Thursday, November 4, 2010

I.C.U. (2009)...and I wish I didn't




I.C.U.
is an Australian horror/thriller import focusing on voyeurism and murder seen from the perspective of personal hand-held and closed-circuit security cameras. The film's description sounded so promising but it never comes close to meeting the premise's potential.

The children of a recently divorced cop and their friend spy, or snoop, on residents of an adjoining high rise complex using binoculars and a video camera. Soon the innocence of spying on beautiful, half naked women turns deadly when they view what appears to be a woman's murder. They inform their father, who in turn confronts the would-be suspect, but somehow he is able to prove his innocence. Then the killer flips the script by spying back on the teens and make them his next targets.



More than 85% of the film is made up of useless diatribe between the teens inter-cut with brief torture and murder scenes from the mysterious killer. And that is a major problem with this film. The failure of a legitimate creepiness factor or sense of fear. The film is slowly paced, using a whole lot of nothing to get to the meat and potatoes.

Besides the aforementioned quick vignettes of people getting abused and slaughtered, nothing of significance to the story actually happens until it's almost over. We are given a subplot involving the emotional strain between the kids' separated mother and father, with the father established as a hard ass who does not really have the best relationship with them. For a thriller or even horror film, the scares are never there and the film becomes a clock watching exercise as you try to get through it.



The coup de grace is the twist ending, which is too coincidental to be considered believable even for this film, that ultimately falls flat. Then the audience is delivered a double twist to the ending which is absolutely even more absurd and laughable than the original twist. It doesn't even benefit from the Usual Suspect-type montage showing the audience clues (that are completely forced) to why the film ends the way it does therefore making the last two minutes groan-worthy.



One final issue is the soundtrack, which is a cross between industrial music and the Chemical Brothers circa 1996. Maybe it is a cultural thing, but the music makes you think that you time-traveled back to the last decade when this type of music is blaring through nauseating first person scenes. That being said, the techno-driven music sounds like it would fit better into a flick like Run Lola Run as opposed to this type of film. The music builds too much energy instead of building tension. And tension is sorely missed as I.C.U. is about as terrifying and suspenseful as an episode of Mad TV.



As previously stated, this film had an interesting premise that failed to deliver. There's too much pointless babble that feels like over 45 minutes of filler, there are not enough murders, the music has too much octane to build any type of suspense, the camerawork is beyond unwatchable even for a first-person perspective feature, and the double twist ending is silly. The only positive factor is the casting choices. The performances are quite good, even from the younger and inexperienced cast members. Female lead Margot Robbins is major eye candy and a cameo by director Aash Aaron is very well done. Unfortunately, the acting is the only diamond in the rough.



Not recommended even if you catch it on cable. Nothing is more painful than trashing a low budget film, but it can't be helped when the execution is disjointed and the film itself is simply bad. Nothing to see here...move along I.C.U., but I wish I didn't.

8 comments:

Alex J. Cavanaugh said...

I'll avoid it even if it's a watch now on NetFlix!
Good to hear from you, Geof. Sorry, been immersed in NaNo.

Copyboy said...

ICU? DOA.

RawknRobynsGoneBlogWild said...

So the Aussies make crappy movies too? That's disappointing.
Thanks for hopping over to our Rabbit interview. It's was truly weird and fun.
xoRobyn

Geof said...

Alex - NP. Yes I heard about the NaNo. Thanks for stopping by and good luck!

Copyboy - where were you when I was thinking of a post title? That's perfect.

Robyn - Yes this one and Wolf Creek are two examples of their unwatchable offerings. And yes that post was funny.

Chuck said...

Thanks for the review, I probably would have put it in my queue to order just on the name and premise alone. Time saved1

Anthony J Langford said...

Every country is capable of making crap films, and Australia is no exception. The horror genre attracts mostly low budget, young filmmakers and its harder to find a decent one out of the plethora of shite that floods the dvd market. This one does sound bad but Wolf Creek, as violent as it is, is a genuinely creepy horror film, (loosely based on a true story) that was pretty well received in most countries.

Geof said...

Anthony - no doubt. The States just seem to remake every successful foreign film they can get the rights for nowadays, so I'm not holding them in a higher esteem of film making. I simply just didn't like Wolf Creek and only brought that film up because that are the only two Aussie films I have seen recently that I disliked. I understand it did well in many countries and even roped in various awards, but just not my cup of tea. I.C.U....please don't even give it a chance. I will go as far as to say as much as I disliked Wolf Creek, I would at least recommend people to try that film out.

Anthony J Langford said...

ICU sounds terrible and i'll give it a miss. I'd never even heard of it. Wolf Creek was nasty but not 'unwatchable.'
Our industry as such is fairly lame. Being a small country there is no funding bodies. The government might come in on selected budgets but only as a top-up once the money is in place. Most filmmakers have to raise the money themselves, hence why extremely low budget fare gets made, which is an achievement in itself, that something like ICU reached you, or government sanctioned crap.
Speaking of crap, that piece of shit 'Australia' was mostly funded by 20th century fox.. there is no way that we could afford to make a film like that here..
As you know, its really hard to make a good film, and we only produce about 30 a year, most of them bad.
Occasionally we make a good one.
I'd recommend this, 'Noise' more of a thriller than a horror but well worth seeing.
Maybe you could review it sometime.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0809931/

Post a Comment