Deadrise (2011)

You won't be disappointed!

Touches You

best movie i've ever seen.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There are so many ways people may fritter away excess time. Watching trash television. Trimming ones toenails. Checking up on old rivals on FaceBook. Ridding their refrigerators of green, fuzzy, slimy things. Smoothing out and folding used pieces of tissue paper. Organizing ones music collection alphabetically (or by genre and then alphabetically). Please believe me when I tell you that all of these things are preferable to wasting even a moment of your life watching this movie.The storyline is non-existent. It isn't suspenseful – it is irritating. I spent most of the film waiting for a climax that never happened. The characters have no depth and no redeeming value. The wardrobe is dated and odd (I thought it was impossible to make Renee O'Connor look frumpy but it is apparently achievable). Overall the movie is aesthetically unappealing: poor camera work, halting timing, and terrible direction are at the core of the long list of problems.Deadrise is a case study in what a narcissist who isn't the slightest bit creative or talented may churn out given the time, space and finances to do so. If pumping out garbage like this is what the Michigan film incentive is enabling, then I say do away with it quickly.

Although Rich Brauer can be considered a Michigan filmmaker, DEADRISE will appeal to anyone who likes mysteries, or those with a warped sense of humor. Paula goes through a series of odd events while she is trying to get some rest on-board an out-of-service transport ship, that she is inspecting for the Historic trust. Is Captain Vigs who he says he is? Is Paula really dreaming or is this reality? What is really going on here? These are the questions you'll ask yourself as you watch DEADRISE. Although some may compare this to INCEPTION or another Nolan directed film MOMENTO, it is an original, unique and strangely compelling movie experience. I don't recommend this movie for people who do not like eels or big, spooky ships.

I give it 7 out of 10 not because it was that appealing to me, but because I think it set out trying to be "something", and whatever that "something" is, it did a fairly good job. For my own taste preferences, I'd rate it at maybe a 4 or a 5.It's about a woman called to do a report on an old ship to see if it qualifies for "historical site" status. Once there, a piano falls on her car & she can't leave. She meets creepy caretaker Vigs who's clearly at least mildly retarded (in the technical sense of the term, not the derogatory one). Through a chain of events with unexpected details but easily predictable results, she's forced to stay the night on the ship. She's awakened to some strange noises and then her nightmare begins. She keeps experiencing the strangest encounters with Vigs and an occasional 2nd dude (Semperton, who appears in all of 2 scenes), suddenly finding herself waking up just as the scene reaches a climax. From this point on, you won't know if she's really waking up this time, or if it's another dream sequence beginning.Revealing more than that would be spoiler territory. There are icky scares, startle scares, gotcha' scares and a few others, many involving repeated loops, funky-tasting "sausage" and blood-sucking parasitic eels.It's very difficult to grasp what is -really- happening, here. When it ended, I felt no sense of completion. If you're very attentive to detail and quick of wit, you might be able to get it the first time. But I had to do a second viewing (in parts, that is - skimming through the movie to see if I could find scenes to explain the questions I have). After that, I did finally manage to work out what happened, and can tell you that everything you need to know to put all the pieces together for yourself happens within the first 10-15 minutes. Everything after that seems to flow from the various elements of those first few scenes.I recommend it if you like puzzlers, though it is very slow-paced. It's not "non-stop thrills & chills" by any stretch, but it is non-stop "creepy and ominous". It's also quite likely that you won't quite grasp the full details of events on a first viewing either, which if that's the case, you can probably get all your questions answered by watching just the first few scenes again - everything up to her drive on the way to the ship. If you pay attention to those scenes carefully enough, I think you'll be able to put it all together.That's not for everyone, though - that's more than just watching a movie, that's also solving it.About the only thing I would've really changed (other than perhaps making the opening few clues a bit more noticeable) would be Paula's confusion with the repeating dream sequences. But then again, it was pretty much like a real dream tends to unfold - you wake up and think you're in the real world, only to wake up again. I do this over and over again sometimes, and sometimes, I'll believe I've awakened "for real" every single time, and not be too bothered by the repeated awakenings. So that aspect of it - it would've seemed more logical if that "bothered" her in some way, but yet it technically is more realistic that it didn't.So like I said, not for everyone but engaging for more thoughtful, speculative movie watchers.

I got to see a preview screening of this the other night, as it was filmed locally. The packed audience consisted of many people involved with the production, such as caterers, support crew, and parents of the extras. The movie looked mostly finished, though some sound and editing issues could be cleared up.O'Conner plays Paula, a woman who works for a preservation society, reviewing and researching old buildings and landmarks to determine if they should be named as National Historic sites. Campbell is Vigs, the caretaker of an old ship that has been nominated for such status. Through a series of plot twists, Paula must spend a night on the ship alone with Vigs. Or are they alone?What follows is a series of Paula's bad dreams. We are left to wonder whether she is dreaming or is what's happening reality. We see her waking up startled from a dream at least a dozen times - and after the first few times, where you feel cheated by the feeling of "it was just a dream," the series of dreams get stranger and stranger. The big problem - some of the dreams just go on too long, with labored shots of Paula sloooowly waking down the hallways of the empty ship, peeking in staterooms, and doing the same things over and over. A few of the dreams give some creepy jump-style "gotcha" scares, but most of the tension has no payoff. I saw the ending coming a mile away, and it was not the ending I wanted.O'Connor isn't very noteworthy as Paula (I kept wanting to call her Gabby!), but Larry Joe Campbell's character of Vigs is the one reason to watch the film. His creepy / crazy mannerisms brought consistent laughs from the crowd, and I wish there was some payoff to his character. Unfortunately, there isn't. When he's on screen the film is watchable.Also - the puppy! Not too spoil too much, but an early scene involving a puppy is just wrong, and though it is explained (sort of) later, it puts an air of unbelievability to the rest of the proceedings. As cute as the puppy was, I'd encourage the director to cut it from the film altogether.