Meeting Evil (2012)

So much average

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.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

So many layers to this film. It can also be interpreted in many different ways. Did Camus write this? I thought it was this and I thought it was that.....but the movie held my interest no matter which way it went and the surreal and quiet quality of this film kept held a tight grip at all times. Has John, the recently unemployed realtor /father gone to hell? Is Richie,his new out of control acquaintance the devil. Is John being punished for selling the homes of his neighbors who couldn't keep up their payments? Was it just a dream, his subconscious or real life? What does Richie want of John or us? What is the message they want us to take away? Nothing is as it seems. Maybe we are supposed to read into it what we want, as I did,which is what makes this film so great.

The other reviewers who have stated this movie was confusing both in style and presentation are completely correct. The movie has a questionable ending, somewhat bland dialogue, and keeps you guessing till the end but for all the wrong reasons. *I have not read the book this movie is based on by Thomas Berger so i cannot speak on it's faithfulness to the source material.Acting: Luke Wilson has a pitiful performance as John Felton. As he is presented , John Felton is a man of little conviction whose lack of zeal has led him to unemployment, adultery, shame, and failure. Wilson, in the face of several arbitrary murders committed by Richie (Samuel L. Jackson) does not look submissive but rather indifferent. My point, he seems more carefree than scared and hopeless. The delivery of his lines are stale and tainted with a constant tone of confusion as if the script itself was difficult to read. He tells Richie, after pistol whipping his lover and threatening his wife, that he would "kill anyone who tried to hurt her" yet says these words with the same infliction as he does everything else. Bland performance. Samuel...Samuel...Samuel. I would disagree with anyone who would say he didn't deliver. Though there were areas in which he could have excelled much farther, I'm inclined to blame the script not his acting, for i found him to be both a convincing killer and mystery man. Perhaps it was acting alongside Luke Wilson's monochrome showing, but i found he to be both engaging and appropriately involved. In the rest of the cast, i found Leslie Bibb to have done a wonderful job, particularly during her verbal altercation with the police officer.Plot: Weak and uninspiring. I have never watched a movie which made me feel so indifferent about murder. The violence is presented in such a distant way (off screen kills, inaudible cries) that it is difficult to fully appreciate the carnage and its importance toward the film. In addition, to move the story along Fisher used the classic ACAD technique (All cops are dumb). Every moment there is a law enforcement officer on the screen you are guaranteed either a death (offscreen of course), unintelligible rantings, and disjointed dialogue (we think your husband, who is a Realtor with no documented history of such violence, walked out of his house this morning and brutally murder THIRTEEN people with no vehicle, or past documented violent behavior...and don't you have a life insurance policy on him <--what?). With the large amount of off screen altercations, i cannot call this a horror and with the barely excitable acting and dialogue and a damn predictable plot its barely a thriller or mystery. I gave it a six because i felt the premise (courtesy of Thomas Berger, its original writer) was interesting and there were a few good moments. Not worth going out of your way but if it every comes on television or if you have Netflix give it a watch.KL

....and confused as to what people expect from a film when they leave reviews on here. If you wish to watch a film that is easy to understand, has a beginning, middle and happy ending where all is explained so there is no doubt in your mind as to what you have watched then I think you will find most Disney films provide this. If you, however, enjoy a disturbing, complicated and different story that may leave you pondering the outcome then maybe give this a watch but do not complain if it was too complicated for your comprehension or you need a running commentary to explain what is happening or you cannot grasp the subtleties of the tale.Well acted on the whole, fast paced and I enjoyed it. Not the best film ever by a long chalk but also not the worse. Having suffered Iron Man 3 (being a huge fan of the current super hero genre) and being bored to tears on Christmas Day for two and a half hours I can honestly say I would rather have seen this.

Sometimes you see films where the writers throw tried and tested plot elements together in the hope it will make a good film. This was a good example of that.It was over the top in a number of places, scenes and circumstances unlikely enough to make it unbelievable. The acting is poor, the police come across as unlike-able and smug, every supporting actor is an exaggeration of a normal person and Wilson is always 'acting' - you never believe he is the person he's meant to portray. Jackson is not bad in the role, but he's just playing a meaner character we've seen a hundred times (probably literally with the amount of films he's been in). Kudos to Peyton List who was decent in an otherwise disappointing film.