Little Red Riding Hood & The Monsters (Caperucita y Pulgarcito contra los monstruos) (1962)
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Roberto Rodriguez (presumably not related to Robert)
“Starring”: Maria Garcia, Cesareo Quezadas, Ofelia Guilmain, Jose Elias Moreno
From: Peliculas Rodriguez
Here’s the movie I promised I would review earlier in the month. This makes the Mexican Santa Claus movie look almost normal in comparison. It’s also from K. Gordon Murray, who found the movie in Mexico, quickly and cheaply dubbed it, and presented it as matinees across the country, where he’d literally carry the movie in a suitcase.
What best describes it is a 5 minute clip done by the Slate website where a narrator dude describes the psychedelic mindf*** of a film for you. But, to sum it up myself, there’s an evil Queen who is jealous of Little Red Riding Hood, so she wants various monsters to go and kill her. LRRH gets help from Tom Thumb (who randomly can turn into normal size) and a giant skunk named Stinky (?!), along with her dog, to help out two “nice” monsters who are on trial and get tortured… that combo allows for LRRH to defeat the Queen and rule the day.. and that sort of thing.
The aforementioned clip describes things pretty well, and you get a nice synopsis of how strange it is. I mean, it’s a musical, for starters. The lady who does LRRH’s singing voice sounds like a middle-aged woman. Then there’s the freaky scenes that probably would give a huge scare to young children, involving fire and of course those creepy (to me, but in a bad way) monsters. What a bizarre film that could have only been made back in the carefree days of yore. I am glad that I was able to track it down-nevermind how I did so-as in full, it’s a total acid trip oddity that thankfully made its way to tape so that it can be preserved… lest people think that this was made up.
So, that’s it for 2010. Tuesday night I’ll post a short thing where I’ll mention the movies I saw that were released in 2010 that I actually liked (there aren’t that many!) and then Friday the 7th I will post my first review of 2011. What it will be, I don’t know, but it will be less strange than the last few movies I’ve talked about… not that that is saying much.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Elves
Elves (1989)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Jeffrey Mandel
Starring: Dan Haggerty, Deanna Lund, Dan Carpenter, Julie Austen
From: Action International Pictures
Oh, what a movie to talk about on Christmas night. I first heard about it a long while ago, then on various sites I heard it brought up for being so batsh*t insane. I finally tracked down a copy of it earlier in the year, and then watched it recently.
It IS batsh*t insane.
Check out the synopsis given on its IMDb page:
"A young woman discovers that she is the focus of an evil Nazi experiment involving selective breeding and summoned elves, (in) an attempt to create a race of supermen. She and two of her friends are trapped in a department store with an elf, and only Dan Haggerty, as the renegade loose-cannon Santa Claus, can save them."
As strange as that sounds, also note that Haggerty is an alcoholic who smokes often, there’s incest in more than one way, pets being drowned in the toilet, Paganism, and oh yeah, the plot being that the “supermen” are half human and half elf! Not to mention, the vintage Guns N’ Roses t-shirt that’s worn as a night shirt, and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles PJ’s that a young boy wears. Yet, this cracked-out plot is actually taken seriously.
Haggerty (famous back in the 70’s for playing Grizzly Adams on TV; he must have fallen on really hard times to appear in this) plays someone who-ironically-had fallen on hard times himself. He was a cop but lost the badge due to his alcoholism. He becomes a store Santa in the department store that his buddy owns. Grizzly even lives there at night as he also become homeless. Upbeat and cheery, I know. That is mixed with the story of the “last pureblood Aryan virgin” (Austen) who with her friends accidentally awakens the elf in a Hellraiser-esque manner that causes so much havoc. The title creature actually doesn't look bad by low-budget standards. It doesn't do too much, though.
The neo-Nazi’s find the creature and with its help it tries to have the elf mate with Austen so that the super race-of likely short creatures-can begin. If that isn’t strange enough, there is the last pureblood Aryan virgin having a younger brother and he spies on his sister taking a shower, and she gets mad. He responds in a profane way and comments on her large breasts! There’s also the virgin and her buddies, who have the stereotypical 80’s hair and lingo, and that is hilarious in 2010.
What a strange story that needed a LOT of pruning and fine-trimming before it made its way to film. But, the biggest problem is that aside from Haggerty, most of the other characters you just can’t stand. It’s “heat” but in a bad way, rather than in a good villain or “mean parents” sort of way. It’s still a howlingly bad movie that you can enjoy watching, but it’d be even more of a gas if the characters wouldn't have been such turn-offs.
I'll be back Friday the 31st for the last review of the year.
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Jeffrey Mandel
Starring: Dan Haggerty, Deanna Lund, Dan Carpenter, Julie Austen
From: Action International Pictures
Oh, what a movie to talk about on Christmas night. I first heard about it a long while ago, then on various sites I heard it brought up for being so batsh*t insane. I finally tracked down a copy of it earlier in the year, and then watched it recently.
It IS batsh*t insane.
Check out the synopsis given on its IMDb page:
"A young woman discovers that she is the focus of an evil Nazi experiment involving selective breeding and summoned elves, (in) an attempt to create a race of supermen. She and two of her friends are trapped in a department store with an elf, and only Dan Haggerty, as the renegade loose-cannon Santa Claus, can save them."
As strange as that sounds, also note that Haggerty is an alcoholic who smokes often, there’s incest in more than one way, pets being drowned in the toilet, Paganism, and oh yeah, the plot being that the “supermen” are half human and half elf! Not to mention, the vintage Guns N’ Roses t-shirt that’s worn as a night shirt, and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles PJ’s that a young boy wears. Yet, this cracked-out plot is actually taken seriously.
Haggerty (famous back in the 70’s for playing Grizzly Adams on TV; he must have fallen on really hard times to appear in this) plays someone who-ironically-had fallen on hard times himself. He was a cop but lost the badge due to his alcoholism. He becomes a store Santa in the department store that his buddy owns. Grizzly even lives there at night as he also become homeless. Upbeat and cheery, I know. That is mixed with the story of the “last pureblood Aryan virgin” (Austen) who with her friends accidentally awakens the elf in a Hellraiser-esque manner that causes so much havoc. The title creature actually doesn't look bad by low-budget standards. It doesn't do too much, though.
The neo-Nazi’s find the creature and with its help it tries to have the elf mate with Austen so that the super race-of likely short creatures-can begin. If that isn’t strange enough, there is the last pureblood Aryan virgin having a younger brother and he spies on his sister taking a shower, and she gets mad. He responds in a profane way and comments on her large breasts! There’s also the virgin and her buddies, who have the stereotypical 80’s hair and lingo, and that is hilarious in 2010.
What a strange story that needed a LOT of pruning and fine-trimming before it made its way to film. But, the biggest problem is that aside from Haggerty, most of the other characters you just can’t stand. It’s “heat” but in a bad way, rather than in a good villain or “mean parents” sort of way. It’s still a howlingly bad movie that you can enjoy watching, but it’d be even more of a gas if the characters wouldn't have been such turn-offs.
I'll be back Friday the 31st for the last review of the year.
Friday, December 24, 2010
One More Thing
On this Christmas Eve I realize that there was one more complaint I had about TRON: Legacy that I neglected to mention in that review. It revolves around the title character.
In the first movie, the title character appears in the digital world, played by Bruce Boxleitner, as Bruce’s character created that computer program. TRON plays a big role in the movie. Not to spoil things, but in the sequel the TRON character appears again, and this time that character gets totally botched in just about every way. It was laughably bad and yet another reason to dislike the film.
I’ll be back tomorrow night.
In the first movie, the title character appears in the digital world, played by Bruce Boxleitner, as Bruce’s character created that computer program. TRON plays a big role in the movie. Not to spoil things, but in the sequel the TRON character appears again, and this time that character gets totally botched in just about every way. It was laughably bad and yet another reason to dislike the film.
I’ll be back tomorrow night.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny
Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny (1972)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Barry Mahon, R. Winer
“Starring”: Jay Ripley, Shay Garner, Pat Morrell, Bob O’Connell
From: R&S Film Enterprises, Inc.
Here is something that I know sounds extremely bizarre and something that I must have made up when I was on drugs or something, but it’s true. In fact, I have proof the movie actually exists. I realize that the plot of “Santa gets his sleigh stuck in the Florida sand and despite the best efforts of random kids he can’t escape. So, to pass the time he tells the Thumbelina story. Then, a guy in a bunny costume comes to save the day” DOES sound like the product of a fever dream, but this movie was actually filmed. In fact, someone uploaded it to YouTube.
It’s from Barry Mahon, a director not only famous in some circles for directing some “nudie pictures” (i.e. plotless flicks where you see a bunch of women naked; hey, times were different back in the 60’s) and suddenly turning to children’s films, but (no kidding) he fought in World War II and was part of the escape made famous in the movie The Great Escape, with lead Steve McQueen loosely playing Mahon. Bizarre but true. Also, this movie is actually a combo effort. The majority of it is from a 1970 movie called Thumbelina (directed by Mahon) and the Santa and Ice Cream Bunny stuff is the beginning and end, filmed by the mysterious R. Winer. Why they did this, I don’t know, but then again I don’t know why a movie called Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny exists.
If you want a detailed recap of it-and I do mean detailed-you can go here and read The Agony Booth’s take on it. It’s a site where I used to read its recaps way back when and even post on their messageboard for quite a few years, but stuff happened and now I don’t. It was a small insular community for a long time but then some rude and ignorant people joined and ruined things. Plus, I got behind on trying to keep up with the board and I decided one day to give up on it. What a shame.
Anyway, to try and be brief, Santa is in Florida and his sleigh is stuck in the sand. He magically calls some children to help him out with that. For some bizarre reason, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn look on but otherwise do nothing. They end up bringing various animals to try and help out, including a sheep, cow, and guy in gorilla suit (!), but it doesn’t work. Santa kills time by telling the story of Thumbelina, where we get the Mahon footage from. After that, Santa asks for help from the Ice Cream Bunny, so that guy in the crappy suit comes, and things end up being fine in the end.
Total amateur hour is the best way to describe this. It’s incompetent and yet despite its bloated length, it’s still wildly entertaining in a “laughing at it” manner. The Thumbelina footage is quite the trip, almost literally. It’s psychedelic and the lead girl looks to be stoned most of the time, and apparently doesn’t like to wear a bra either.
I’m not quite sure what else to say about this one of a kid slice of cinema from way back when, so I’ll mention that I’ll post something real brief on Friday and then Christmas night I’ll post a review of a holiday movie that may be even wackier than the movie I talked about in this review, if you can believe it.
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Barry Mahon, R. Winer
“Starring”: Jay Ripley, Shay Garner, Pat Morrell, Bob O’Connell
From: R&S Film Enterprises, Inc.
Here is something that I know sounds extremely bizarre and something that I must have made up when I was on drugs or something, but it’s true. In fact, I have proof the movie actually exists. I realize that the plot of “Santa gets his sleigh stuck in the Florida sand and despite the best efforts of random kids he can’t escape. So, to pass the time he tells the Thumbelina story. Then, a guy in a bunny costume comes to save the day” DOES sound like the product of a fever dream, but this movie was actually filmed. In fact, someone uploaded it to YouTube.
It’s from Barry Mahon, a director not only famous in some circles for directing some “nudie pictures” (i.e. plotless flicks where you see a bunch of women naked; hey, times were different back in the 60’s) and suddenly turning to children’s films, but (no kidding) he fought in World War II and was part of the escape made famous in the movie The Great Escape, with lead Steve McQueen loosely playing Mahon. Bizarre but true. Also, this movie is actually a combo effort. The majority of it is from a 1970 movie called Thumbelina (directed by Mahon) and the Santa and Ice Cream Bunny stuff is the beginning and end, filmed by the mysterious R. Winer. Why they did this, I don’t know, but then again I don’t know why a movie called Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny exists.
