Hello Herman (2012) Reviews

• Idea of the story could have been interesting...

  darrell-822-1186542013-10-20

  The premise of this movie could have made for a good story but the infantile development by the director was not only bias...something a real crime of this nature should certainly not need...but made you feel as if you were watching a bad soap opera. The b rate actors, excluding the reporter and the young criminal, bring a new low to movies. It would have been easier to watch an hour of the stupid video game they kept showing. Rob Estes was so bad that I actually hope I never, ever have to endure him on the screen again. If you are going to bash Fox...and I am not saying you shouldn't...make sure you at least appear smarter. Terrible direction and lousy actors shred any hope of the premise rising to any fruitful work.

  More

• Tragic subject, inept film. Sledgehammer arguments replace reason. Awful!

  TheSquiss2013-09-20

  Set in Any Town, USA, in the near future, sixteen year old Herman Howards takes a bag full of guns and pipe bombs into the school gym, locks the doors and murders 39 fellow students and two teachers. Hello Herman is a fictional account of an all too frequent occurrence in America that aims to explain why such shootings occur so often and who or what is to blame. What Hello Herman actually achieves is to leave the viewer with the sensation of having been bludgeoned with the extreme views from either side. You see, there are only two sides: black and white, left and right, monster and victim. There is no middle ground, no shades of grey. Holding centre court is reformed neo-Nazi Lax Morales (yes, that really is his name and, no, it couldn't be any more obvious if we named a sexy temptress, um, Pussy Galore), played by The Walking Dead's Norman Reedus. Morales now hosts an online talk show and is condemned by rightwing TV journalist Chet Clarkson (Rob Estes) as being a liberal. We know that Morales has reformed because the left-facing swastika tattoo on his chest has been replaced with a tattoo of Jesus Christ. That the new tattoo is smaller than the old one and that there is nary a hint of scar tissue from tattoo removal is never mentioned. Herman sends the video of his massacre to Morales and they begin a series of interviews in the prison as Herman awaits his swift, televised execution. Let's not talk about how he emails Morales the video, bearing in mind he is arrested at the gym, nor why his execution occurs in a matter of months, whereas there are men and women on death row twenty-odd years after conviction due to the appeals process… If we can accept that any reasonable, socialized individual agrees that killing people is wrong own then I won't have people accusing me of being unsympathetic/too sympathetic. This is a review is about a film, not my political views. The 'soft' argument in Hello Herman is hammered home through a series of scenes looking at Herman's life and explanations from children's representative, Lyle Fergusson (John Bobek), who probably wears camel hair boxer shorts and socks with sandals by the way he's been written and performed. We know that Herman is a victim because he's bullied, the teachers don't stand up for him, his parents fought, his dad left, his mum ignores him, his sister died, a girl betrayed him, he plays violent games, Google tells him how to make bombs, supermarkets sell guns… I'm sorry, was that too subtle for you? Would you like me to explain? No, I'll leave that to Herman: Herman: "You know what I miss more than anything?" Morales: "What's that?" Herman: "My Xbox. If I could get one more game in I'd be happy." The 'hard' argument comes from Chet Clarkson and Senator Joan Cox (Christine Dunford), who might just as well have horns and a forked tail. Their view is that Herman is a sick, evil monster and frying him with electricity while strapped to a chair live on TV without even a hood to cover his face is just too damn good for him. At one point, Senator Cox declares, eye's wide and jaw gritted, "Killing people won't stop people killing people. But seeing the execution live sure as hell will!" Again, do you need me to explain that a little better? Hello Herman is one, long, arduous, ineptly made, shockingly acted (Reedus aside) propaganda film that does more damage than good. It is the cinematic equivalent of sprinkling salt on your food with a cement mixer. Hello Herman has a very important message to give. It is a terrible subject matter that must be dealt with but, so far, the American governments over the years have failed to resolve it. That's a given. No problem there. However, Hello Herman is a terrible film. If you wish to know more about the subject of school shootings and teenage angst that leads to extreme acts of violence, walk away from this very quickly and pick up a double bill of Bowling for Columbine and We Need to Talk About Kevin. For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.

  More

• Shooting this movie was a real tragedy

  timlin-42013-10-28

  Normally I wouldn't review a movie that I couldn't finish, but I can't let the shill reviews stand. This is a bad movie: badly written, badly acted, and contrived in every element. The quality is lower than a soap opera, the tone is more juvenile than a children's movie, the propaganda is more shameless than North Korean TV. When a movie is so slanted that it makes you question its unfair treatment of child killers and Neo-Nazis something has gone terribly wrong. The subject of school shooters has been handled better in several movies, and this adds nothing, a movie for idiots by idiots. I almost hope that this is some sick satire, it would help me sleep at night knowing that there aren't such demented morons out there, though that wouldn't really change my rating, because then it would just be a very bad joke.

  More

• great looking kid shoots up high school because he couldn't get his mother on the phone.

  dave-10282012-12-25

  A good example of bad casting. Why would you cast a 'hunk' in the role of a high school outcast? The lead should have been one of the 'in crowd' bullies. Saw the play and Sawyer Avery was much more the role in a lot of ways. I guess he was not pretty enough for the film. The play was overwrought with redundant speeches. The film's budget fortunately trimmed some of that. Some of the acting was over-the-top unbelievable. The director seems to have difficulty with anything subtle. Like the casting of Sean Gaul. Look on line for Aryan Brother leaders. Most of the skin head bulls with tats are followers - not leaders. But that is another example of in-your-face weak directing.

  More

• A flawed but important film

  castielminion12014-11-12

  I think the premise of this film is very intriguing, but I think the execution was flawed. The actors were all very well cast and played their roles brilliantly, but I think the script was a bit shoddy in some places and could have benefited from being longer and fleshing out the characters a bit more- the potential was there but the back stories weren't fully utilized. The story could have done with more development as well- it felt a tad rushed in places. That being said, I think this film is (sadly) very relevant to the world today. It has an important message that needs to be heard, and so far this is one of the only (if not the only) films that touches on this subject matter. It deserves a wider audience because it really does have a lot to say. I think the film was well cast, with Norman Reedus and Garret Backstrom giving great performances. They really make you care about their characters, which from the premise of the film clearly isn't the easiest thing to do, but that is really the whole point. The script and the direction could have been better, but overall the film succeeds in doing what it set out to do- make you think.

  More