Random thoughts



The Substream's Film Lab

Home » Reviews

P2: The Review. (A thousand times more interesting than the film)

Submitted by on May 3, 2008 – 11:13 am2 Comments

Okay, so my hand is being forced with this one. This review was intended to be the in the next (much delayed) “weekly video”. Instead though, a certain person: (you know who you are) has insisted since it is Saturday and he has his girlfriend down visiting, it would be a “good idea” to go and watch the film P2. No no no no no… I refuse to let this happen. Not on my watch people!

As I sit here with 6 pages worth of comments on the film, I ask myself why anyone would want to see this. I for one felt a need to so I could be a professional and review a good range of genres. However, the marketing campaign surrounding this film has focussed on one thing: Rachel Nichols’ cleavage. This tells me that the type of people watching this film, would find Rachel Nichols‘ gravity defying cleavage enhancing tight wet dress “really cool”. I am speaking of course of teenagers…specifically boys. Oh yes its target demographic is legally not able to watch this film. This is the movie’s first mistake.

Its second mistake is that of casting. The lead actors, (Rachel Nichols and Wes Bentley) are horribly miscast. These people make Bill Gates seem full of character. They are so bad it’s painful and not so bad that its . It is not funny…at all.. Nichols seems to have been signed up for her willingness to run around a car park set in a dress which progressively gets more every second it is on screen. This is not a . Halfway through the film, I felt like I should have brought some man-size tissues with me. This film tries to sexualise the characters who really do not deserve it. I mean, it is like going to see a soft pornography film with two uglys as the leads chasing each other for 90 minutes but ultimately getting nowhere. Thomas (played by Bentley) is so badly cast its painful. The director went for calm-scary as opposed to angry-scary and failed…badly. Hannibal Lecter was an example of calm-scary. This character scared the willies out of you and he rarely was violent (in silence of the lambs). The scariest thing about Bentley’s performance was just that: his performance. His piece of resistance is when, sitting in a car with a tied up Nichols shouting “Don’t call me THOMAS”! Wow, some really good dialogue then. For some reason, the writers thought that the bad guy (Bentley) should show more emotion than the prospective victim (Nichols). In my book, Keanu Reeves holds the title for “Mr Wooden” in my family and yet Nichols has come very very close. She seems unable to portray any emotion other than fear and she doesn’t do that well.

The third mistake is that of realism. Okay, so we are not going to argue this for every film. After all, is it every day that a man becomes angry then swells up to disproportionate sizes, turns green whilst keeping his very flexible trousers on. However, for a horror to truly work there needs to be certain guidelines. Firstly the bad guy needs to be scary..nope. I am not an angry person, but I have been known to be scarier arguing issues like the of the speed-of-light barrier (and how it can be broken). Secondly, the victim needs to be scared. Nope. Thirdly, the victim must use all their wiles to get out of the clutches of the bad guy. Nope. There was a scene in the film where the “nasty” Thomas gives the victim the phone and says “call your family”. At that point, besides chaining her to the table and saying things like “I’m very lonely” he has done nothing scary at all. So, instead of screaming for help down the phone to her family, she just says she’s ill. Good one. Let’s be honest, if she did then this film would have ended a lot sooner and perhaps I may not have hated it so much. Instead, she runs off, he catches her, she escapes again, she finds a good spot to hide, he gives up then she comes back to the office to use the phone (of all things).

I knew how this film was going to end. In fact, despite you thinking I’ve given you spoilers, I imagine you will know as well. Let’s test this hypothesis shall we? Okay. So take a look at the poster of P2. Tell them it is about a woman trapped in a car park. It claims to be a horror. Tell this to your friends and see if they can come up with a story to encompass all of these things. It is a sure thing that they will come up with a more interesting storyline than these guys.

Admittedly, there were some good scenes in it..sort of.. However, just as it gets interesting, the director (or somebody) must have realised that they haven’t shown enough cleavage in the preceding ten minutes and decide to get Nichols wet. Yeah. Good idea. Just in case you were watching the film for its storyline, the camera focuses on the victims, heaving, cleavage-enhanced (due to being handcuffed behind her back), WET dress. Oh yes. The dress becomes nearly transparent throughout the film just as it gets slightly more interesting. Why did they do that? Were they worried about turning into a “real film”?

The fourth mistake is classifying it as a horror/thriller..It is neither. A horror is supposed to make you scared. A thriller is supposed to make you thrilled. A is supposed to make you laugh etc. This did nothing. I have not felt so little about something since watching the sequel to the Care Bears movie (as a child people). In fact, I lie. I do feel a lot about this film. I hate it with a . I hate it so much that I have become suddenly scarier and full of emotion (unlike its main characters). Quick someone get a camera! All we need now is a dress, a decent bosom and lots of water…

No rating I’m afraid due to when I recall, all I can think about fis how much of my life has been wasted.

So I shout this out to my friend today as say: if you have an ounce of respect for my views please do not go and see it. I will be personally offended if you do..and I’ll come and give you a slap.

Comments are closed.