If you want a detailed recap of it-and I do mean detailed-you can go here and read The Agony Booth’s take on it. It’s a site where I used to read its recaps way back when and even post on their messageboard for quite a few years, but stuff happened and now I don’t. It was a small insular community for a long time but then some rude and ignorant people joined and ruined things. Plus, I got behind on trying to keep up with the board and I decided one day to give up on it. What a shame.
Anyway, to try and be brief, Santa is in Florida and his sleigh is stuck in the sand. He magically calls some children to help him out with that. For some bizarre reason, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn look on but otherwise do nothing. They end up bringing various animals to try and help out, including a sheep, cow, and guy in gorilla suit (!), but it doesn’t work. Santa kills time by telling the story of Thumbelina, where we get the Mahon footage from. After that, Santa asks for help from the Ice Cream Bunny, so that guy in the crappy suit comes, and things end up being fine in the end.
Total amateur hour is the best way to describe this. It’s incompetent and yet despite its bloated length, it’s still wildly entertaining in a “laughing at it” manner. The Thumbelina footage is quite the trip, almost literally. It’s psychedelic and the lead girl looks to be stoned most of the time, and apparently doesn’t like to wear a bra either.
I’m not quite sure what else to say about this one of a kid slice of cinema from way back when, so I’ll mention that I’ll post something real brief on Friday and then Christmas night I’ll post a review of a holiday movie that may be even wackier than the movie I talked about in this review, if you can believe it.
Monday, December 20, 2010
TRON:Legacy
TRON:Legacy (2010)
49% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 192 reviews)
Runtime: 127 minutes
Directed by: Joseph Kosinski
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Bruce Boxleitner
From: Walt Disney
Here’s a review that goes along with what I talked about late Friday night. TRON is a movie I’ve only seen twice, including my viewing online last week. I didn’t spend too much time thinking about the sequel until recently. I enjoyed what I saw of the new digital world in the trailers, and I also enjoyed what I heard out of Daft Punk’s score from the film, where like with the original movie and Wendy Carlos, electronica gets blended with a more traditional orchestral thing. I was hoping I’d enjoy it more for those reasons rather than the story, which is like how me (and many others) dig the first film. In the past few days, I had heard some savage reviews for it from various critics and even hardcore film fans (the type that usually mark out for movies like the original TRON and you’d figure would love a sequel almost 30 years in the making to their beloved cult flick), but I was hoping I’d enjoy it.
Well… sad to say, those negative criticisms were correct.
In short, Kevin Flynn (Bridges) becomes the head of ENCOM in the 80’s and runs it, but suddenly in ’89 he disappears and leaves behind a young son, Sam (Hedlund). We flash forward to 2010 and Sam is an adult, a “rebel” type (why, he rides a motorcycle!) who technically owns ENCOM but instead of running it he wants to be moody and other people run it instead. It’s a copy of Microsoft, in rather blatant terms. He enjoys messing around with ENCOM, because he’s a jerk, I guess. What a likeable protagonist! Believe it or not, the debate over “open sourced software” vs. “closed source software” is brought up. Basically, companies like Microsoft want it closed, so that only their people know the code and work on it, while others want it open code, so that anyone can work on the code. In the movie, Sam wants ENCOM software to be open, so as revenge he puts out their new operating system online, as if in that world “torrents” and “peer to peer” sites don’t exist. It’s that kind of dumb movie, folks.
Stuff happens and Sam gets blasted into the digital world, which now is more advanced than it was in the first movie, although not as colorful and it’s basically a futuristic world a la Blade Runner, strangely enough. So I don’t know if it’s “better” or not. Not to spoil too much, but CLU is there and he’s Kevin Flynn, but not aged since ’89, as he was an entity created by Kevin way back when. The effect to make Bridges look young… it mostly looks fake and something out of a PS2 game. CLU is evil, though, and he runs the digital world, as he ran off Kevin, who now lives in hiding. Kevin, Sam, and a lady named Quorra (Wilde; I usually don’t think she’s as hot as most people do. But, in this movie she looked very nice) try to escape the evil world and go to the real world.
This movie… sigh. The visuals are pretty and all, and the Daft Punk soundtrack is pretty sweet. The script and story, though… simply awful. I’ll give one example. Early on in the digital world, CLU tries to kill Sam, and that was even after discovering who he was. Yet, later you find out that CLU was involved in getting Sam beamed into his world, as he needs Sam in his nefarious plot. It makes no sense! It’s as if they made up the script as they went along, ignoring what they had written beforehand. Many instances like that take place. There’s a time window for something to happen, and yet there’s no sense of urgency to it. Even the action scenes are mainly just there and don’t really wow you. What a major disappointment.
The movie at least looks and sounds nice. I saw it at the Downtown Disney AMC Theatres. They have their ETX screen, which is their version of a legit IMAX screen. It’s great. The picture looks neat and the sound is tremendous. The bass moments, you can actually feel. Now if only the movie would have been good...
I also have to bring up Michael Sheen's role, as Castor, an albino-looking fey-acting weirdo who acts like a totally unrestrained David Bowie. My Lord, what overacting there. It was still better than Garrett Hedlund's attempts at acting, though.
I'll be back Thursday night with a wacky Christmas film to watch.
49% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 192 reviews)
Runtime: 127 minutes
Directed by: Joseph Kosinski
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Bruce Boxleitner
From: Walt Disney
Here’s a review that goes along with what I talked about late Friday night. TRON is a movie I’ve only seen twice, including my viewing online last week. I didn’t spend too much time thinking about the sequel until recently. I enjoyed what I saw of the new digital world in the trailers, and I also enjoyed what I heard out of Daft Punk’s score from the film, where like with the original movie and Wendy Carlos, electronica gets blended with a more traditional orchestral thing. I was hoping I’d enjoy it more for those reasons rather than the story, which is like how me (and many others) dig the first film. In the past few days, I had heard some savage reviews for it from various critics and even hardcore film fans (the type that usually mark out for movies like the original TRON and you’d figure would love a sequel almost 30 years in the making to their beloved cult flick), but I was hoping I’d enjoy it.
Well… sad to say, those negative criticisms were correct.
In short, Kevin Flynn (Bridges) becomes the head of ENCOM in the 80’s and runs it, but suddenly in ’89 he disappears and leaves behind a young son, Sam (Hedlund). We flash forward to 2010 and Sam is an adult, a “rebel” type (why, he rides a motorcycle!) who technically owns ENCOM but instead of running it he wants to be moody and other people run it instead. It’s a copy of Microsoft, in rather blatant terms. He enjoys messing around with ENCOM, because he’s a jerk, I guess. What a likeable protagonist! Believe it or not, the debate over “open sourced software” vs. “closed source software” is brought up. Basically, companies like Microsoft want it closed, so that only their people know the code and work on it, while others want it open code, so that anyone can work on the code. In the movie, Sam wants ENCOM software to be open, so as revenge he puts out their new operating system online, as if in that world “torrents” and “peer to peer” sites don’t exist. It’s that kind of dumb movie, folks.
Stuff happens and Sam gets blasted into the digital world, which now is more advanced than it was in the first movie, although not as colorful and it’s basically a futuristic world a la Blade Runner, strangely enough. So I don’t know if it’s “better” or not. Not to spoil too much, but CLU is there and he’s Kevin Flynn, but not aged since ’89, as he was an entity created by Kevin way back when. The effect to make Bridges look young… it mostly looks fake and something out of a PS2 game. CLU is evil, though, and he runs the digital world, as he ran off Kevin, who now lives in hiding. Kevin, Sam, and a lady named Quorra (Wilde; I usually don’t think she’s as hot as most people do. But, in this movie she looked very nice) try to escape the evil world and go to the real world.
This movie… sigh. The visuals are pretty and all, and the Daft Punk soundtrack is pretty sweet. The script and story, though… simply awful. I’ll give one example. Early on in the digital world, CLU tries to kill Sam, and that was even after discovering who he was. Yet, later you find out that CLU was involved in getting Sam beamed into his world, as he needs Sam in his nefarious plot. It makes no sense! It’s as if they made up the script as they went along, ignoring what they had written beforehand. Many instances like that take place. There’s a time window for something to happen, and yet there’s no sense of urgency to it. Even the action scenes are mainly just there and don’t really wow you. What a major disappointment.
The movie at least looks and sounds nice. I saw it at the Downtown Disney AMC Theatres. They have their ETX screen, which is their version of a legit IMAX screen. It’s great. The picture looks neat and the sound is tremendous. The bass moments, you can actually feel. Now if only the movie would have been good...
I also have to bring up Michael Sheen's role, as Castor, an albino-looking fey-acting weirdo who acts like a totally unrestrained David Bowie. My Lord, what overacting there. It was still better than Garrett Hedlund's attempts at acting, though.
I'll be back Thursday night with a wacky Christmas film to watch.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
TRON
TRON (1982)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Steven Lisberger
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Bruce Boxleitner, David Warner, Cindy Morgan
From: Walt Disney
Here’s an appropriate review, given that the sequel for this movie came out this weekend. I only saw this one time, way back in my college days in Illinois, so I wanted to watch it again. However, it’s out of print on DVD (good job, Disney, getting it out for people to see again) and my local Blockbuster doesn’t have it, so I had to resort to YouTube to see it. I know, I know. But, if you’re in the same boat, look for Tron Part 1 on Google Video and you’ll spot it.
I don’t have too much to say about the movie, as it doesn’t exactly possess a plot from a Kurosawa or a David Fincher film. Kevin Flynn (Bridges, in a performance that’s the best of the movie, for sure) used to work for a computer corporation called ENCOM. But, a dastardly rival in the company, Dillinger (Warner) stole some of his projects so while he rose to success in the company, Flynn ended up getting terminated and now runs a small arcade. With help from some pals still in the company (Boxleitner, Morgan), Flynn goes in for the purpose of getting proof of Dillinger’s wrongdoings. However, he runs into trouble with the Master Control Program, the main computer of the company that now has become sentient and even controls Dillinger. Via an experimental laser, Flynn literally gets zapped into the Master Control Program and enters a one of a kind totalitarian world where gladiatorial contests take place, Dillinger in virtual form appearing there too, but even in that form the MCP controls things. With virtual representations of his pals, Flynn tries to beat the games and escape the MCP.
Like I said, it’s not the plot that’s the selling point. It’s rather simple. Not that it means that it’s a bad movie by any means. Bridges in the lead is a nice asset, but it’s the look of the movie in the digital world that is so great. In ’82, it’s mind-blowing stuff; whether you look before the movie or after it came out up to today, I haven’t seen another film that looks quite like it. I really dig it. Them pulling it off almost 30 years ago is a great achievement and in hindsight, the movie deserved much more love-at least for its usage of computers in motion pictures-than it got at the time. If you’re a computer dork then you should especially enjoy some aspects of it, the technical terms and whatnot. I was amused that the people in the virtual world represented various programs of the MCP; it sought out inappropriate programs/people to do combat with, just for the easy win. What a hater the Master Control Program is!
What also has to be mentioned is the sound of the movie. The blips and bloops of the digital world are wholly appropriate and make you believe in what sounds like a wacky premise. Also, the soundtrack. You hear two songs from Journey, and in 2010 the band is usually lol-worthy according to the majority of people, but if you dig their songs (like me) then you’ll enjoy hearing their two contributions. What provides most of the music, though, is the score from Wendy Carlos, a synthesizer whiz who provided a great soundtrack that fit perfectly with the film. In a note that’s more trivia than anything else, Wendy Carlos used to be known as… Walter Carlos. Yep, a transsexual. Not that it means anything in terms of the movie that she came up with.
If you haven’t seen the movie, you should see it once, just to see if you’re as captivated with the film’s digital world as I was. I plan on being back Monday night with a review of TRON: Legacy. I’ve heard some scathing reviews of it, but I still hope the flick is not a waste of my time or money.
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Steven Lisberger
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Bruce Boxleitner, David Warner, Cindy Morgan
From: Walt Disney
Here’s an appropriate review, given that the sequel for this movie came out this weekend. I only saw this one time, way back in my college days in Illinois, so I wanted to watch it again. However, it’s out of print on DVD (good job, Disney, getting it out for people to see again) and my local Blockbuster doesn’t have it, so I had to resort to YouTube to see it. I know, I know. But, if you’re in the same boat, look for Tron Part 1 on Google Video and you’ll spot it.
