10 Terrifying Small-Town Serial Killers. Robert Grimminck January 25, 2015. Rightly or wrongly, we still tend to think of small towns as a more innocent place. How could a murderer flourish in a place where everyone knows your name? But behind the comfortable facade of small-town America have lurked some very disturbed individuals. 50 caliber The largest production handgun made! By Willie Louie. 20 HALLOWEEN COSTUME IDEAS 9.3. By Abel Luke. Top 10 Anime Serial Killers 8.4. By Constance Hughes. Patel On Sale (Subramanyam for Sale) 2017 New Released Full Hindi Dubbed Movie Sai Dharam Tej 7.4. By Odelia Benson. Serial Killers, photos, bios, and videos The definition of a serial killer is an individual who has murdered three or more people over a period of more than a month, with significant time between the murders. However much we may deney it, there is a fascination with serial murderers.

• Sai Production Suite

I remembered watching this in the cinemas when it first came out. Actually it turned out to be one of those family cinema outings, and the decision to watch this was my Dad's. I tell you after this dud, he's just about sworn off watching any local productions, even up until today.If anything good has resulted in this expensive S$2 million flop, then it is the lesson learnt in how not to make a movie. Looking at the cost, I'm not too sure where all the money went, given that local movies today, of better quality, don't cost that much. It has all the right ingredients inside that points to a flop, starting with the pandering to the caucasians in offering them lead roles. Back in those days, 'foreign talent' meant so long as not asian, they're a shoo in as 'stars', even though almost everyone here have not heard of them before.First, the director Arthur Smith, whose directing skills are as generic as his name. With probably no film credits to his name, he's suddenly the man suited to helm the movie.

The lead roles of Daniel Lee the Asian medium and Beverly Watson the photo-journalist, went to Dore Kraus and Jamie Marshall respective. His only claim to fame is the Australian remake of the Ultraman television series, where he's the human alter-ego of that legendary Japanese hero.

I've watched that series when it aired here, and it was bad. Jamie Marshall probably was a nobody then, and probably is a nobody now, no thanks to this turkey.Notable local input to the movie are actors who were unrecognizable those days, and relegated to support roles. Like Beatrice Chia as a mad woman possessed, Neo Swee Lin as a nurse receptionist, and even cameo king Lim Poh Huat is spotted in a non-speaking by-stander role. Margaret Chan, a food critic, employs her skills together with Rani Moorthy (who again?) to come up with a script that's based loosely on the notorious child serial killer Adrian Lim (I'll come to that later), and naturally, wrote in roles for themselves, and for Margaret Chan's daughter Clara. Real life mother and daughter get to play siblings here, and their chemistry onscreen is just so wrong.The characters are so cardboard and hollow, and are made worse by wooden acting throughout.

At some points the facial expressions seem to take a life of their own, with so much of exaggerated lip movements, stares and eyebrow twitches, it feels like a bad wayang. The lines of dialogue are horrible, and poor speech delivery made it all so cringeworthy. It's no wonder that none of the actors, or the scriptwriters, got offers again. Their amateurism shone right through.Perhaps it's because of the lack of courage, that this film, about killings, steered clear of reasonable violence, leaving what you have a laughable effort.

You have the drinking of blood out of vials, a seduction scene where a razor is used to cut a boob so that the medium can suck it, but the cameraman, so focused on the boob, failed to pan the camera upwards so that the fake action of cutting the breast would be unseen - this scene is so bad you just got to see it to believe. Wanting to infuse some sex into the plot, became actors embracing and falling down out of the camera view. Such is how bad the production is, and is indeed very mind boggling.It also probably started the trend that if it's a Singapore film, you must have a shot of that Singapore riverfront skyline, and the mix of different ethnic costumes worn by characters. I do appreciate the former though, as it shows to a new generation of locals how the now famed skyline actually looked like in those days, with its sparseness, and the UOB skyscraper under construction. Shots done today of the same will be eclipsed once the Integrated Resort and Marina Bay city centre are up, and it serves as a good snapshot of a developing skyline.And what of the plot you say? I think looking back in hindsight, saying that it's loosely based on Adrian Lim's cult killings of two children, is wrong.

