It’s rather dishonest, or else dumb, for Wyatt Weed, who wrote and directed, and therefore cannot blame anyone else, to name his sleazy, violent little movie, "Shadowland," when 16 years ago, the esteemed English director, Richard Attenborough, used Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger in the almost-identically named "Shadowlands," a sort-of biography of Irish-English author C. S. Lewis and his wife, the American poet Joy Gresham.
The only connection between the two is that the actors speak English.
Shot in and around St. Charles and other familiar locations, with St. Louisan Jason Contini and Washington, Mo., native Caitlin McIntosh as the lead characters, the movie is a standard slice-and-dice, pour the blood yarn. Those who really like violence and bodies coming out of graves will undoubtedly be fixated.
At the Tivoli.
-Joe
Comments
10 responses
Joe,
Well hip-hip-hooray for elitist snobbery. You apparently have no taste for horror films at all but must you display your ignorance of them so blatantly? Did you even see this film? There is very little blood and nothing I would consider “gore” at all (and I’m not a gore fan myself). You are clearly more concerned in meeting a deadline by negligently reciting some reference to a totally unrelated stodgy chestnut from the past ( even your one-line description could cure insomnia) than doing any research. The director’s name is Wyatt, not Wayne. Next time, at least approximate your job description and actually view the movie.
Thanks for catching the typo in the name. Sorry you don’t agree, but then, that’s why there are horse races and elections.
Hey Steve, thanks for the support. Overall, I’m really not shocked that the Post has offered no love thus far, but what are you gonna do? You raise your kids, you send them into the world, but some people will not like them. I will say that the title”Shadowland” refers to things in the film, and that there is no sensible way, even at my sleaziest, that I would try to cash in on C.S. Lewis. By my count, there are a half-dozen prominent references in the media to Shadowland, from rock bands to role-playing games. Honestly, someone else offered me that title, and I loved it. It has never been called anything else. But wouldn’t it be great if about one million people foolishly thought it starred the now retired Winger, and despite the vampires on the cover thought it was based on C.S. Lewis, and rented it anyway?!? I could put my kid through college with that kind of deception! Brilliant!
With all due respect, I do not believe we saw the same film. In all honesty, Shadowland is not perfect, but it also holds no similarity to the blurp you have written about the film. Shadowland is a movie about second chances, that just happens to have vampires. For all intensive purposes, Shadowland is a remarkable achievement given what Wyatt and the rest of the cast and crew had to work with here in Saint Louis and after seeing the film twice, I still enjoy it just as much. As for your claim to blood and violence, I’ve seen more blood and violence in Disney movies. Wyatt’s intention was not to make a gorefest, but to tell an engaging story. Congratulations Wyatt, you’ve succeeded at two things… a good movie and proving not all film critics no what the heck they’re talking about.
P.S. – Why the heck would you bring up Attenborough’s Shadowlands? The two films have nothing to do with each other. Are you unaware that other unrelated films have shared titles, without being remakes?
“the movie is a standard slice-and-dice, pour the blood yarn” . . .
I agree with Steve and T. Joe didn’t see this film. If he had, he might have found other things to criticize about it, but his general assessment is so far off par that anyone who’s seen the film wouldn’t recognize it. That’s kind of dishonest in and of itself because it doesn’t play fair with the audience that has yet to see it and form its own opinion. The film wasn’t sleazy and violent at all – in fact, quite the opposite. The worst the violence got was the scene at the very beginning when the pastor “kills” the vampire. As for the vampire’s violence, the worst occurs when she bites Hess, the vampire hunter who’s after her. Her bouts with all the police officers merely end in her knocking them over. As for sleaze, there’s no real nudity – sure, a side-swell shot of the vampire’s breast as she beats on a bathroom door to let someone know she’s in there, but nothing like what one might find in, say, The Reader (where a 15-year-old boy is seduced by an older woman) or other Academy Award winning films. Laura, the vampire, is accosted twice by men she has to fight off – the first is the pastor, and the second is the homeless man. The only person she is shown kissing in the whole film is the seducer who turns her into a vampire, and even that isn’t salacious.