I don’t have too much to say about the movie, as it doesn’t exactly possess a plot from a Kurosawa or a David Fincher film. Kevin Flynn (Bridges, in a performance that’s the best of the movie, for sure) used to work for a computer corporation called ENCOM. But, a dastardly rival in the company, Dillinger (Warner) stole some of his projects so while he rose to success in the company, Flynn ended up getting terminated and now runs a small arcade. With help from some pals still in the company (Boxleitner, Morgan), Flynn goes in for the purpose of getting proof of Dillinger’s wrongdoings. However, he runs into trouble with the Master Control Program, the main computer of the company that now has become sentient and even controls Dillinger. Via an experimental laser, Flynn literally gets zapped into the Master Control Program and enters a one of a kind totalitarian world where gladiatorial contests take place, Dillinger in virtual form appearing there too, but even in that form the MCP controls things. With virtual representations of his pals, Flynn tries to beat the games and escape the MCP.
Like I said, it’s not the plot that’s the selling point. It’s rather simple. Not that it means that it’s a bad movie by any means. Bridges in the lead is a nice asset, but it’s the look of the movie in the digital world that is so great. In ’82, it’s mind-blowing stuff; whether you look before the movie or after it came out up to today, I haven’t seen another film that looks quite like it. I really dig it. Them pulling it off almost 30 years ago is a great achievement and in hindsight, the movie deserved much more love-at least for its usage of computers in motion pictures-than it got at the time. If you’re a computer dork then you should especially enjoy some aspects of it, the technical terms and whatnot. I was amused that the people in the virtual world represented various programs of the MCP; it sought out inappropriate programs/people to do combat with, just for the easy win. What a hater the Master Control Program is!
What also has to be mentioned is the sound of the movie. The blips and bloops of the digital world are wholly appropriate and make you believe in what sounds like a wacky premise. Also, the soundtrack. You hear two songs from Journey, and in 2010 the band is usually lol-worthy according to the majority of people, but if you dig their songs (like me) then you’ll enjoy hearing their two contributions. What provides most of the music, though, is the score from Wendy Carlos, a synthesizer whiz who provided a great soundtrack that fit perfectly with the film. In a note that’s more trivia than anything else, Wendy Carlos used to be known as… Walter Carlos. Yep, a transsexual. Not that it means anything in terms of the movie that she came up with.
If you haven’t seen the movie, you should see it once, just to see if you’re as captivated with the film’s digital world as I was. I plan on being back Monday night with a review of TRON: Legacy. I’ve heard some scathing reviews of it, but I still hope the flick is not a waste of my time or money.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Santa Claus
Santa Claus (1959)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Rene Cardona
Starring: Jose Elias Moreno, Cesareo Quezadas, Jose Luis Aguirre, Nora Veryan
From: Cinematografica Calderon S.A.
Here is the movie I referenced in the last post. It’s a movie best known for appearing on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (during the 5th season) but just this past Friday on TCM Underground on Turner Classic Movies-it appeals to wacky people, like well, me!-it made its debut in its original English dub format. You see, K. Gordon Murray, an American producer, took some Mexican films in the late 50’s and early 60’s and dubbed them into English. The thing is, the films he picked were extremely strange children’s Mexican films! They got released anyhow in the U.S. and probably traumatized young kids who are now in their 40’s. This one isn’t even the strangest, by any means. I plan on talking about one of those at the very end of this year, as a matter of fact.
I understand that the concept of Santa isn’t that popular in Mexico, especially back then. That may be why this interpretation of jolly ole Saint Nick is so bizarre. Santa lives in space, first off! Then, you notice that often his skin appears to be blue. You know, like the guy who drank so much colloidal silver his skin turned blue permanently.
He has a Toyland that is populated by child workers who represent various stereotypes from across the world; for example, “Africa” is represented by African-American children wearing leopard-skin loincloths, bones in the air, dancing around wearing bongos; hey, don’t get mad. I didn’t come up with the scene! That’s one of a few scenes which goes on for far too long in order to pad out the running time. He can look into the dreams of children (gee, that’s not creepy at all) and his telescope for looking at children is a tube with an eyeball at the other end! He battles Satan and in this particular case, a fey-acting demon named Pitch-literally dressed like a stereotypical devil, with the red clothing, red face, and the horns-which arrives at Earth and his plan to ruin Christmas is… messing around with a few kids in Mexico City. How did they come up with this stuff?
After it’s established that Santa spied… er, I mean watched over the kids being targeted by Pitch, he got ready to go on his Christmas Eve flight, which includes a visit to Merlin the Wizard… please don’t ask for an explanation, because the movie doesn’t give one. You then see Santa on Earth dealing with that dastardly Pitch, in ways that are insulting even to the target audience of this movie.
The movie is really, really bad. It’s totally amateur hour in terms of everything related to movie-making. It’s also quite creepy watching this f’ed up movie unfold in front of your eyes. I mean, near the end Santa has to try and escape being seen by some cops and firemen! What a motion picture.
There’s a surprisingly detailed page for the movie at Wikipedia. And, if you look around Google Video, you can find the movie in full on there (or divided in parts) so that you can enjoy the madness yourself.
I'll be back Friday night with not a Christmas review, but rather a review related to a movie coming out the same day.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Rene Cardona
Starring: Jose Elias Moreno, Cesareo Quezadas, Jose Luis Aguirre, Nora Veryan
From: Cinematografica Calderon S.A.
Here is the movie I referenced in the last post. It’s a movie best known for appearing on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (during the 5th season) but just this past Friday on TCM Underground on Turner Classic Movies-it appeals to wacky people, like well, me!-it made its debut in its original English dub format. You see, K. Gordon Murray, an American producer, took some Mexican films in the late 50’s and early 60’s and dubbed them into English. The thing is, the films he picked were extremely strange children’s Mexican films! They got released anyhow in the U.S. and probably traumatized young kids who are now in their 40’s. This one isn’t even the strangest, by any means. I plan on talking about one of those at the very end of this year, as a matter of fact.
I understand that the concept of Santa isn’t that popular in Mexico, especially back then. That may be why this interpretation of jolly ole Saint Nick is so bizarre. Santa lives in space, first off! Then, you notice that often his skin appears to be blue. You know, like the guy who drank so much colloidal silver his skin turned blue permanently.
He has a Toyland that is populated by child workers who represent various stereotypes from across the world; for example, “Africa” is represented by African-American children wearing leopard-skin loincloths, bones in the air, dancing around wearing bongos; hey, don’t get mad. I didn’t come up with the scene! That’s one of a few scenes which goes on for far too long in order to pad out the running time. He can look into the dreams of children (gee, that’s not creepy at all) and his telescope for looking at children is a tube with an eyeball at the other end! He battles Satan and in this particular case, a fey-acting demon named Pitch-literally dressed like a stereotypical devil, with the red clothing, red face, and the horns-which arrives at Earth and his plan to ruin Christmas is… messing around with a few kids in Mexico City. How did they come up with this stuff?
After it’s established that Santa spied… er, I mean watched over the kids being targeted by Pitch, he got ready to go on his Christmas Eve flight, which includes a visit to Merlin the Wizard… please don’t ask for an explanation, because the movie doesn’t give one. You then see Santa on Earth dealing with that dastardly Pitch, in ways that are insulting even to the target audience of this movie.
The movie is really, really bad. It’s totally amateur hour in terms of everything related to movie-making. It’s also quite creepy watching this f’ed up movie unfold in front of your eyes. I mean, near the end Santa has to try and escape being seen by some cops and firemen! What a motion picture.
There’s a surprisingly detailed page for the movie at Wikipedia. And, if you look around Google Video, you can find the movie in full on there (or divided in parts) so that you can enjoy the madness yourself.
I'll be back Friday night with not a Christmas review, but rather a review related to a movie coming out the same day.
Monday, December 13, 2010
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989)
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Jeremiah S. Chechik
Starring: Chevy Chase, Beverly D’Angelo, Juliette Lewis, Johnny Galecki, Randy Quaid
From: Warner Brothers
Yeah, I’ve decided that I’ll review a Christmas movie or two before that big holiday comes around on the 25th. I picked this one for good reason. Last Christmas I spent it at a relative’s in Kansas (man was it cold there, by the way) and one of the movies that was watched on that day was this one. I saw a lot of it but not all; the last time I had seen all of it was a long time ago. So, a few days ago I decided to rent it from Blockbuster and I saw it Friday night. Seeing it last year reminded me that the movie is pretty great, with the funny being brought at a near-constant pace. So, I am glad I finally watched it.
I’m sure that everyone knows the general plot about how Clark W. Griswold (Chase, back when he was actually funny) tries to have a normal Christmas at home with his family and all the in-laws coming over, while waiting for a bonus check to come in so that he can install a swimming pool in his backyard. Things are chaotic the entire time, from the time that they try to find a Christmas tree (and deal with the type of dick drivers that I sometimes come across; by the way, there are no mountains like that in Illinois, where the movie is supposed to be set in. Trust me on that. It was obviously filmed in Colorado just by looking at that one scene) to dealing with the loony in-laws and getting all the decorations on the house to work properly.
As I said, it’s funny just about the whole way through and through several different varieties of humor, too. There’s also some seriousness and some poignant moments, but it’s done with a tinge of humor too. I don’t want to recap the entire film in order to pick out the best moments, as it’s hard to pick one. If you haven’t seen this, then shame on you. It’s clear to me why this movie has become a Christmas classic, with millions of people watching it at around this time every year. It can be watched at any time, but the holiday season is the most appropriate spot for it.
I do have to mention that what seems like the most popular character in the film is Randy Quaid’s Cousin Eddie, the uncouth and wacky family member from Kansas who has a plastic (not metal) plate in the head and acts like someone with a plate in their head. He’s great in that role. It’s just a shame now that Quaid and his wife have all those mental problems and are literally on the run in Canada to avoid being sent to jail in the United States, with (no kidding) Dog The Bounty Hunter on the lookout for him! If you don’t know the sad tale about Randy the past few years, Vanity Fair has a great but sad article on the whole situation that can be read here.
Personally, I’d rather remember Randy for his memorable film roles-whether they be comedy or dramatic-rather than this unfortunate turn of events for him. As for the Cousin Eddie character, I’m sure that it’s better in small does rather than have the whole movie based around him. I say that as there was a made for TV movie based off of that character called Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie’s Island Adventure, where his entire family spends the holidays on a South Pacific island and Dana Barron returns from the first Vacation movie to reprise her role as Audrey Griswold. I understand that the movie is terrible, especially compared to the original Christmas Vacation. The script is apparently terrible and Cousin Eddie becomes a sad caricature. So, I don’t plan on ever seeing that motion picture.
However, you do need to see this, even if you’ve watched it many times before. It’s great stuff and it shows that even if the holiday season goes to pot for you, it should still mean something important, no matter what it is.
I’ll be back Wednesday night with a new review. It’s another themed movie, but it’s very different from this, that is for darn sure.
Runtime: 97 minutes
Directed by: Jeremiah S. Chechik
Starring: Chevy Chase, Beverly D’Angelo, Juliette Lewis, Johnny Galecki, Randy Quaid
From: Warner Brothers
Yeah, I’ve decided that I’ll review a Christmas movie or two before that big holiday comes around on the 25th. I picked this one for good reason. Last Christmas I spent it at a relative’s in Kansas (man was it cold there, by the way) and one of the movies that was watched on that day was this one. I saw a lot of it but not all; the last time I had seen all of it was a long time ago. So, a few days ago I decided to rent it from Blockbuster and I saw it Friday night. Seeing it last year reminded me that the movie is pretty great, with the funny being brought at a near-constant pace. So, I am glad I finally watched it.
