Surveillance Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
An FBI agent tracks a serial killer with the help of three of his would-be victims - all of whom have wildly different stories to tell.
| Julia Ormond | Elizabeth Anderson |
| Bill Pullman | Sam Hallaway |
| Pell James | Bobbi Prescott |
| French Stewart | Jim Conrad |
| Ryan Simpkins | Stephanie |
| Kent Harper | Jack Bennet |
| Josh Strait | Keith |
| Kyle Briere | Curtis |
| Hugh Dillon | Dad |
| Gill Gayle | Degrasso |
| Michael Ironside | Captain Billings |
| Mac Miller | Johnny |
| Charlie Newmark | Officer Wright |
| Kent Wolkowski | David |
| Shannon Jardine | Elaine Meyer |
| Jennifer Chambers Lynch |
7.10 out of 10 (524 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Perfectly Bad
posted on 06 Jul 2009I never post reviews of movies but this time I felt like I had to say something. I really wanted to like this movie. I did not. If I had managed to overlook the terrible plot, the terrible acting, and Bill Pullman's inability to turn his head without turning his entire body, I still would not have liked it. Bill Pullman, who I have always liked in the past, was terrible. French Stewart was terrible. Cheri Oteri...I can't blame her. I think she tried. Mac Miller was just distracting. (If you are playing the role of a straight man, try to hide the lisp a little bit better.) Nothing good can come from watching this movie. I'm amazed that the current IMDb score is so high.
Might be hard to like
posted on 28 Jun 2009Spoilers ahead. In the beginning, SURVEILLANCE looked fine. The trailer I had seen weeks before promised a sort of Rashomon-storytelling. Finally seeing the film, I hoped that Jenny Lynch would not aim at a big smash-in-your-face-punchline-finale, but would rather opt for a novella-like open ending. I was to be disappointed. I want to comment on some parts from a perspective AFTER the big twist is shown, since in my opinion is it here that the illogical elements of the whole construction become painfully obvious. You can, of course, claim that a piece of art does not necessarily have to be "realistic" or "logical" to be entertaining, but for my reading, lack of goofs is regarded as a good thing. Here we go. It turns out that our heroes, Ormond and Pullman, were the killers right from the start. Strange thing is, I saw that coming after 15 minutes, but then listened to their dialogue and said: Well, the lunatic killers they are after wouldn't talk like that since what they said was a) reflexive, intelligent, "normal", and b) fitted right into the viewers imagination of what their "roles" as FBI-people demand. They talk as if someone listened. In other words, Ormond and Pullman never gave a weak performance while dressing as someone they are not (within the movie; they ARE, of course, neither killers nor FBI in reality). But then came the big surprise and Ormond killed those redneck cops. Good luck for her that cop Degrasso a) wasn't faster with his own gun and b) wasn't looking at the pictures on the lower of the deck earlier and c) that he didn't see the bullet coming and so on. Okay, surprise effect – I accept that explanation. Good also that the little kid Stephanie - while having no problem informing the two bad cops of her earlier encounter –, did not like to tell nice Janet or the incredibly likable Captain (was Michael Ironside ever cuter?) about whom killed her mom and brother in her presence, but prefers to inform the killers of her secret knowledge. Then again, why would she not, since psychopath Ormond was so nice to her it made everyone feel warm at heart. Wait a moment - what actually was the purpose all that questioning? Ormond questions little Stephanie like a professional psychologist would do (how did she learn that?), but up until the end the killers have the origin plan of killing Stephanie, too (that is until they say she deserves to live for having been clever to discover their "true" identity). So why question the child, make her paint pictures and be kind to her, if this will have "no effect" on Stephanie? Sadism? Maybe. But we don't see a evil smile on Ormonds face when she is alone with Pullman after interrogating Stephanie. Rather, Ormond expresses strong feelings of sympathy. There's not the slightest hint of the couples' real plans in that scene, even though they are alone. Looking back to earlier events, why would anyone confronted with a person in a bag consider this automatically to be a kidnapped woman, as both Bobbi and Bennet do? If the bag was her, then who drove the car that rammed Stephanies family? Keith, the driver, is dead, his hands cuffed to the wheel. Whoever killed him must have done that before that car stood still, and must therefore be nearby Keiths body; this could only have been "the bag". I'm no policeman, but I would have been more careful when approaching the car anyway. Why would the two officers even open it? They could have lead anyone else away from the sight, inform other policemen and just wait - because that car was so damaged it wasn't going anywhere anymore, and there was nothing nearby, just desert... Police has it's duties, I agree. But wouldn't these duties also include, in the police station, to collect some information on the FBI people that are about to take the long journey all the way from I-don't-know-where. Wasn't there the least telephone call beforehand the interrogations? And also, wasn't