So, from a Catholic seminary professor who specializes in media studies (that’s me), I can assure Joe’s reading audience that Joe is way off on this one. I bet Wyatt would, if asked, give him a free ticket to actually watch the film and write a more realistic review. If Joe still slams it, at least he’ll be able to do so with some credibility in actually citing instances of poor acting or cheesy dialogue or bad plot twists – but he’d have to find them first, and then explain why they’re bad.
Go for it, Joe. Restore our confidence in you because you really lost it with this slipshid review.
Stick to food.
I’m trying to find the “Slice and Dice” in this flick. I can see where they COULD have gone there – It has some vampire lore after all – but didn’t. Where is it?
Sleazy? Where? again Mr. Weed COULD have gone there, but wouldn’t serve the STORY.
Shadowland – Shadowlands Almost Identical??? Only IN NAME, nothing else.
Besides, if you want to see Debra Winger in a “violent movie” go see “Black Widow.” SIR Richard Attenborough was in “Jurassic Park” – fair amount of blood in that, eh? and SIR Anthony Hopkins – Do I need to say what movies HE’S been in?
Shadowland is more story driven than any ‘Slice and Dice – pour the blood yarn’ I’ve seen.
And, yes, I SAW IT.
Well Joe, I’v followed shadowland for some time now and where as its not a big hoolywood production, I still belive it to be a great indy film, and all my friends agree and we intend to see it again. We love the fact that it isn’t a prissy vampire story, and it’s down right awesome that it’s based in the greater St. Louis area. If the movie is so bad Joe then why was it held over another week? For what they had and how they did it it’s a great film.
To Joe Pollack,
I find myself here, in front of my computer screen, wanting to type all manner of insulting words and phrases towards you and your lazy “review” of the film Shadowland. It’s hard for me not to be insulted by your half handed research! The fact that you call it a “standard slice and dice, pour the blood yarn” proves to me and all others that have seen this film that you, sir, have not seen one frame of film in the theater!!!!!
A few questions popped into my head while reading your shotty review: Why would he bring up Attenborough’s almost 20 year old film? Why name drop Hopkins and Winger? Why mention Shadowlands a all? At first, I thought it was because you were a C.S. Lewis fan and wanted your readers to be upset at the fact a “vampire movie” shared a similar name to, in your mind, a great film. But when I gave it a little more thought, I came to the real answer…..you like to Google!!!
For the sake of your readers, if you don’t have the time to SEE a movie, don’t REVIEW the movie! If you had taken the time to just watch the first half hour, I’m confident that you wouldn’t have called Mr. Weed’s film a “sleazy, violent little movie”. It’s great to have an opinion, but when your opinion is based off of nothing, you just make yourself look like a fool.
Nicholas J. Hearne
Gotta say, Joe. What?!
You clearly didn’t even see this movie, but looked at the cover art on the DVD box or the poster and decided to run your review from that standpoint. This movie is incredibly story-driven, something you’d know if you even tried watching it. Half of your review is taking your sweet time criticizing the title of the film. You even do this in a round-about way, but, even so, the last thing you should be critiquing a movie for is the title, especially one as ambiguous as ‘Shadowlands.’
Nothing you claim in your two-sentence review of this film is even in the movie. It’s pretty sad when the comments left about your review are all, exponentially longer than your actual review. Put some thought into it, man. Take some time to give an honest opinion, and, for God’s sake, watch the movie first. You know, you didn’t have to put up a review for this movie. It would have been okay to tell Wyatt that you didn’t have time in your busy schedule to watch his movie. I’m sure he would have much preferred that to the nonsensical, unreasonable, indolent, and wholly unfair thrashing you gave this movie.