I’m sure that everyone knows the general plot about how Clark W. Griswold (Chase, back when he was actually funny) tries to have a normal Christmas at home with his family and all the in-laws coming over, while waiting for a bonus check to come in so that he can install a swimming pool in his backyard. Things are chaotic the entire time, from the time that they try to find a Christmas tree (and deal with the type of dick drivers that I sometimes come across; by the way, there are no mountains like that in Illinois, where the movie is supposed to be set in. Trust me on that. It was obviously filmed in Colorado just by looking at that one scene) to dealing with the loony in-laws and getting all the decorations on the house to work properly.
As I said, it’s funny just about the whole way through and through several different varieties of humor, too. There’s also some seriousness and some poignant moments, but it’s done with a tinge of humor too. I don’t want to recap the entire film in order to pick out the best moments, as it’s hard to pick one. If you haven’t seen this, then shame on you. It’s clear to me why this movie has become a Christmas classic, with millions of people watching it at around this time every year. It can be watched at any time, but the holiday season is the most appropriate spot for it.
I do have to mention that what seems like the most popular character in the film is Randy Quaid’s Cousin Eddie, the uncouth and wacky family member from Kansas who has a plastic (not metal) plate in the head and acts like someone with a plate in their head. He’s great in that role. It’s just a shame now that Quaid and his wife have all those mental problems and are literally on the run in Canada to avoid being sent to jail in the United States, with (no kidding) Dog The Bounty Hunter on the lookout for him! If you don’t know the sad tale about Randy the past few years, Vanity Fair has a great but sad article on the whole situation that can be read here.
Personally, I’d rather remember Randy for his memorable film roles-whether they be comedy or dramatic-rather than this unfortunate turn of events for him. As for the Cousin Eddie character, I’m sure that it’s better in small does rather than have the whole movie based around him. I say that as there was a made for TV movie based off of that character called Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie’s Island Adventure, where his entire family spends the holidays on a South Pacific island and Dana Barron returns from the first Vacation movie to reprise her role as Audrey Griswold. I understand that the movie is terrible, especially compared to the original Christmas Vacation. The script is apparently terrible and Cousin Eddie becomes a sad caricature. So, I don’t plan on ever seeing that motion picture.
However, you do need to see this, even if you’ve watched it many times before. It’s great stuff and it shows that even if the holiday season goes to pot for you, it should still mean something important, no matter what it is.
I’ll be back Wednesday night with a new review. It’s another themed movie, but it’s very different from this, that is for darn sure.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Warrior's Way
The Warrior’s Way (2010)
42% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 24 reviews)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Sngmoo Lee
Starring: Dong-gun Jang, Kate Bosworth, Geoffrey Rush, Danny Huston
From: Rogue/Relativity Media
Here is a movie that I saw advertised on the sports channels last week and while I hadn’t heard too many good things about it and I knew it was made 3 years ago and sat on the shelf the entire time, I still wanted to return to Downtown Disney (and the wonderful Coca-Coca Freestyle machines they now have at the movie theatre there) and it sounded more interesting to me than anything else playing there that I hadn’t seen yet.
Also intriguing was the movie’s interesting cast, the plot of cowboys vs. samurai ninjas, and the odd cast. It being on the shelf for so long, the first-time director being a film professor at NYU (and boy does that show, once I saw the film), and that kind of movie getting a wide release made it a curio and I wanted to check it out. In hindsight I wish I would have seen some oddball releases, like that Korean movie D-Wars (the one with the dragons; you probably don’t remember it), which I saw on DVD later and what a strange and wacky film that is. One of these days I need to watch that again and do a review for it. You wouldn’t believe the story or some of the bad storytelling they do. Yet there’s some legit thrilling action.
But onto this movie. Despite it being more loony than I expected, I felt let down and I thought it should have been quite a bit better than it was. No wonder it spent time unreleased.
The plot is that a warrior assassin in a nameless Asian country in what I presume was in the late 19th century mows down the members of a rival clan. His clan is called… Sad Flutes. Honest. That’s because of the sound a slashed throat makes, or so they explain in a wacky way. He refuses to kill the last living member of the clan, as it’s a baby girl. He’s shamed so he keeps the cute little girl and they go to America to escape and visit a friend. They get to the town of Lode (Load would be more accurate) and they meet up with the townsfolk, many of whom are retired from the circus and still walk around in their costumes! I swear this is true. He gets to know Lynne (Bosworth), a troubled woman who is looking for revenge against the Colonel (Huston), a bad guy who is quite evil and for some reason before he violates a woman she must have good teeth. What a quirk. He’s also masked due to having part of his face burned. Meanwhile, Yang’s old master (Lung Ti) and his band of merry men are on the look for him and track him down to Lode. Yang and Lynne develop a relationship that revolves around knifeplay and throwing rocks at each other’s heads. Don’t ask.
I don’t know what impression you had of the movie before it came out via ads and trailers or what have you, but there isn’t a whole lot of action to see. I had heard this bit of news beforehand so I wasn’t too disappointed by it. Much of the story is Lynne looking for revenge and Yang trying to escape his past. Not all that exciting. The action stuff can be fun at times but the way it was shot usually turned me off. I mean, to expose the big secret or whatever you want to call it, but just about all of the movie is greenscreened. Meaning, things were filmed on a stage and everything was filled in via computer. That can lead to trouble when it looks phony. Heck, the most famous example to use that process, 300, didn’t blow me away the one time I saw it. Talk about an overrated film. Here, it lead to some nice visuals at times but it otherwise looks really phony and it’s distracting. The same with the CGI used. It’s just way too stylized and that seemed to be the focus rather than delivering on a good story or entertaining action.
Speaking of the action, what you saw of it was usually not that fun to watch. It wasn’t fancy swordplay that Yang uses by any means, and the other stuff usually didn’t capture my interest. That even applies to the final 20 minutes or so when the fit hits the shan and you finally get the ending action setpiece, and you see things like costumed circus freaks wielding guns! Like I said, despite its odd touches, it’s not as exciting as it may sound. The obvious (at least to me) homages to better things didn't help out matters either. I'd rather watch those better films instead.
And the ending… one conflict has a decent resolution but the other one did not appeal to me at all. Without giving too much away, not a lot is shown. They do something else instead and what could have been a cool showdown was ruined. After that, it gets really goofy and involves the Arctic (again, don’t ask) and wow, I wish I could have enjoyed this more than I did. It’s more dull than you’d expect and I wish it would have been done a more traditional way.
I'll be back Sunday night with a new review.
42% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 24 reviews)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: Sngmoo Lee
Starring: Dong-gun Jang, Kate Bosworth, Geoffrey Rush, Danny Huston
From: Rogue/Relativity Media
Here is a movie that I saw advertised on the sports channels last week and while I hadn’t heard too many good things about it and I knew it was made 3 years ago and sat on the shelf the entire time, I still wanted to return to Downtown Disney (and the wonderful Coca-Coca Freestyle machines they now have at the movie theatre there) and it sounded more interesting to me than anything else playing there that I hadn’t seen yet.
Also intriguing was the movie’s interesting cast, the plot of cowboys vs. samurai ninjas, and the odd cast. It being on the shelf for so long, the first-time director being a film professor at NYU (and boy does that show, once I saw the film), and that kind of movie getting a wide release made it a curio and I wanted to check it out. In hindsight I wish I would have seen some oddball releases, like that Korean movie D-Wars (the one with the dragons; you probably don’t remember it), which I saw on DVD later and what a strange and wacky film that is. One of these days I need to watch that again and do a review for it. You wouldn’t believe the story or some of the bad storytelling they do. Yet there’s some legit thrilling action.
But onto this movie. Despite it being more loony than I expected, I felt let down and I thought it should have been quite a bit better than it was. No wonder it spent time unreleased.
The plot is that a warrior assassin in a nameless Asian country in what I presume was in the late 19th century mows down the members of a rival clan. His clan is called… Sad Flutes. Honest. That’s because of the sound a slashed throat makes, or so they explain in a wacky way. He refuses to kill the last living member of the clan, as it’s a baby girl. He’s shamed so he keeps the cute little girl and they go to America to escape and visit a friend. They get to the town of Lode (Load would be more accurate) and they meet up with the townsfolk, many of whom are retired from the circus and still walk around in their costumes! I swear this is true. He gets to know Lynne (Bosworth), a troubled woman who is looking for revenge against the Colonel (Huston), a bad guy who is quite evil and for some reason before he violates a woman she must have good teeth. What a quirk. He’s also masked due to having part of his face burned. Meanwhile, Yang’s old master (Lung Ti) and his band of merry men are on the look for him and track him down to Lode. Yang and Lynne develop a relationship that revolves around knifeplay and throwing rocks at each other’s heads. Don’t ask.
I don’t know what impression you had of the movie before it came out via ads and trailers or what have you, but there isn’t a whole lot of action to see. I had heard this bit of news beforehand so I wasn’t too disappointed by it. Much of the story is Lynne looking for revenge and Yang trying to escape his past. Not all that exciting. The action stuff can be fun at times but the way it was shot usually turned me off. I mean, to expose the big secret or whatever you want to call it, but just about all of the movie is greenscreened. Meaning, things were filmed on a stage and everything was filled in via computer. That can lead to trouble when it looks phony. Heck, the most famous example to use that process, 300, didn’t blow me away the one time I saw it. Talk about an overrated film. Here, it lead to some nice visuals at times but it otherwise looks really phony and it’s distracting. The same with the CGI used. It’s just way too stylized and that seemed to be the focus rather than delivering on a good story or entertaining action.
Speaking of the action, what you saw of it was usually not that fun to watch. It wasn’t fancy swordplay that Yang uses by any means, and the other stuff usually didn’t capture my interest. That even applies to the final 20 minutes or so when the fit hits the shan and you finally get the ending action setpiece, and you see things like costumed circus freaks wielding guns! Like I said, despite its odd touches, it’s not as exciting as it may sound. The obvious (at least to me) homages to better things didn't help out matters either. I'd rather watch those better films instead.
And the ending… one conflict has a decent resolution but the other one did not appeal to me at all. Without giving too much away, not a lot is shown. They do something else instead and what could have been a cool showdown was ruined. After that, it gets really goofy and involves the Arctic (again, don’t ask) and wow, I wish I could have enjoyed this more than I did. It’s more dull than you’d expect and I wish it would have been done a more traditional way.
I'll be back Sunday night with a new review.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
A Random Aside
I’ll mention quickly a pair of videos that I watched (more than once, at that). Both are from a Norwegian nostalgia show-I swear it’s true-called Gylne Tider. From looking online, every few years some random dudes look for celebrities and interview them about life after being at the top. I don’t want to use the team “has-been”, but… anyway, the first two shows they did, it was local celebrities. The last one and the new one, though, has faces that Americans and Europeans would recognize.
The first video became a viral hit just this past Friday. It’s because it’s what turned out to be a 6 minute long promo video (!) for the latest edition of the show, and it has the strangest collection of has-been celebrities you can imagine, lip-synching to a late 80’s charity recording of the Beatles hit Let It Be! Everyone’s green-screened on a beach and it’s like you just ingested shrooms from the moment that you see Roger Moore’s spoken word introduction at the beginning to seeing the likes of Tonya Harding, Jason Alexander, Bud Bundy from Married With Children, Philip Michael Thomas, Dolph Lundgren, Judd Nelson, Glenn Close, Dee Snider, Right Said Fred, and many others lip-synching. There are also brief appearances from the likes of Pam Anderson, Mickey Rourke and the recently departed Leslie Nielsen.
It’s no wonder it became a viral hit… and sadly, it’s no wonder that the producers of the show are idiots and are going around the Internet trying to have the video taken down all of the streaming sites! Doesn’t make much sense to me, the show gets by far the most amount of world publicity it has ever gotten, and they want people NOT to see what is causing all the buzz. What narrow-minded fools.
Anyhow, I hope that they don’t find the French site I’m linking to that still has the video up. You’ll get a wacky French ad right before the video starts, so you can enjoy that too.
Here it is.