anyone from the FBI headquarters trying to contact their people? If so, O and P could hardly answer to such a call, which would have lead the FBI to contact the police station their agents were aiming at in the first place. So Pullman and Ormond disguise as FBI. Lucky them the clothes of the original FBI people (were they male and female, anyway? That wasn't so clear in the motel scene) fitted perfectly (they don't were these clothes during the Motorway incident), and luckily no one asks for the ID card as well (which one the redneck could have done just to display his anger). Speaking of that, for psychopaths O and P were pretty well informed on the police mentality and the tensions between cops and FBI. And where did they get their knowledge on the surveillance technology, I wonder? Why wouldn't someone like Bennet (obviously called a suspect by the "FBI"), or even Bobbi call a lawyer, or family members to tell them everything's alright now - since that nice FBI lady and her colleague are here? Wouldn't the family of Bennet's dead partner be informed and look by to gather information? Wouldn't the coroner of the killers' victims bodies have some questions and remarks? Wouldn't Bennet be out of duty, anyway (since the time between his partners' death and the arrival of the "FBI" ought to be a few days?). However, he stills wears the same bloody clothes. Shouldn't any town officials or so contact the FBI people, since the most infamous murders of the country (that's what the television newscasters announcement implies) are obviously close by? Not to mention if local TV made a visit for a live broadcast interview with the FBI experts... That all said, SURVEILLANCE wasn't that bad. But the ending was (and the trailer promised so much more!). As always, don't believe me, check it yourself.
Inept, over-hyped rubbish
posted on 28 Jun 2009Jennifer Lynch's first feature since "Boxing Helena" is the worst film I've seen this year. The script is an inept mess and the direction is clueless. The characters are cardboard cutouts with indecipherable motivations. Editing-wise, this looks like a salvage job. FBI agents are investigating a series of murders. Which means they are also investigating themselves. Jennifer is not David, but she tries to be. The problem is, she doesn't have his talent or his ability to create a real, identifiable world into which darkness can be threaded. This is all darkness and all misery. Lynch opts for a cynical, boring, pandering "thriller" with no thrills. The violence is graphic at times, but it has no context. Worse, there is not one character we care about. That this sorry nonsense just won top prize at Sitges (over the way superior "Martyrs" and the fresh "Let The Right One In") is a disgrace, and undermines that fine festival's credibility. Don't believe any hype about this. It's abysmal.
there'sonly one way to unfold a note...
posted on 10 Jun 2009Somewhere deep inside the Santa Fe desert there have been a number of blood curdling murders...a real killing spree.The local police station is in disarray. Captain Billings, Officers Degrasso and Wright have apprehended three witnesses: Officer Jack Bennet, one of their own, tough, but affected by recent events; Bobby, young, high as a kite on cocaine; and Stephanie, eight years old, who has just witnessed her family being brutally murdered by two figures dressed in jumpsuits, gloves, boots, and horrifyingly disfiguring latex masks.The FBI is now involved, and as the witnesses tell their stories one by one to the FBI agents who have now taken over, the murderous events unravel before our eyes.It becomes clear, however, that little Stephanie knows something more. And then three more bodies have been found...Jennifer Lynch has come a long way since the days of putting Helena in a box, but she owes a lot to her dad with this disturbing movie. the characters are all straight out of a David Lynch movie and the long silences and an all around sense of dread is all too Lynchian too.but its still a good film, although it's very hard to watch at times. but cleverly made, with a cracking storey, brilliant camera-work, and a very depressing downbeat ending.Narrative is clever throughout, keeping the viewer from guessing, and literally waiting for one of the characters to explode in a fit of rage.if you like the films of Lynch, then this is for you. she just hasn't got her dads genius yet.
Edge-of-Seat Thriller
posted on 25 May 2009A good thriller is my favorite genre and I was hooked into this film within the first few seconds and stayed involved for the entire ride. It kept me guessing throughout. The contrast between eerie cop shop and stark, beautiful prairies is a stylish treat for the eyes. The performances are believable and compelling. Well cast, without exception. The little girl is surprisingly good. Her even performance made me wonder about what had happened to her and drew me into the story. When she wasn't on screen, I worried about her safety. The ending is a clever, eerie choice. I was taken completely by surprise and I usually predict a telegraphed ending a mile away. In this case, any other choice would be a cop-out (pardon the pun). I was glad that the director resisted the temptation for a blood-fest. It could have gone much further in that vein. Instead the tension relied upon intelligent visual storytelling. Kudos to everyone involved. I thoroughly enjoyed this film.