Besides the medium occupation, sex and his mistresses, there isn't any inkling of remote resemblance to actual incidents. And I'm not sure if anyone local would want to make a movie out of him anyway. The movie's also peppered with so much hokey spirituality that come alive, as audiences will probably groan in pain each time some fortune cookie inspired lines come spewing out.Those involve in the editing too are plain lazy, as scenes feel disjointed, and looked more like individual short films spliced together with plenty of product placement and balls carrying.

Someone ought to have said this is not a bloody advertisement for Pan Pacific Hotel, even though they are one of the sponsors. You have lingering shots of the building, given a full tour of the facilities from the suite to the gym to the pool to the restaurant to how friendly the reception staff are at their counter. God, give me a break! It's a movie, not some corporate in house video!But truly, you have to admire the courage of those involved in the movie, as they try to entertain with many scenes so unintentionally funny.

Sai Production Suite

I'm not sure what ran through their minds, and some form of sanity check is required if they truly believe they're not making a comedy. Bad directing, script, acting, soundtrack, editing, the list goes on, and if the Razzies would be applicable here, this movie will own them all.Only for serious film buffs wanting a piece of local cinematic history.

I haven’t seen ’s widely reviled yet and I’m not all that keen to (though I think he’s an interesting director even when he’s making turkeys). But I’m annoyed by one aspect of the Indian media’s recent coverage of him: the complete overlooking of the Bruce Willis-Samuel L Jackson starrer, which I think is his most provocative work so far. Perhaps because this is a relatively understated film, it seems to have slipped beneath everyone’s radar – nearly every news or feature report I read informed us that Lady in the Water was his “fourth film”, after The Sixth Sense, Signs and The Village.

Even a couple of TV journos whom I know to be well-informed film enthusiasts made this error of omission.Here’s the basic story of Unbreakable ( and yes, spoilers do follow): David Dunne (Willis) is the sole survivor of a train accident that kills hundreds. Elijah Price (Jackson), the proprietor of a comic-book store/museum, contacts him and tries to convince him that he, David, has supernatural powers – that he needs to come to terms with his gifts and use them for the greater good. Elijah himself was born with a rare condition – unusually brittle bones – and he has been struggling with the repercussions all his life. He sees David as his antithesis, a man who is, quite literally, unbreakable. “I reasoned that if someone like me exists, there has to be someone else at the opposite end of the spectrum.” Initially sceptical, David starts to come around to this view, with some help from his super-enthusiastic (and super-annoying) 9-year-old son; what kid wouldn’t want to believe that his dad is a superhero?At the film’s end, just as David has started doing some halfway decent crime-fighting and we’ve been seduced into the superhero fantasy, comes the sting: it turns out that Elijah had engineered a number of accidents, killing hundreds of people in his obsessive quest for his opposite.

“They called me Mr Glass!” he cries; it’s a line we’ve heard before in the film, in a quieter, more melancholy context (the neighborhood kids taunted young Elijah because of his multiple fractures) and hearing it now, we realise with a shock how appropriate the name “Mr Glass” is for a comic book supervillain – which is precisely what Elijah has become.Unbreakable isn’t an unqualified masterwork by any means. It suffers from the same flaws that have plagued every Shyamalan movie to varying degrees: the self-consciousness in his presentation of themes and Ideas (always a capital “I”); the sacrificing of his cinematic adeptness (and he has plenty of natural talent – his visual sense is close to that of Brian DePalma’s or Spielberg’s) to make way for ponderous exposition; the downright silliness of some of his set-ups. He’s also one of the very worst directors of actors I have ever seen (though Samuel L Jackson does quite well in this film, presumably by ignoring his instructions).But on the whole Unbreakable achieves a better balance than Shyamalan’s other movies. Visually, it’s much more satisfying. There’s a lovely little scene in the rain where David falls onto a swimming-pool tarpaulin and slowly begins to sink into the water. And I especially enjoyed the scene where Elijah stumbles down a flight of stairs and we get a shot of his walking stick smashing into pieces.

It’s made of glass, but at this point we don’t stop to ask why. (The answer, of course, is that it’s part of the character’s get-up, another component in his myth-making, his perception of himself. It fits in with Jackson’s general appearance – he’s made up to resemble the comic-book supervillains he describes to people at his store: “disproportionately big heads, bulging eyes”)What I liked most about the film was the audience manipulation, the way it swept the carpet out from under the viewer’s feet at the end. (Hitchcock would have been proud.) The climactic revelation isn’t a twist-in-the-tale put in merely to create frisson (as the ending of The Sixth Sense was): it’s crucial to the film’s thematic concerns.