The second video I found on my own, and it’s the same show plugging their previous season, which was back in ’06. The theme then was “80’s” so that’s why they have washed up people from the era lip-synching We Are The World! It’s not quite like the newer video, but then again what is? Besides a whole gaggle of singers (quite a few of whom I presume are European peeps that never made it big here) there’s also the likes of Lorenzo Lamas, Louis Gossett Jr., Rudy from The Cosby Show, Larry Hagman, and even Richard Kiel. You also get to see that some celebrities today look worse than they did back then. Limahl (The Neverending Story dude) has different hair… or rather, different atrocious hair. And, for some reason Bonnie Tyler now looks exactly like Wynonna Judd!
Here’s that video.
What wacky and great things they are.
I’ll be back Wednesday night, and there I’ll plan on reviewing a movie now out on the big screen.
The first video became a viral hit just this past Friday. It’s because it’s what turned out to be a 6 minute long promo video (!) for the latest edition of the show, and it has the strangest collection of has-been celebrities you can imagine, lip-synching to a late 80’s charity recording of the Beatles hit Let It Be! Everyone’s green-screened on a beach and it’s like you just ingested shrooms from the moment that you see Roger Moore’s spoken word introduction at the beginning to seeing the likes of Tonya Harding, Jason Alexander, Bud Bundy from Married With Children, Philip Michael Thomas, Dolph Lundgren, Judd Nelson, Glenn Close, Dee Snider, Right Said Fred, and many others lip-synching. There are also brief appearances from the likes of Pam Anderson, Mickey Rourke and the recently departed Leslie Nielsen.
It’s no wonder it became a viral hit… and sadly, it’s no wonder that the producers of the show are idiots and are going around the Internet trying to have the video taken down all of the streaming sites! Doesn’t make much sense to me, the show gets by far the most amount of world publicity it has ever gotten, and they want people NOT to see what is causing all the buzz. What narrow-minded fools.
Anyhow, I hope that they don’t find the French site I’m linking to that still has the video up. You’ll get a wacky French ad right before the video starts, so you can enjoy that too.
Here it is.
The second video I found on my own, and it’s the same show plugging their previous season, which was back in ’06. The theme then was “80’s” so that’s why they have washed up people from the era lip-synching We Are The World! It’s not quite like the newer video, but then again what is? Besides a whole gaggle of singers (quite a few of whom I presume are European peeps that never made it big here) there’s also the likes of Lorenzo Lamas, Louis Gossett Jr., Rudy from The Cosby Show, Larry Hagman, and even Richard Kiel. You also get to see that some celebrities today look worse than they did back then. Limahl (The Neverending Story dude) has different hair… or rather, different atrocious hair. And, for some reason Bonnie Tyler now looks exactly like Wynonna Judd!
Here’s that video.
What wacky and great things they are.
I’ll be back Wednesday night, and there I’ll plan on reviewing a movie now out on the big screen.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Loose Cannons
Loose Cannons (1990)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Bob Clark
Starring: Gene Hackman, Dan Aykroyd, Dom DeLuise, Ronny Cox, Nancy Travis, Robert Prosky
From: Tristar
Here’s something a little unusual from me. A movie I disliked so much that I couldn’t watch more than a half hour of it. I’ll explain.
On a certain thread on a certain messageboard, some people have un-ironic love for this flick. I’ve known for a few years that a lot of people don’t like the film and find it to be off-putting (despite its very nice cast) so I was interested in finally seeing it. It wasn’t at my local Blockbuster and I am not a Netflixer (at least not yet) I had to wait until it showed up one night on Encore (yep, I’m still getting those channels for free for some reason) last month, and I watched it then… or rather, I watched it until I turned it off due to me disliking it so much.
In short, the movie is about a traditional down on his luck cop (Hackman, who wears a tremendous Washington Redskins Starter jacket; they’re a pro football team, if you don’t know) who teams up with a loony cop with multiple personalities (Aykroyd) to track down some criminals. I didn’t get to see much of the actual plan of the criminals (the opening had some guys dressed up in costume get gunned down in a boat in a horrible-looking and confusing scene) but the end result is that they’re looking for a long-lost sex tape of Hitler (!!!) That’s about all you need to know about the plot.
Now, the movie starts off OK-enough (aside from the aforementioned opening) with Hackman doing a decent job and there actually being some decent jokes. But then Aykroyd’s character comes in and things get derailed. It was an extremely off-putting character, obnoxious to the extreme and unbelievable how he was able to deduce what happened at the crimescene from the most random of clues. Not even Sherlock Holmes could have done such a thing. Hackman starts hating his new partner with an irrational anger (IMO) then what made me stop watching the film a half hour in was one scene set in an S&M club. I swear I’m not making any of the plot up, by the way. Stuff happens and one of Dan’s “wacky” personas come through to save the day, and that was WAY more off-putting and obnoxious than his usual character, I could take no more. To think that long-time veteran actor Gene hasn’t starred in too many comedies (aside from the very end of his career) and THIS was one of them. Totally baffling to me. Despite his awesome jacket*, the movie is downright horrible and should never be watched.
• In that same thread I’ve heard people say that they wish Gene would have worn that jacket in his earlier and later films, from the likes of Superman, The French Connection, and even Unforgiven. Sounds like a good idea to me.
My apologies for getting this up at this late hour, but I'll make a special post Tuesday morning where I will explain, and also post some odd videos.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Bob Clark
Starring: Gene Hackman, Dan Aykroyd, Dom DeLuise, Ronny Cox, Nancy Travis, Robert Prosky
From: Tristar
Here’s something a little unusual from me. A movie I disliked so much that I couldn’t watch more than a half hour of it. I’ll explain.
On a certain thread on a certain messageboard, some people have un-ironic love for this flick. I’ve known for a few years that a lot of people don’t like the film and find it to be off-putting (despite its very nice cast) so I was interested in finally seeing it. It wasn’t at my local Blockbuster and I am not a Netflixer (at least not yet) I had to wait until it showed up one night on Encore (yep, I’m still getting those channels for free for some reason) last month, and I watched it then… or rather, I watched it until I turned it off due to me disliking it so much.
In short, the movie is about a traditional down on his luck cop (Hackman, who wears a tremendous Washington Redskins Starter jacket; they’re a pro football team, if you don’t know) who teams up with a loony cop with multiple personalities (Aykroyd) to track down some criminals. I didn’t get to see much of the actual plan of the criminals (the opening had some guys dressed up in costume get gunned down in a boat in a horrible-looking and confusing scene) but the end result is that they’re looking for a long-lost sex tape of Hitler (!!!) That’s about all you need to know about the plot.
Now, the movie starts off OK-enough (aside from the aforementioned opening) with Hackman doing a decent job and there actually being some decent jokes. But then Aykroyd’s character comes in and things get derailed. It was an extremely off-putting character, obnoxious to the extreme and unbelievable how he was able to deduce what happened at the crimescene from the most random of clues. Not even Sherlock Holmes could have done such a thing. Hackman starts hating his new partner with an irrational anger (IMO) then what made me stop watching the film a half hour in was one scene set in an S&M club. I swear I’m not making any of the plot up, by the way. Stuff happens and one of Dan’s “wacky” personas come through to save the day, and that was WAY more off-putting and obnoxious than his usual character, I could take no more. To think that long-time veteran actor Gene hasn’t starred in too many comedies (aside from the very end of his career) and THIS was one of them. Totally baffling to me. Despite his awesome jacket*, the movie is downright horrible and should never be watched.
• In that same thread I’ve heard people say that they wish Gene would have worn that jacket in his earlier and later films, from the likes of Superman, The French Connection, and even Unforgiven. Sounds like a good idea to me.
My apologies for getting this up at this late hour, but I'll make a special post Tuesday morning where I will explain, and also post some odd videos.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Faster
Faster (2010)
43% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 63 reviews)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: George Tillman Jr.
Starring: Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Billy Bob Thornton, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Carla Gugino
From: CBS Films
Here is a movie I saw last Friday, but it’s just now that I’ve gotten around to writing a review of it. Like the last movie I reviewed, it revolves around getting revenge… before that, though, let me mention something new at the location I saw this at, Downtown Disney.
The AMC Theatres at Walt Disney World now have a special concession stand. The other one is the same as usual, but they have a new one and it’s cafeteria-style. I had heard online that something geeky and new (at least to Florida) would be there and I wanted to try it. They have some drink machines known as Coca Cola Freestyle. It’s a machine which offers 106 (!) different flavors of Coke products. It’s mainly flavors that you can’t get anywhere else (or are foreign) such as Coca Cola Orange, Grape Vault, and Peach Sprite. The latter two are delicious, as I can personally confirm. That machine alone is enough for me to want to go there and watch movies exclusively. What a dork I am, I know.
The movie was the only thing at that time in night that I was interested in seeing. I heard some strong reviews from some messageboards so I decided to pay money to see the tale of Driver get revenge on the people who double-crossed him and killed his brother.
Like I just said, it’s a revenge tale where Rock goes after the people who killed his brother. What happened was that he, his brother, and some others participated in a bank robbery. They got away but some people track down the gang and not only acquire their robbery dough, but the brother gets gunned down. Rock goes to jail for an amount of time. He gets released and immediately goes after those people as a means of revenge. It sounds simple, but there’s also a pair of cops (Thornton, Gugino) who goes after Rock for killing those people, and there’s also a guy known as Killer (I’m not joking with the names of Killer and Driver; that’s how they’re ID’ed in the movie!) who is a British dude that was sick as a child but got better and to a preposterous degree he is successful as an adult, with fancy exotic cars, an attractive lady (Maggie Grace), and he’s a great contract killer too.
As others online have said, the character of Killer just doesn’t work. It’s way too ridiculous to believe that Killer could ever exist in the real world, or even in the world of this movie, where Driver was able to elude capture despite gunning down a few people. No way could I believe that character was real. Not to mention, what bothered most people was that the character was just annoying and a whiny twit, which I do agree with. I was more turned off by how science fiction Killer was, but to each their own.
It’s a shame as if it wasn’t for that, I would have enjoyed the movie quite a bit more. As is, even with a bad character, it wasn’t such a turn-off (like the one REALLY bad character in Iron Man 2, for example) that it completely tanked things for me. Then again, Iron Man 2 even without that one character was a wild disappointment. Anyhow, Faster still is a gritty and downbeat 70’s style movie filled with a bunch of characters that are dark and have many problems. The action is brutal, with several bullets to the head, shown in graphic detail. Rock doesn’t say too many words. The story is rather simplistic but still entertaining, if you enjoy that sort of thing. It’s just unfortunate that Killer was such a poor character. Still, I am glad that Rock has finally returned to action movies rather than dreck like The Tooth Fairy or that Escape From Witch Mountain flick.
I’ll be back Sunday night with a new review.
43% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 63 reviews)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: George Tillman Jr.
Starring: Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Billy Bob Thornton, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Carla Gugino
From: CBS Films
Here is a movie I saw last Friday, but it’s just now that I’ve gotten around to writing a review of it. Like the last movie I reviewed, it revolves around getting revenge… before that, though, let me mention something new at the location I saw this at, Downtown Disney.
The AMC Theatres at Walt Disney World now have a special concession stand. The other one is the same as usual, but they have a new one and it’s cafeteria-style. I had heard online that something geeky and new (at least to Florida) would be there and I wanted to try it. They have some drink machines known as Coca Cola Freestyle. It’s a machine which offers 106 (!) different flavors of Coke products. It’s mainly flavors that you can’t get anywhere else (or are foreign) such as Coca Cola Orange, Grape Vault, and Peach Sprite. The latter two are delicious, as I can personally confirm. That machine alone is enough for me to want to go there and watch movies exclusively. What a dork I am, I know.
The movie was the only thing at that time in night that I was interested in seeing. I heard some strong reviews from some messageboards so I decided to pay money to see the tale of Driver get revenge on the people who double-crossed him and killed his brother.