Intense, weird, and disturbing thriller
posted on 11 May 2009SURVEILLANCE is an intense thriller written and directed by David Lynch's daughter, Jennifer Lynch. David Lynch is the executive producer of the film. Well, I must say she inherited her father's directing qualities in my point of view, because she did an excellent job with what seems to be a very low cost production. Few resources, excellent directing job (and writing as well)! The film is intense, weird, and disturbing at parts, but it is mostly an audacious and sarcastic critic to the American police and the way some officers behave… When they are supposed to "protect and serve" the common citizen they are the criminals themselves! But that's just a part of the movie, the one before the main and great twist this film has. In fact, there's an excellent twist in this movie that completely changes the plot direction. The final twist made me score it with an extra point I must say… About the acting, there're some awesome performances: Bill Pullman (does a great job, especially after the twist); Julia Ormond; Pell James (very beautiful young actress, also does a good job); and the guys which play the local cops, especially the ones who did the patrols (they were funny as bad cops!).Definitely it's a great job by Jennifer Lynch. I score it 8/10.
Boring + Repulsive = Deplorable
posted on 09 May 2009So you're the daughter of a famous filmmaker; if this is the best you can do, my advice is to GET A REAL JOB. The characters in this film are all so repellent. I will not spoil anything for anyone by giving away specific details, but I am issuing a warning for any of you out there who are normal moviegoers. Sadistic violence-seekers MIGHT find this interesting, though I doubt it.Here's the problem(s):Ridiculously bad cops immediately raise the red flag---this screenplay is stupid! The unbelievable situations are way over the top annoying, there is no one to root for, and it's all a negative, joyless drag. Ms. Lynch, if this is what you think people want to see in the theater, you've got another think coming.
A very competent thriller
posted on 11 Apr 2009First of all,the main question : is Jennifer Chambers Lynch as good as a director as her father,David Lynch ? Of course not,but in Surveillance,she has brought us a very competent thriller,at the same time she has improved very much since her previous (and first) film,Boxing Helena,which was,by my humble point of view,a diffuse,boring and incoherent film.In Surveillance,Lynch presents elements used by her father on some of his works,like corruption in a small town,eccentric FBI agents investigating a crime and two actors (Julia Ormond and Bill Pullman) who have worked with him.I appreciated that in Surveillance,Lynch did not copy the style of her father for establishing an own identity which works pretty well on the context of this movie.After various decades of abuse,the serial killer sub-genus has finished very worn-out and it is not easy to find an original angle.What I mostly appreciated from Surveillance is that it finds an unusual focus for telling a serial killer story.The story from this movie is very well structured and it always held my interest.The cast is also a positive point of this movie,because everybody brings entertaining and energetic performances.I think that the field in which Lynch best works in is on the direction of actors.The fails I found on this movie are two.First,there are some occasions in which the movie believes to be more intelligent than what it really is.And second,the ending results a little bit predictable.In spite of that,I had a very good time watching Surveillance.The intense violence,the generally solid screenplay and the brilliant performances kept me very entertained.After all,it does not matter if Lynch is the daughter of one of my favourite directors,because she has won my respect and my desire to watch her next projects after the very competent work she has made on this movie.
Lousy movie at premium prices
posted on 07 Apr 2009I do not know what today's movie goers expect, but after 68 years of movie watching.. (Well maybe I didn't watch many movies in the first 9 - 10 years, so make that 58 years of movie watching) I expect to be entertained, not bored to tears, assaulted by continuous profanity (every other word) and idiotic scenes of violence that are presented in with no other purpose in mind but to show blood splattering and body parts being mangled. Surveillance is one of those movies that was made by people who have NO imagination, little if any talent, a total inability to tie scenes together and an unreasonable trait of letting a scene go on and on, long after the purpose for it has elapsed. That anyone would ever think that this was a worthwhile movie, when it is nothing more that Hollywood garbage is beyond me. As a combat veteran I have seen violence, blood and gore, in many forms, and movies like We were soldiers is about as violent as a movie can get, but it has redeeming value. Surveillance must have been dreamed up by persons in a drug induced stupor, with no writing ability, no directorial training, no experience in film editing, and a total lack of contact with reality. Just a stupid movie of two serial killers posing as FBI agents, setting up a scenario to kill some stupid foul mouth cops, etc.. A high priced piece of garbage that only an idiot could like...
