it, when the film’s screenplay doesn’t rush into an action sequence. The story takes its time and allows the focus to be on its characters and the dark scenery, which is quite evident throughout the whole film. When that’s effective, it allows for you to be interested in the conflict.

Honestly, I was very surprised with this film. I truly thought that this was going to be a “Screener from Hell”. “Hell” does a very good job developing the story, while not letting you feel bored. It’s proves the point on how to make an effective film of this nature work. When you have characters that caught in a conflict and the setups keeps you interested, the end result is a film that never drags and keeps your attention.
Review Rating: Four Stars

Arc Entertainment has send us information that they've are going distributed the Roland Emmerich produced film "Hell". The film is directed by Tim Fehlbaum and stars Hannah Herzsprung, Lars Eidinger, Stipe Erceg, Lisa Vicari, Angela Winkler. Roland Emmerich's "Hell" hits VOD on July 10th and DVD on August 21st. No special features for the DVD have been announced at this time.

For more information on this film, you can visit the film's official Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/HELL.der.Film


Plot Synopsis:

It was once the source of life, light and warmth. But now the sun has turned the entire world into baked and barren wasteland. Forests are scorched. Animal carcasses line the roads. Even the nights are dazzling bright. Marie (HANNAH HERZSPRUNG), her little sister Leonie (LISA VICARI) and Phillip (LARS EIDINGER) are heading for the mountains in a car with covered windows. Rumor has it there is still water there. Along the way they run into Tom (STIPE ERCEG), a first-rate mechanic that becomes indispensible. But can they trust him? Tension grows in the small group. As if things weren't bad enough, they are lured into an ambush. Their real battle for survival begins.

Columbia Pictures recently released the official trailer and stills for Roland Emmerich's upcoming film "Anonymous". This film feels like it has the necessary elements that would make it an Oscar contender. Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson, David Thewlis, Xavier Samuel, and Derek Jacob stars in this film. "Anonymous" is playing at this year's Toronto International Film Festival and will be hitting theaters in the US on October 28th.

For more information on this film, you can visit the film's official website at: http://www.anonymous-movie.com/

Plot Synopsis:

Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, Anonymous speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds ranging from Mark Twain and Charles Dickens to Henry James and Sigmund Freud, namely: who was the author of the plays credited to William Shakespeare? Experts have debated, books have been written, and scholars have devoted their lives to protecting or debunking theories surrounding the authorship of the most renowned works in English literature. Anonymous poses one possible answer, focusing on a time when cloak-and-dagger political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court, and the schemes of greedy nobles hungry for the power of the throne were exposed in the most unlikely of places: the London stage.

Upcoming Screenings:

Sunday September 11th
Visa Screening Room (Elgin)
9:00pm
Toronto, Canada

Monday September 12th
Winter Garden Theatre
4:30pm
Toronto, Canada

Saturday September 17th
Scotiabank Theatre 2
11:45am
Toronto, Canada





"Anonymous": Official Trailer

So I’m in the theatre seeing who knows what with my better half. We watch the previews and turn to each other after each one is over and give the one look critique in silence. You know, that head shake or whatever to determine if this is one she sees with me or one I am on my own for. The first time I see the trailer for 10,000 B.C. I have to admit I was interested. It looked pretty decent. I turn to her shaking my head yes and am met with a blank stare and the following statement; “Are you kidding me? Aren’t you a movie critic?”

Touché.

I sign up to review the movie and literally that night saw the trailer again in front of something else. Once again I thought it looked decent. Then I started thinking. Where is the dialogue? What is the story about? Wait, why did I think this was going to be good after hearing again who made it?

Dear God, what have I done.

One things for sure, no one ever accused Roland Emmerich of being a master craftsman. His previous attempts to direct have yielded exactly one and three fourths of a half decent movie – Independence Day, The Patriot, and Stargate. I can’t decide which movie makes up which percent, but I’m sticking to my figures.

Movies involving history or past events that are alleged to have taken place are tricky business. People making these movies typically try to stick to the facts as much as possible and interject the story with life where they see fit to make the story flow. Fair enough, I say. I imagine the idea of a movie like 10,000 B.C., in its infancy, was designed to tell a story focused not so much on fact, but rather an interesting setting. Again, fair enough.

There are just far too many things to attack with a movie this bad. The story itself is a garden variety prehistoric odyssey with no heart. And I may have been schooled in the butt crack of the Midwest but even I know English wasn’t the native tongue ten thousand years ago. In an interview with Emmerich he said he decided to use English in the movie because he felt using an ancient language wouldn’t have been as emotionally engaging. He went on to say that faced with the dilemma of forcing the audience to read subtitles of a language they didn’t understand and look at what was on screen, he opted for the latter. Hearing this made me immediately assume that what we were being forced to look at would have overcompensated for the lack of story. Aside from a couple scenes in the movie, it did not.

It’s hard to say if the movie is meant to be a history lesson of any kind. If it is, then it is grossly irresponsible. I thought it less of a lesson in history rather than one of economics; the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of good and services. It is bad economics to make a movie of this size and spend all the money in the budget on a handful of scenes. Emmerich is known for doing this and why he keeps being allowed to do so without producing a decent picture is beyond me. The lesson here is that if you don’t want to see it then don’t go and you win, right? Well this may be true to a point but look at it like this: A studio spends umpteen million dollars to make a pile of a movie like this then is forced to oversaturated the market with its product. This means you get sixteen showings a day of 10,000 B.C. at your local theatre while movies that cost less to make, and therefore loss less if they make less, get pulled early or not ran at all. So even if you don’t go see movies like this, you still lose.

I guess they’re right; there IS no such thing as a free lunch.

And there’s the rub

* out of ****