Like I just said, it’s a revenge tale where Rock goes after the people who killed his brother. What happened was that he, his brother, and some others participated in a bank robbery. They got away but some people track down the gang and not only acquire their robbery dough, but the brother gets gunned down. Rock goes to jail for an amount of time. He gets released and immediately goes after those people as a means of revenge. It sounds simple, but there’s also a pair of cops (Thornton, Gugino) who goes after Rock for killing those people, and there’s also a guy known as Killer (I’m not joking with the names of Killer and Driver; that’s how they’re ID’ed in the movie!) who is a British dude that was sick as a child but got better and to a preposterous degree he is successful as an adult, with fancy exotic cars, an attractive lady (Maggie Grace), and he’s a great contract killer too.
As others online have said, the character of Killer just doesn’t work. It’s way too ridiculous to believe that Killer could ever exist in the real world, or even in the world of this movie, where Driver was able to elude capture despite gunning down a few people. No way could I believe that character was real. Not to mention, what bothered most people was that the character was just annoying and a whiny twit, which I do agree with. I was more turned off by how science fiction Killer was, but to each their own.
It’s a shame as if it wasn’t for that, I would have enjoyed the movie quite a bit more. As is, even with a bad character, it wasn’t such a turn-off (like the one REALLY bad character in Iron Man 2, for example) that it completely tanked things for me. Then again, Iron Man 2 even without that one character was a wild disappointment. Anyhow, Faster still is a gritty and downbeat 70’s style movie filled with a bunch of characters that are dark and have many problems. The action is brutal, with several bullets to the head, shown in graphic detail. Rock doesn’t say too many words. The story is rather simplistic but still entertaining, if you enjoy that sort of thing. It’s just unfortunate that Killer was such a poor character. Still, I am glad that Rock has finally returned to action movies rather than dreck like The Tooth Fairy or that Escape From Witch Mountain flick.
I’ll be back Sunday night with a new review.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Fighting Back
Fighting Back (1982)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Lewis Teague
Starring: Tom Skerritt, Patti Lupone, Michael Sarrazin, Yaphet Kotto, David Rasche
From: Dino de Laurentiis Company
Unfortunately, this review will start off with death. Aside from Leslie Nielsen passing away yesterday, there’s also The Empire Strikes Back director Irwin Kirschner passing away today; now, besides Empire, the only movies I’ve seen from him are the James Bond movie that actually isn’t a part of the series called Never Say Never Again and the other is Robocop 2. Neither movie I think too highly of, to say the least, but I’m sure his other films are better than that and Empire will never not be awesome. So, RIP to him.
Also passing away recently was producer Dino de Laurentiis, who produced a variety of films from the 70’s up to recent times. His name became infamous as it got connected to such schlock as the first King Kong remake in the 70’s, a killer whale movie called Orca, the Flash Gordon remake, and some others. Yet, he also produced serious things, like Serpico, Death Wish, and Conan the Barbarian. So, his name shouldn’t be looked down upon if it’s attached to a movie.
This film, Fighting Back, is from him and released by Paramount. Now, Dino didn’t produce any of the Death Wish sequels, so it’s not a surprise that the same year the first sequel came out, he’d go back to the well himself and do something similar. This has never been released on even DVD, but it was on Netflix Instant. I don’t have that service but I was still able to track it down and watch the film.
The movie is about a typical Italian family, headed by patriarch John D’Angelo (Skerritt) who runs a deli in Philadelphia and sad to say for them, their neighborhood has turned to crap, with crime and other bad things ruling the day. He decides to live up to the title of the movie after having a ridiculously bad set of circumstances happen to him one after another. He and his wife were driving around one day when they interfered with a pimp slapping his ho! I kid you not. That lead to a car chase and an accident results in a miscarriage. Then, his mother walks in on a robbery and the robbers try to pry a ring off of her finger; it was stuck, so the entire finger gets cut off with shears! This all happens in the span of a day or two at the most. Reminds me of the Daniel Powter song Bad Day.
So, after all that John gets mad and he forms a neighborhood watch group that patrols the area and calls the cops in case they find something illegal happening. What ends up happening is that John and his group act more like vigilantes (especially when John sees the guy who ran him off the road), which gets the ire of the likes of local politicians, the police, and even a local African-American activist (Kotto), as the watch gets noticed as being a racist thing. Yep, the movie is button-pushing to the max. It's manipulative.
Yet, it's still very entertaining. It's a drama and there's drama things that go on. For example, a classmate of their son (who looks like around 12) is a user of heroin! But, there's also action that you see throughout, from barfights to a brawl in a chicken shack, and arms getting broken with baseball bats. It's audience-pleasing. So, it's not technically great, the story throws a lot out there in a "let's see what sticks on the wall" sort of thing, some things should not be looked at too closely... that said, it's still fun and if you enjoy movies like the first Death Wish or other stories concerning vigilantes getting revenge on their own when the law can't help them out, then it is a movie worth tracking down. I have no idea if it's still on Netflix Instant or not, but I'm sure that "less ethical" sites also have it available for download.
I'll be back tomorrow night.
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Lewis Teague
Starring: Tom Skerritt, Patti Lupone, Michael Sarrazin, Yaphet Kotto, David Rasche
From: Dino de Laurentiis Company
Unfortunately, this review will start off with death. Aside from Leslie Nielsen passing away yesterday, there’s also The Empire Strikes Back director Irwin Kirschner passing away today; now, besides Empire, the only movies I’ve seen from him are the James Bond movie that actually isn’t a part of the series called Never Say Never Again and the other is Robocop 2. Neither movie I think too highly of, to say the least, but I’m sure his other films are better than that and Empire will never not be awesome. So, RIP to him.
Also passing away recently was producer Dino de Laurentiis, who produced a variety of films from the 70’s up to recent times. His name became infamous as it got connected to such schlock as the first King Kong remake in the 70’s, a killer whale movie called Orca, the Flash Gordon remake, and some others. Yet, he also produced serious things, like Serpico, Death Wish, and Conan the Barbarian. So, his name shouldn’t be looked down upon if it’s attached to a movie.
This film, Fighting Back, is from him and released by Paramount. Now, Dino didn’t produce any of the Death Wish sequels, so it’s not a surprise that the same year the first sequel came out, he’d go back to the well himself and do something similar. This has never been released on even DVD, but it was on Netflix Instant. I don’t have that service but I was still able to track it down and watch the film.
The movie is about a typical Italian family, headed by patriarch John D’Angelo (Skerritt) who runs a deli in Philadelphia and sad to say for them, their neighborhood has turned to crap, with crime and other bad things ruling the day. He decides to live up to the title of the movie after having a ridiculously bad set of circumstances happen to him one after another. He and his wife were driving around one day when they interfered with a pimp slapping his ho! I kid you not. That lead to a car chase and an accident results in a miscarriage. Then, his mother walks in on a robbery and the robbers try to pry a ring off of her finger; it was stuck, so the entire finger gets cut off with shears! This all happens in the span of a day or two at the most. Reminds me of the Daniel Powter song Bad Day.
So, after all that John gets mad and he forms a neighborhood watch group that patrols the area and calls the cops in case they find something illegal happening. What ends up happening is that John and his group act more like vigilantes (especially when John sees the guy who ran him off the road), which gets the ire of the likes of local politicians, the police, and even a local African-American activist (Kotto), as the watch gets noticed as being a racist thing. Yep, the movie is button-pushing to the max. It's manipulative.
Yet, it's still very entertaining. It's a drama and there's drama things that go on. For example, a classmate of their son (who looks like around 12) is a user of heroin! But, there's also action that you see throughout, from barfights to a brawl in a chicken shack, and arms getting broken with baseball bats. It's audience-pleasing. So, it's not technically great, the story throws a lot out there in a "let's see what sticks on the wall" sort of thing, some things should not be looked at too closely... that said, it's still fun and if you enjoy movies like the first Death Wish or other stories concerning vigilantes getting revenge on their own when the law can't help them out, then it is a movie worth tracking down. I have no idea if it's still on Netflix Instant or not, but I'm sure that "less ethical" sites also have it available for download.
I'll be back tomorrow night.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
RIP Leslie Nielsen
Instead of doing a review tonight, I'll note this sad bit of news. Rest In Peace. I'll have a review up tomorrow night, and also Tuesday night.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Lords of Dogtown
Lords of Dogtown (2005)
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke
Starring: John Robinson, Emile Hirsch, Heath Ledger, Nikki Reed, Rebecca de Mornay
From: Columbia
Here is a random movie that actually has to deal with the surfing scene also, and is a feature film version of a popular documentary concerning some surfer boys who went into skateboarding and did a lot to change it from a fad thing to a now popular sport that has many fans and is a staple of such things as the X-Games.
Way back when I saw the documentary Dogtown and Z-Boys, which I guess was fine but for whatever reasons wasn’t as great as I was hoping it would be. Strangely (especially for me) I was more entertained by this movie version of the same story. To sum things up, you get to see the lives of young kids Stacy Peralta (who put together Dogtown And Z-Boys and wrote this movie), Jay Adams, and Tony Alva, who enjoy skating and surfing alongside a board designer named Skip Engblom (Ledger; I thought he delivered a very memorable performance here. Remember, this was long before The Dark Knight and around the same time as Brokeback Mountain; back in those days his acting skills didn’t always receive a lot of praise, fair or not). Skip polyurethane wheels for skateboards, which manage to greatly improve their usage. From that and the usage of emptied swimming pools one summer, those boys become great at that craft and forming a team called Z-Boys, representing Dogtown (an area of Santa Monica, California); they win competitions and all the boys receive a fair amount of fame. Not too surprisingly, jealousy and cash drive them apart, but various events cause them to patch things up.
I am not quite sure how accurate the movie is to real life (I’d hope so given that one of the boys wrote it), but it’s an entertaining tale about the history of a hip sport and how some teenage males managed to play a role in the 70’s to make it the success it is today; there’d be no guys like Tony Hawk, Chad Muska, or Bob Burnquist (yep, back in the day I enjoyed playing Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2 on my Nintendo64. Other than that I don’t watch skateboarding and I sure as heck don’t try to do it myself, me with my little to none athletic ability) and it wouldn’t be an X-Games staple. The movie is well-made and not only do you get to see some drama, but also of course there’s the skateboarding action and there’s a soundtrack filled with cool 70’s tunes.
By the way, I didn’t mind that there were some attractive ladies in the cast, including Nikki Reed (director Hardwicke directed her in the great Thirteen in ’03 and I’m sure that connection is why she was cast in the Twilight series, the first one helmed by Catherine) and America Ferrara. Speaking of her, it reminds me of when I saw the movie on the big screen back in ’05. It wasn’t a crowded screening by any means, but a group of young teenage girls were there along with one “father figure” type. I presume they wanted to see it because the lead boys in the movie were “cute” or what have you. There’s a scene where Ferrara’s character (a minor one) takes off her shirt and a boy gets to see her large breasts encased in a bra. This was back when America wasn’t so thin. I thought she looked fine back then, but maybe that’s just me. Anyway, a girl went, “Whoa!” to the sight of a shirtless Ferrara. I thought a similar thing!
I'll be back a week from today with a new review. Things may be hectic with Thanksgiving coming up and all that, but I'll still have a new review then.
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke
Starring: John Robinson, Emile Hirsch, Heath Ledger, Nikki Reed, Rebecca de Mornay
From: Columbia
Here is a random movie that actually has to deal with the surfing scene also, and is a feature film version of a popular documentary concerning some surfer boys who went into skateboarding and did a lot to change it from a fad thing to a now popular sport that has many fans and is a staple of such things as the X-Games.
Way back when I saw the documentary Dogtown and Z-Boys, which I guess was fine but for whatever reasons wasn’t as great as I was hoping it would be. Strangely (especially for me) I was more entertained by this movie version of the same story. To sum things up, you get to see the lives of young kids Stacy Peralta (who put together Dogtown And Z-Boys and wrote this movie), Jay Adams, and Tony Alva, who enjoy skating and surfing alongside a board designer named Skip Engblom (Ledger; I thought he delivered a very memorable performance here. Remember, this was long before The Dark Knight and around the same time as Brokeback Mountain; back in those days his acting skills didn’t always receive a lot of praise, fair or not). Skip polyurethane wheels for skateboards, which manage to greatly improve their usage. From that and the usage of emptied swimming pools one summer, those boys become great at that craft and forming a team called Z-Boys, representing Dogtown (an area of Santa Monica, California); they win competitions and all the boys receive a fair amount of fame. Not too surprisingly, jealousy and cash drive them apart, but various events cause them to patch things up.