Yawn
posted on 07 Apr 2009What is about movies that are abstract and meaningless only for all to become apparent in the last 20 minutes? I want to enjoy a movie from beginning to end. It may be "arty" to have some vague road movie plot line that has you guessing but when it doesn't unravel until near the end then I feel cheated.So we have some redneck cops, we have a young carefree couple, we have a couple of FBI agents (appear from out of the blue!) in a town which appears to have a population of 5. The cops aren't very nice, the young couple are out for fun.... lo and behold the otherwise normal FBI agents turn out to be serial killers in the last bit of the movie and bingo we have a plot! Shame we have to spend 80% of the movie asking WTF???
Edgy? That's mild.
posted on 30 Mar 2009In terms of editing, directing, acting, writing and casting, this film would be a 10+. But it's just too disturbing--and calling this film "disturbing" is like saying Gone with the Wind is a "nice story". This is a festival of twisted perversity in a Bancock back room. And the depth is unexpected. The subconscious crescendo of vile perspectives is unmatched in film. (This poor writer--sometimes you have to feel sorry for such brilliance when it reveals such scary stuff.) One thing for sure: this is Bill Pullman's performance of a lifetime. And I highly recommend you skip it, unless you can tolerate sweaty nightmares and obsessive checking of the locks on your doors. Pullman is no love-sick 30-something here. He's a cross between Hannibal Lechter and the blue-collar genre of Dennis Hopper, all wrapped up in your worst nightmare. Surveillance is an X-rated movie without the skin.
What a thriller !!!
posted on 22 Mar 2009I am highly surprised to see that this movie has not been released in USA yet. No comment on IMDb. I don't believe it !!!I was amazed by this picture, discovered today in a Paris theâtre. At first, I told to myself that I have already this way of telling a story a thousand time; especially since the "Tarantino" era, the mid nineties, and movies like "Usual Suspects". Features very hard to understand when you watch them for the first time, with many flashbacks...But this one is above the others. No doubt. You are always surprised by the characters. And the last minutes are unforgettable.No one can bet on it. Clichés are totally destroyed in this fantastic movie.Go for it. Run !!!
Frustratingly Average
posted on 08 Mar 2009This is far better than Director Jennifer Lynch's debut "Boxing Helena" Yet it still fails to excel in any of the genre's it explores. A good cast acquit themselves well with cinematography which is both easy on the eye when it needs to be, and visceral when required. Exactly what role father and executive Producer played is a mystery but the trade mark off-beat quirky David Lynch style ingredients do not fire on all cylinders.As a straightforward murder/mystery with a twist it is fine. As a thriller it lacks pace, and as a torture/horror piece it fails despite some graphic, gory moments. The Coen brothers in "No Country For Old Men" understand that it is the threat of violence which can be so unsettling. Here, it is neither under stated enough for aesthetes, nor consistently gory enough for "carnage" fans.At just over 90 minutes the story stays within its welcome. Told in flashback to "surveillance " cameras, the device works and is well constructed. The plot twist works insofar as it delivers a dramatic "gear change" to the story, but it also raises numerous loose ends which tend to irritate , rather than delight. Ultimately routine fare, but with enough promise to secure another film offer for Jennifer, I suspect.
Disturbing
posted on 06 Mar 2009I'm usually happy to spoiler away in reviews - this time I shall be very careful not to spoiler.I hadn't realised that the tendency to make disturbing movies is hereditary, but Jennifer Lynch's Surveillance is every bit as disturbing as anything Dad David has made. It starts with a moderately familiar scenario - two FBI agents arrive at a small police station (4 officers, one captain, one dispatcher) in the back of beyond to tape video interviews with the survivors of some sort of incident: the nature of what happened is revealed during the interviews. To say any more is to spoiler, so I'll shut up about the plot.But I will say that "disturbing" is the best word to describe almost all of what follows. And not just one lot of disturbing, but several. The film is gripping, visceral, and features some stunning performances, notably from Bill Pullman who is not someone who I would normally have put high on my list of those I expect to surprise me performance-wise.Not an easy film in many ways, but definitely worth catching.
