Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

hannahhill93 I am a huge fan of Forest Whitaker and given the right script he excels at playing the villain, however I do not believe that this script was right for him. The movie for me, was extremely slow moving right up until the last 15 minutes. I also felt the ending was rushed and left no explanation of why exactly this particular experiment had taken place or why it was allowed to continue so long after breaking the rules given by the scientists. This being said if you enjoy films that aren't overly thought provoking with over the top violence, you won't lose anything by watching this. For this film to rate higher for me I would have enjoyed a little more depth into the psychological meaning and exactly why certain characters personalities changed almost immediately within a prison environment. Also to have the characters backgrounds explored a little more as the only actor I really felt for was the comic geek.

demo_derby_55 I thought this was a alright movie actually. I have just watched it again in fact. you have 2 main actors Adrian which is a prisoner and Forest which is a guard. they started out as friends in the beginning but turned enemies cause one got put on the guard side and the other a prisoner. Forest turned into the leader of the guards and Adrian the leader of the prisoners. I would have to say there was a couple weird spots where Forest pee's on Adrian and stuffs his head in the toilet but other then that the acting was great and I would have to say it was way better then the original. Thanks

Film Watchin Fool Watch this if...you enjoy psychological thrillers, but don't expect this to blow you away. It is very run of the mill for this genre.Acting/Casting: 6.5* - Brody and Whitaker don't disappoint in the lead protagonist and antagonist roles. The supporting cast also gives a pretty solid performance and this is the strongest area of the film.Directing/Cinematography/Technical: 5.5* - This is a well put together film, but does seem to have some spots that are a little slow. I also felt the ending was a bit abrupt, which took away from the movie overall.Plot/Characters: 5* - A group of research participants are put in a prison and split into groups of guards and prisoners. They are told to obey certain rules or no one will be paid. However, the envelope is pushed leading to extreme circumstances and the situation eventually comes to a head. The premise is intriguing, but I was hoping for more after watching it.Entertainment Value: 6* - I enjoyed the movie, but I guess I went into it with some high expectations. It isn't a must-see movie, but might be worth checking out if you see it while flipping through the channels on TV.My Score: 6.5+5.5+5+6 = 23/4 = 5.75Email your thoughts to filmwatchinfool@gmail.com

chaos-rampant This flubs in a big way the point of the original 1960's Stanford experiment of observed situational identity. So what, you will say. This is the American remake of the German film adapted from a book. It makes for an awful movie is what. The point Zimbardo was trying to illustrate, was that if the images and experience you surround people with have some persuasive force, they will readily adapt to their part in the narrative. It is an exercise of deeply cinematic interest, next to other things. Kuleshov's Effect.To make his case, Zimbardo selected only the most psychologically sound candidates. The point was that self is fluid and anyone can change. In the American remake, you have a religious 43year-old man who lives with his mother, a binge-drinking womanizer, a homosexual, a neo-nazi ex-con.Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with being overly religious or a homosexual, yet the film subtly insinuates, by selectively focusing attention on the fact, that there might be, and that it can be cause for friction and violence.The religious guy turns out to be the most abusive, hoping to please an unseen 'omniscient' father behind the camera. The pacifist leads the resistance and is revealed to be an animal no less violent than anyone else. It's lame and predictable, the whole thing a cheap and tawdry excuse for psychological abuse.You get stock reversals and conflict instead of really fluid self. And you will know this is entirely made from cliché, by noting the pacifist's girlfriend awaits him somewhere in India to pursue together spiritual peace and enlightenment in some ashram.Read up on guys like Satchidananda whose Yogaville involved a lot of similar psychologically abusive moulding of character, because someone here sure as hell didn't. Forest Whitaker is particularly bad as the unhinged warden of this straight-to-video schlock.