I am not quite sure how accurate the movie is to real life (I’d hope so given that one of the boys wrote it), but it’s an entertaining tale about the history of a hip sport and how some teenage males managed to play a role in the 70’s to make it the success it is today; there’d be no guys like Tony Hawk, Chad Muska, or Bob Burnquist (yep, back in the day I enjoyed playing Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2 on my Nintendo64. Other than that I don’t watch skateboarding and I sure as heck don’t try to do it myself, me with my little to none athletic ability) and it wouldn’t be an X-Games staple. The movie is well-made and not only do you get to see some drama, but also of course there’s the skateboarding action and there’s a soundtrack filled with cool 70’s tunes.
By the way, I didn’t mind that there were some attractive ladies in the cast, including Nikki Reed (director Hardwicke directed her in the great Thirteen in ’03 and I’m sure that connection is why she was cast in the Twilight series, the first one helmed by Catherine) and America Ferrara. Speaking of her, it reminds me of when I saw the movie on the big screen back in ’05. It wasn’t a crowded screening by any means, but a group of young teenage girls were there along with one “father figure” type. I presume they wanted to see it because the lead boys in the movie were “cute” or what have you. There’s a scene where Ferrara’s character (a minor one) takes off her shirt and a boy gets to see her large breasts encased in a bra. This was back when America wasn’t so thin. I thought she looked fine back then, but maybe that’s just me. Anyway, a girl went, “Whoa!” to the sight of a shirtless Ferrara. I thought a similar thing!
I'll be back a week from today with a new review. Things may be hectic with Thanksgiving coming up and all that, but I'll still have a new review then.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Endless Summer
The Endless Summer (1966)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Bruce Brown
Starring: Actual surfers such as Michael Hyson and Robert August, narrated by Bruce Brown
From: Bruce Brown Films
Here’s something a little different from me: a documentary, and something even odder… a surfing film. I briefly reviewed one, which I saw at a screening at Universal Orlando when I was the only person in the auditorium. It’s known as Bustin’ Down The Door, from 2008. I reviewed it many months after I had seen it that one time, so that’s why it wasn’t my best. I’ll have to try and track that down one of these days. I haven’t even found it on the streaming video sites. I mean, to be perfectly honest, that’s how I watched this movie… so sue me!
The aforementioned Bustin’ was about some 70’s surfers whose impact was so great they changed surfing forever, whether or not you consider it to be for better or for worse in that it got commercialized. This movie is different. It’s back in a simpler time where some dudes did it more for fun and that indescribable rush rather than any cash prize. Bruce Brown had done small-time surfing movies before, but this is seen as his best. Accompanied by appropriate groovy surf music and calm narration, you follow some surfers search for “the perfect wave” as they are lucky to travel the entire world looking for one; you also see them interact with the locals.
Given that they are surfers and they have quite the awesome laid-back lifestyle where they live on the beach and whenever they can they can ride the wave (at least that’s the stereotype), it’s no surprise that you have goofy and droll humor. It works perfectly for this, trust me. I wish I had that sort of lifestyle, but as my athletic ability is about 0… sigh. It is a sport that you rarely get to see on TV so I’m sure that’s why there are many different surfing documentaries out there throughout many different decades and this is the second one I’ve seen but I’m sure that all of them look at things in a unique way, so as I possibly watch more and more of them, that will be neat to see how they differ.
If you want to see a quaint and nice movie with some daft humor and of course some pretty scenery, then you should enjoy it. It is also a nice look at how being a surfer is, at least back in the carefree 60's. It’s on YouTube in 10 parts. It’s not difficult to find.
I'll be back Sunday night with a new review.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Bruce Brown
Starring: Actual surfers such as Michael Hyson and Robert August, narrated by Bruce Brown
From: Bruce Brown Films
Here’s something a little different from me: a documentary, and something even odder… a surfing film. I briefly reviewed one, which I saw at a screening at Universal Orlando when I was the only person in the auditorium. It’s known as Bustin’ Down The Door, from 2008. I reviewed it many months after I had seen it that one time, so that’s why it wasn’t my best. I’ll have to try and track that down one of these days. I haven’t even found it on the streaming video sites. I mean, to be perfectly honest, that’s how I watched this movie… so sue me!
The aforementioned Bustin’ was about some 70’s surfers whose impact was so great they changed surfing forever, whether or not you consider it to be for better or for worse in that it got commercialized. This movie is different. It’s back in a simpler time where some dudes did it more for fun and that indescribable rush rather than any cash prize. Bruce Brown had done small-time surfing movies before, but this is seen as his best. Accompanied by appropriate groovy surf music and calm narration, you follow some surfers search for “the perfect wave” as they are lucky to travel the entire world looking for one; you also see them interact with the locals.
Given that they are surfers and they have quite the awesome laid-back lifestyle where they live on the beach and whenever they can they can ride the wave (at least that’s the stereotype), it’s no surprise that you have goofy and droll humor. It works perfectly for this, trust me. I wish I had that sort of lifestyle, but as my athletic ability is about 0… sigh. It is a sport that you rarely get to see on TV so I’m sure that’s why there are many different surfing documentaries out there throughout many different decades and this is the second one I’ve seen but I’m sure that all of them look at things in a unique way, so as I possibly watch more and more of them, that will be neat to see how they differ.
If you want to see a quaint and nice movie with some daft humor and of course some pretty scenery, then you should enjoy it. It is also a nice look at how being a surfer is, at least back in the carefree 60's. It’s on YouTube in 10 parts. It’s not difficult to find.
I'll be back Sunday night with a new review.
Monday, November 15, 2010
A Special Diversion
No movie review tonight. I am too ticked off to do so. Instead I’ll talk about a movie website which stooped to a new low today.
I know I’ve mentioned it before, but for the past few years I’ve looked at the forum at CHUD.com. I don’t really read the articles on the site itself, as it’s mainly stuff written by (and I’m using a quote that was posted anonymously on the bottom of the page of the offending article; you see, stupidly all of the articles have *anonymous* commenting. How asinine is that?) “hip latte-drinking faux intellectual f*******s”. It’s a hipster site with hipster writers that think they’re oh so witty when they’re just pompous assbags that aren’t entertaining to read at all. They think they're great, writing smug articles while listening to awful garbage like Sonic Youth or The Pixies. I've never liked hipsters; I prefer more "real" individuals. The forum itself, I only looked at a few threads at most. Those threads are great, but still most of the board I just ignored.
Well, I’ve been irked by the site as of late. The hipster smugness has increased, there are some stupid hypocritical new rules on the forum, and then today… oh today… I follow CHUD on Twitter. This afternoon I see that they posted an article about a proposed Spiderman musical. That’s not the horrifying part, although the idea of that even taking place is befuddling. Instead, it was what the article was titled. Here it is.
Yes, the title actually is: “The Spiderman Musical: The Worst Thing To Hit NYC Since Flight 175?” Now, I am not an expert on the subject matter but it was easy to infer what it was referencing, and yes, after looking online, Flight 175 was the plane that crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Seriously, CHUD used cheap heat in order to get attention and more page views, since by George the site NEEDS more page views and that is paramount over everything else. They actually thought it was OK to piss on everyone who was affected by September 11th just so that they’d get people to look at one of the vapid and stupid articles. Talk about offensive.
Me, I wasn’t even offended at the joke itself; it wasn’t too funny. It’s the idea that they’d use September 11 for comedy AND the way they used it for attention. Why would you even do such a horrible thing? Thousands of people were affected by what happened. I had relatives who lived now that far from the World Trade Center (one of them worked only a few blocks from there). None of them were harmed when the buildings went down, but Christ, how callous and heartless do you have to be? Why risk offending so many people for something so trite?
After I saw that garbage, it makes me not want to look at the site ever again. As is, I don’t feel like looking at the site anytime soon and if you decide to look at the link I provided, I hope it’s the last time you look at it yourself. Don’t support sites that think it’s acceptable to act this way. Hell, I even made a post on the forum and used my birth name (my handle on there isn’t my birth name) in a post where I got pretty mad and stated the obvious of it being offensive crap. Amazingly, I seem to be the only one on the forum who at least is willing to state the truth about it being tasteless. Everyone else is either complacent with it, or in some cases, the asshole who came up with the article and headline (some douche whose name doesn’t even deserve to be mentioned) actually got praised for being so “edgy” or what have you. I spit upon that guy and anyone who defends him! And I’m happy to do so to honor all of those who lost their lives in 9/11 or anyone who was affected by the tragedy.
That REALLY has left me in a bad mood for the rest of the day. Even now, hours after I first saw the headline, my blood is boiling. So, my next review will be up on Thursday and I should be in a better mood then. But until then, here’s a middle finger, directed straight at CHUD.com.
I know I’ve mentioned it before, but for the past few years I’ve looked at the forum at CHUD.com. I don’t really read the articles on the site itself, as it’s mainly stuff written by (and I’m using a quote that was posted anonymously on the bottom of the page of the offending article; you see, stupidly all of the articles have *anonymous* commenting. How asinine is that?) “hip latte-drinking faux intellectual f*******s”. It’s a hipster site with hipster writers that think they’re oh so witty when they’re just pompous assbags that aren’t entertaining to read at all. They think they're great, writing smug articles while listening to awful garbage like Sonic Youth or The Pixies. I've never liked hipsters; I prefer more "real" individuals. The forum itself, I only looked at a few threads at most. Those threads are great, but still most of the board I just ignored.
Well, I’ve been irked by the site as of late. The hipster smugness has increased, there are some stupid hypocritical new rules on the forum, and then today… oh today… I follow CHUD on Twitter. This afternoon I see that they posted an article about a proposed Spiderman musical. That’s not the horrifying part, although the idea of that even taking place is befuddling. Instead, it was what the article was titled. Here it is.
Yes, the title actually is: “The Spiderman Musical: The Worst Thing To Hit NYC Since Flight 175?” Now, I am not an expert on the subject matter but it was easy to infer what it was referencing, and yes, after looking online, Flight 175 was the plane that crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Seriously, CHUD used cheap heat in order to get attention and more page views, since by George the site NEEDS more page views and that is paramount over everything else. They actually thought it was OK to piss on everyone who was affected by September 11th just so that they’d get people to look at one of the vapid and stupid articles. Talk about offensive.
Me, I wasn’t even offended at the joke itself; it wasn’t too funny. It’s the idea that they’d use September 11 for comedy AND the way they used it for attention. Why would you even do such a horrible thing? Thousands of people were affected by what happened. I had relatives who lived now that far from the World Trade Center (one of them worked only a few blocks from there). None of them were harmed when the buildings went down, but Christ, how callous and heartless do you have to be? Why risk offending so many people for something so trite?
After I saw that garbage, it makes me not want to look at the site ever again. As is, I don’t feel like looking at the site anytime soon and if you decide to look at the link I provided, I hope it’s the last time you look at it yourself. Don’t support sites that think it’s acceptable to act this way. Hell, I even made a post on the forum and used my birth name (my handle on there isn’t my birth name) in a post where I got pretty mad and stated the obvious of it being offensive crap. Amazingly, I seem to be the only one on the forum who at least is willing to state the truth about it being tasteless. Everyone else is either complacent with it, or in some cases, the asshole who came up with the article and headline (some douche whose name doesn’t even deserve to be mentioned) actually got praised for being so “edgy” or what have you. I spit upon that guy and anyone who defends him! And I’m happy to do so to honor all of those who lost their lives in 9/11 or anyone who was affected by the tragedy.