Obvious and disgusting piece of filth
posted on 02 Mar 2009After a very scary, crude opening which gives you that creepy "Chainsaw massacre"-feeling, everything falls apart.SPOILER ALERT: As soon as the two FBI-officers start jabbing, you know they are the real killers. Anyone who have seen enough of these "fooled-ya"-movies can figure this out.This movie is mader with one thing in mind: To depict brutal murders. Why, then, is not the little girl tortured and murdered as well? Will this be next for us movie-goers? The torture and abuse of children? Whats wrong with you people? Lynch is truly has a disgusting, ugly mind.
Predictable, Cruel, Poorly Structured, Sadistic = Worst Film of 2009
posted on 26 Feb 2009Without a doubt, the biggest waste of film of the year. This movie is poorly structured, sadistic, cruel and filled with unlikable characters. On top of that, and maybe the worst crime, it's uninteresting and vastly predictable. As soon as Bill Pullman's character doodled on the photo changing the word from "evidence" to "violence," I had the entire plot figured out. There are no surprises and there is no compelling reason to watch this trash. The only redeeming feature for me is that I saw this thing for free on my HDNet cable and didn't waste any money. I would truly be angry if I had paid to see it in a theatre.Anyone that labels this thing a thriller really needs to get out more. An awful, awful film in every way that matters.
A brilliantly executed thriller with a good balance of suspense, shock and an overall unsettling atmosphere.
posted on 08 Feb 2009The reason I feel compelled to write this comment is because this movie really got to me. I've seen many movies of the sort, but none of them have had an impact on me longer than a few hours, or a day at the very most. THIS movie's got me thinking about if for almost a week.Three reasons. Firstly, the way that the movie emitted this eerie feeling throughout the whole experience. You always had a feeling that something horrible was about to happen, even if two people were just talking in a room. It always kept you on the edge of your seat, playing the guessing game. The guessing game's lenght however, depends on the viewer :D...Secondly, the editing. The movie was basically built around flashbacks, consisting of several different people's perception of the events depicted in the movie. Now usually, the word "flashback" already deters me from watching a movie, but this movie pulled it off successfully. The juggling between past and present was consistent and only just confusing enough to the extent necessary for the "Oh!" payoff.Finally, the acting. It was alright for the most part. However, it was spectacular at some points. For instance, the stereotypical immoral and corrupt cops were portrayed so well, that you were literally clutching your fists in anger towards them :D... And of course Bill Pullman. But the main standout for me was Mac Miller's performance. He was just so flawless. It really got to me. He was almost beyond acting. If I could choose to get endowed with the acting ability of anyone... Right now, I'd choose his :D...To sum up... This movie is of course, not for everybody. Just for those people, who can appreciate the unrecognized talent it screams out.
A thriller, true to itself and the art-form.
posted on 08 Feb 2009First things's first; If you're expecting a David Lynch movie, see one that David Lynch wrote. I'm not some hard-core movie buff, but David Lynch movies impress me, big time. And since the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, I'd decided to try one that his daughter made. It might feel like a D.Lynch movie gone wrong, but it's really not. Yes, some of the same elements are included, but these elements are presented in a different way. In a way, more accessible. Different people have different stories to tell. And who wouldn't lie when you could be held responsible? Or just for fun? Or to save yourself? All of what happened in the movie just feels so very real. At times almost surreal, but not to the same point as seen in D.Lynch's movies. The only thing that bothered me is that Bill Pullman seemed a bit distant/vague at times. I would highly recommend this movie to someone who wants to see a honest movie. Brutally honest. Honest in the way that it's true to itself. A thriller. One of the best films I've ever seen.
Low-key but effective horror-thriller
posted on 02 Feb 2009What makes a good twist? Really, if there were a formula then it could become a genre of its own. Instead we make do with thriller, whodunnit, horror, etc. In fact, therein lies the answer - a good twist is one where it's not that you can't work out what the twist is going to be but rather that you weren't expecting a twist at all.Now, I wasn't expecting there to be a twist (as opposed to a revelation) in this movie. Maybe I was naive and you might see it coming. I suspect that I had got so fed up with the consistent trope of the characters being evasive, neurotic and, frankly, rather irritating that I had got bored, in which case the twist, such as I thought it was, wasn't one at all. Perhaps it was a corner in the drama, elevated to coup de cinema in the same way that a shutting door becomes thunder to the dozing.There you go. It's a rather pure film for that reason/those reasons, like a sophisticated student's project. 4/10
Terrible film, but good acting
posted on 28 Jul 2009I must say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended "twist" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from "I'm playing FBI guy!" to "I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired." You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot "twist." Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the "crack whore" would win.Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.