One of the best films i have seen

Let's be realistic.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

This movie is exactly what you expect- a young girl alone on an island and creepy things happen as she has to survive for a few days to prove that she has what it takes to be a camp counselor. But, saying that, it is not a bad effort. I have seen hundreds of thriller/horror movies in my time and this is not as bad as others would tell you. Yes, some of it has been recycled and yes, there isn't much new or original here but there was something about the lead character, Gillian that I liked and I was appalled at some people commenting on her body size. What does that have to do with anything? It is a decent effort. It won't scare the life out of you, but there are some good twists and turns that you might be able to see coming. I am not going to give anything away, but I would give it a chance.It is worth a look.http://jigsawslair.blogspot.ie/

We've all seen it before: the summer camp; the pretty girl; the creepy island; the even creepier locals. So we all know what to expect. At least, we think we do...This clever little movie has a retro 1980s feel which sets up our expectations for a typical teen slasher flick. But 'Solo' rewards patient viewers with a more intelligent story.Instead of the traditional 'smart people doing dumb things and consequently dying' formula we get a smart heroine who does smart things and still gets caught by the bad guy through no fault of her own.The delicious Canadian actress Annie Clark stars in a role better suited to Georgie Ryder, yet succeeds in making it her own.It must be admitted that the appeal of this film is primarily found in the lingering shots of Annie's youthful figure--and believe me when I say there are plenty of them.Annie has that classic 'girl next door' look, and enjoys plenty of screen time from all the right angles.Here a slow tracking shot across her pert bottom; there a closeup of her youthful bosoms rising and falling hypnotically as she gasps for breath in a thrilling action scene. It's a glorious sight for anyone bored to tears by the endless parade of flat chested anorexic girls who tend to dominate this genre.Being a Canadian production the budget was modest (as evidenced in a number of scenes and the poor colour balance). Yet it suits the retro look of the film, so the wobbly camera-work and cut price sets (including several plastic trees and a foam rubber rock) never seem out of place.Trivia: the island itself was built by a local company and towed to the middle of Carl Jensen's private lake. It's actually two thirds smaller than it's supposed to be in the story, but the clever use of camera angles and long shots prevents viewers from realising this fact.I rate 'Solo' at 19.98 on the Haglee Scale, which converts to a solid 6/10 on IMDb.

This movie is way better than the one I previously reviewed, it at least knows how to execute the jumpy scenes fairly and will, at some point give you a slight thrill.The story plot may appear a bit common for people who loves the genre but most may agree that such stories doesn't easily get old specially if the direction is "at least" good. The music and camera shots are okay. (not super great but okay)The actors are also able to give justice to their characters and was able to give the convincing feel that they are actually involved in the scenes. In short, the movie is good enough for me to not give it a super flopping score. So if you can't think of something else better to do, I definitely recommend this movie to keep you busy.

Spoiler AlertThe music by composer Todor Kobakov is probably the best part of this movie and for budget fare, is quite good. The main actress (character is more apt because there is little acting here.) Nancy Clark is a teen possessed by demons of her dead sister. Oh my. Instead of therapy, let's go to a creepy camp as a counselor and willingly accept isolation on an island with a ghost? The movie is highly derivative but how can one not be in this genre? The acting is minimal and every actor accents the creepiness factor with little result. The camp director is more creepy than the exiled counselor/murderer. Richard Clarkin as "Fred" so overacts and mugs his scenes that it's almost comic. Maybe that's how he prepared for his wooden performance. He gets bonked on the head and dies where everyone else who gets bonked survives somehow. Oh Boy. The credits list a therapist (This person never appears in the movie.) and I have a feeling that the therapist was there for the actors coming to grips with minimal direction and guilt from mugging. Supposedly this Gillian (Clark) is forced, as some kind of camp hazing, to spend the night alone on an island. She's rarely alone on this island and the predictable players appear right on cue. She's damaged goods having been the cause of her sisters demise some years earlier in a pool drowning. But even with cutaway scenes, this part of the plot goes nowhere. Either does this movie. Productions values are high but I would find a better writer. Isaac Cravit creates some decent shots and there are some interesting camera angles but the writing, UGH! It's horrible and none of the elements presented in the exposition are worked out. Instead, we get new one as if we will be surprised. This is a major flaw and I mean major. When scenes are supposed to be suspenseful, you find your self thinking WTF? That could have been handled a lot better. I don't think a suspense movie is supposed to create the suspense for the next missed story or cinematic idea, We all know these movies are based on supposedly smart people doing stupid things and this movie is no exception. But here we have a stupid writer/director who got lost in his own brilliance or lack thereof. Also, his timing is off. some scenes end and but the shot continues. Others never find an overall rhythm . The editor, Adam Locke-Norton must have been pulling his hair out and arguing constantly to shorten some of the takes. Alas, he lost the arguments.