Error opening serial port arduino ide. Run the updater./doupgrade.shIf all went well, it should show an update progress bar.

It draws the focus back to Elijah and reveals that the story was really about him all along. Though David has the most screen time, Unbreakable begins and ends with Elijah – the first shot is of his birth, with the doctor realising that many of the infant’s bones are broken; the last shot is a freeze frame of his embittered, vehement face, after he’s said those closing lines. David may or may not be a superhero, and if he is, he’s one with very limited powers; but Elijah, by immersing himself into a fantasy world to deal with loneliness and frustrations, has become a bona fide supervillain.

And he’s been two steps ahead of the hero all the way. It’s always so much more easy to do effective evil than to do effective good.In fact, the general pessimism of the ending makes me wonder if Shyamalan was joking when he announced his intention to shoot a sequel to this film (presumably taking the adventures of superhero David further). At a stretch, I can even imagine a Sixth Sense sequel where the Bruce Willis character takes on the Ghostbusters led by an aging Bill Murray. (They could have a contest for the Most Solemn Expression and the winner gets a date with Paul Giamatti.) But Unbreakable is a stand-alone; its ending so thoroughly dispels any fantasies of heroism that it’s hard to see where a sequel could possibly go.Previous posts:, and. In many ways, Unbreakable is a repetition of an opinion often voiced in comic book universes that the supervillains are in fact a reaction, and hence a result of the existence of the superhero - The Dark Knight Returns mentioned more than once that the Joker was created because there was a Batman.

Here, the supervillain needs the superhero or else his life is meaningless. Though his villainy predates the appearance of the superhero, he is a reaction to the superhero - the antithesis. The end, where Willis alerts the cops to him and lets them take him away was brilliant.

By not using his superpowers to defeat him, Willis was perhaps dealing him the unkindest cut. I don't really have much to add to your critical assessment.I just wanted to point out an odd series of coincidences.

Today when transferring my feeds to a PDA, I noticed Jabberwock, a blog which I had added to my RSS reader long ago without having read it for an entire year. Apparently at one point I found your blog interesting, but never got around to actually reading it. When looking at your recent posts, I was delighted to find interesting stuff. I hope to check in more often!To move to the matter at hand, it just so happens I saw Lady in the Water tonight.

It was about what I expected. It's another urban fairy tale, witty but requiring an unquestioning acceptance of magic, a juxtaposition of 'real life' with the legendary. It didn't quite work, but it had lots of magical moments, so it wasn't a waste by any means.

(I might add that the supernatural effects here were particularly difficult to film without seeming ridiculous). Great camerawork, and occasionally funny lines, but it seemed incredible that the characters would accept the crazy story so easily (can't they be skeptical for a moment?)I remember seeing Unbreakable with my family and their neighbors. I don't see movies often with people, but this was some special holiday for us. I was the snob of the group; there were also 3 people over 50 years old, one young mom and 2 teenage girls. They/we all hated it.

It just seemed excessive and simple-minded and yes, long. I accepted the ambitiousness of the film, but just couldn't get into the story.

Sorry for expressing a reaction more visceral than critical, but to tell the truth I don't remember much about it.Although I didn't love either film, I do enjoy one theme in this writer which I've identified with American Hollywood. It's the Hollywood fairy tale. We tend to have lots of mainstream movies with fairy tale magic, sentimental, childlike, engaging and yes, a little simple-minded. Most of them are parables of some sort. I would include in this genre: Big, Forest Gump, Groundhog Day, Ghost and ET.

My favorite in the genre is Woody Allen's Purple Rose of Cairo (where a character from the screen steps out into the real world at a movie theatre). Since Bollywood aims for mass consumption, I suspect they have their equivalents.

Ani: thanks for the input. There's also a passage in the Hollie Mason book extracts section of Watchmen where costumed superheroes start feeling a bit foolish when the supervillains refuse to play along (by not showing up in costume). That's related to the theme of interdependence too.Lalbadshah: yes, I loved the score too.Robert: thanks. That observation about accepting the ambitiousness of the film but not get into the story, I think that's a problem many viewers have with Shyamalan's films. They see that there's an interesting idea in there somewhere, but the director's treatment of it (especially the downright silly, badly acted scenes that appear in every one of his films) puts them off.For what it's worth though, my reaction to Unbreakable was visceral too.