That REALLY has left me in a bad mood for the rest of the day. Even now, hours after I first saw the headline, my blood is boiling. So, my next review will be up on Thursday and I should be in a better mood then. But until then, here’s a middle finger, directed straight at CHUD.com.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex * But Were Afraid To Ask
Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex * But Were Afraid To Ask (1972)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen (but of course), Gene Wilder, Burt Reynolds, Tony Randall, Lynn Redgrave
From: United Artists
Here is something interesting: an anthology film from Woody Allen where you not only get his trademark “unique” humor but also vulgarity, and while it’s based on a nonfiction book of the same name, it’s only in the loosest sense. Instead of a “sex manual” that the book was, the movie was a series of sketches that not only talked about such things as transvestites, flashers, bestiality (!), and S&M, but also spoofs Italian new wave movies, horror flicks, and more. It’s a movie I’ve seen a few times and I’m always amused by it, even though it certainly is uneven at times. It’s easiest to break down what the seven segments are:
1. Do Aphrodisiacs Work? Woody plays a court jester and he gives an aphrodisiac to the Queen (the late Redgrave), with comic results.
2. What Is Sodomy? Gene Wilder plays a doctor who falls in love with an Armenian patient he meets one day. Problem is, the partner… is a sheep!
3. Why Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching An Orgasm? This is the spoof of Italian movies of the time period. I mean, from the way it’s shot to the fact that all the dialogue is in Italian. Woody plays a smooth lover (or at least a character that wants to be smooth) who can’t get his wife off, to be blunt. The solution to the problem is rather interesting.
4. Are All Transvestites Homosexuals? A middle-aged guy experiments with wearing women’s clothes… but it turns out much worse for him than he could have imagined.
5. What Are Sex Perverts? It’s a spoof of a 50’s era game show, where a panel has to guess what a guest’s sexual perversion is. Would you believe that one of the guys on the panel is REGIS PHILBIN? It’s true. Since the movie came out, his appearance in that role takes on great humor in of itself. Sure, he was known at the time for being a TV host, but not like in his Live With Regis and whoever days.
6. Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research and Experiments Accurate? Woody and a young blonde meet up with a crazy mad scientist (played by veteran horror movie actor John Carradine, part of the ill-fated Carradine acting family), and things get really loony from there.
7. What Happens During Ejaculation? The last-and arguably-the best segment, you see what happens in the human body during a night of romance. You see what happens in the brain, with it being controlled by Randall and one of the operators is good old Burt. You also see some sperm getting ready for “deployment”, including Allen.
Like I said, it’s uneven, but if you think you would enjoy a quirky take on adult subject matter, then track this down. I'll be back Monday night.
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen (but of course), Gene Wilder, Burt Reynolds, Tony Randall, Lynn Redgrave
From: United Artists
Here is something interesting: an anthology film from Woody Allen where you not only get his trademark “unique” humor but also vulgarity, and while it’s based on a nonfiction book of the same name, it’s only in the loosest sense. Instead of a “sex manual” that the book was, the movie was a series of sketches that not only talked about such things as transvestites, flashers, bestiality (!), and S&M, but also spoofs Italian new wave movies, horror flicks, and more. It’s a movie I’ve seen a few times and I’m always amused by it, even though it certainly is uneven at times. It’s easiest to break down what the seven segments are:
1. Do Aphrodisiacs Work? Woody plays a court jester and he gives an aphrodisiac to the Queen (the late Redgrave), with comic results.
2. What Is Sodomy? Gene Wilder plays a doctor who falls in love with an Armenian patient he meets one day. Problem is, the partner… is a sheep!
3. Why Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching An Orgasm? This is the spoof of Italian movies of the time period. I mean, from the way it’s shot to the fact that all the dialogue is in Italian. Woody plays a smooth lover (or at least a character that wants to be smooth) who can’t get his wife off, to be blunt. The solution to the problem is rather interesting.
4. Are All Transvestites Homosexuals? A middle-aged guy experiments with wearing women’s clothes… but it turns out much worse for him than he could have imagined.
5. What Are Sex Perverts? It’s a spoof of a 50’s era game show, where a panel has to guess what a guest’s sexual perversion is. Would you believe that one of the guys on the panel is REGIS PHILBIN? It’s true. Since the movie came out, his appearance in that role takes on great humor in of itself. Sure, he was known at the time for being a TV host, but not like in his Live With Regis and whoever days.
6. Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research and Experiments Accurate? Woody and a young blonde meet up with a crazy mad scientist (played by veteran horror movie actor John Carradine, part of the ill-fated Carradine acting family), and things get really loony from there.
7. What Happens During Ejaculation? The last-and arguably-the best segment, you see what happens in the human body during a night of romance. You see what happens in the brain, with it being controlled by Randall and one of the operators is good old Burt. You also see some sperm getting ready for “deployment”, including Allen.
Like I said, it’s uneven, but if you think you would enjoy a quirky take on adult subject matter, then track this down. I'll be back Monday night.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The Magnificent Seven
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: John Sturges
Starring: Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Eli Wallach, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, etc.
From: MGM
My apologies for this being a few hours late. I was busy today.
Here is a movie in a genre I haven’t really talked about before, the western. The only serious western I’ve talked about so far is The War Wagon, starring John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. This movie, though, is one that I’ve seen a few times before, as it’s great stuff. I just now need to see the movie it’s a remake of, Akira Kurosawa’s 1954 movie The Seven Samurai. I have it on a VHS tape, taped off of a Turner Classic Movies broadcast taped months ago, but as it’s a 3 ½ hour movie, I need a free afternoon and the motivation to watch it.
This movie can be found online but the version on Google Video appears to be a few minutes short; besides, you’re better off viewing it on a nice TV, between the nice Mexican scenery and the great score from Elmer Bernstein.
The plot is pretty simple but there’s more to it than meets the eye. People in a small Mexican town are harassed by Calvera (Wallach) and his bandits for supplies such as food; this happens a good amount of times throughout the years. Finally, the people of the town get fed up and some of the guys volunteer to go up north to the United States for help. They meet up with a cowboy named Chris (Brynner) and their plan is for Chris to get six other men to go down to Mexico to protect them from the bandits and to train the citizens to fight. He recruits a manly bunch of men, including Vin (McQueen), Bernardo (Bronson), Britt (Coburn), and a few others.
All of them have their own issues and problems and you get to experience that throughout. Sure, there’s fun and well-done action but a lot of it is getting to know the characters and their problems and why they are in the position they are. They don’t find the position of “gunslinger” being as honorable or cool as it may sound. Can they get it together to fight off against the bandits in a struggle that turns out to be more of a hassle than they first expected?
The movie is great stuff. It’s great old-fashioned entertainment with a lot of cool lines and snappy dialogue throughout, with enough time given to all of the seven to show off that while they’re cool, they also have foibles and difficulties. A few of the people in the cast ended up becoming big stars, and for good reason. What an awesome cast of many men… guys that you can idolize. Many of the big stars of today just don’t compare. They’d get their asses kicked in a brawl, I swear!
If you enjoy movies with manly men, westerns, and/or want to see some famous names from the past early in their careers, this is a must-see. I’ll be back Friday night with a new review.
Runtime: 128 minutes
Directed by: John Sturges
Starring: Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Eli Wallach, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, etc.
From: MGM
My apologies for this being a few hours late. I was busy today.
Here is a movie in a genre I haven’t really talked about before, the western. The only serious western I’ve talked about so far is The War Wagon, starring John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. This movie, though, is one that I’ve seen a few times before, as it’s great stuff. I just now need to see the movie it’s a remake of, Akira Kurosawa’s 1954 movie The Seven Samurai. I have it on a VHS tape, taped off of a Turner Classic Movies broadcast taped months ago, but as it’s a 3 ½ hour movie, I need a free afternoon and the motivation to watch it.
This movie can be found online but the version on Google Video appears to be a few minutes short; besides, you’re better off viewing it on a nice TV, between the nice Mexican scenery and the great score from Elmer Bernstein.
The plot is pretty simple but there’s more to it than meets the eye. People in a small Mexican town are harassed by Calvera (Wallach) and his bandits for supplies such as food; this happens a good amount of times throughout the years. Finally, the people of the town get fed up and some of the guys volunteer to go up north to the United States for help. They meet up with a cowboy named Chris (Brynner) and their plan is for Chris to get six other men to go down to Mexico to protect them from the bandits and to train the citizens to fight. He recruits a manly bunch of men, including Vin (McQueen), Bernardo (Bronson), Britt (Coburn), and a few others.
All of them have their own issues and problems and you get to experience that throughout. Sure, there’s fun and well-done action but a lot of it is getting to know the characters and their problems and why they are in the position they are. They don’t find the position of “gunslinger” being as honorable or cool as it may sound. Can they get it together to fight off against the bandits in a struggle that turns out to be more of a hassle than they first expected?
The movie is great stuff. It’s great old-fashioned entertainment with a lot of cool lines and snappy dialogue throughout, with enough time given to all of the seven to show off that while they’re cool, they also have foibles and difficulties. A few of the people in the cast ended up becoming big stars, and for good reason. What an awesome cast of many men… guys that you can idolize. Many of the big stars of today just don’t compare. They’d get their asses kicked in a brawl, I swear!
If you enjoy movies with manly men, westerns, and/or want to see some famous names from the past early in their careers, this is a must-see. I’ll be back Friday night with a new review.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tango & Cash
Tango & Cash (1989)
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: Andrey Konchalovskiy
Starring: Sly Stallone, Kurt Russell (no relation, I swear), Jack Palance, Teri Hatcher
From: Warner Brothers
First off, I have to mention that my November movie plans have changed already. The movie that I was going to review next… I’ll wait for that to either hit the dollar theatre joints or I’ll just wait for it to come on DVD. I won’t get into why; it’s just better that way. The next movie I’ll review will be in a genre I haven’t really talked about on here before: the western. This movie, though, is an action/comedy buddy movie, but with an emphasis on the humor.
Tango & Cash is a movie I’ve known about for years but I didn’t feel like watching until a few minutes ago when I bought the DVD used. I watched it and was amused by it, even though it was in widescreen and not anamorphic. Basically, on one of those old TV’s it just looks bad and the black bars dominate things. Then it was released on Blu-Ray and as of course that is anamorphic, things are greatly improved. However, I didn’t rush out and buy it, as I wanted to save my money and there were more important things to purchase. One day, though, at Target it was on sale for real cheap so I finally got the Blu-Ray and last month I watched it.
This is a movie that had a troubled history (the director listed here did most of it, but due to the usual “creative differences”, was replaced) and there were squabbling about how it should turn out… while it is evident while watching it that there are times where things are rushed or just doesn’t seem quite right, somehow the movie works with its goofiness, charm, and near-constant one-liners, something that I usually would detest but for some reason it happens to work with this film.
The plot is that Stallone is Ray Tango, a prim and proper cop who dresses in suits and often checks his stocks. Russell is Gabe Cash, a gruff cop who enjoys wearing blue jeans. They both on their own go after drug dealers. Yves Perret (Palance, overacting in a delicious manner) is a major drug dealer and he’s upset at both cops for ruining his business. So he comes up with quite the plan. Instead of killing them and making them martyrs, they get set up to look like dirty cops that killed an FBI agent, necessitating them going to jail. That’s exactly what happens and it takes some help, but they escape and despite their many differences they have to work together to try and bring him down. Sly’s lady friend Kiki (Hatcher) gets involved too.
As I mentioned, the movie is more comedy than action, although the action you do see is entertaining and not poorly done. Some familiar faces from 80 genre movies appear, such as James Hong, Brion James, and the unique-looking Robert Z’Dar, possessor of a one of a kind face. The plot moves along pretty quickly. There’s a great-looking proto-SUV assault vehicle that gets used by the heroes, to great effect. And, the one-liners come often. If you don’t like that sort of thing, the movie may not be for you. Then again, that sort of thing isn’t always for me either and yet whether it be due to the stars or because the majority of them are actually amusing, it worked for me. So, if you can see it in Blu-Ray and you enjoy action comedies with the emphasis on the latter, check this out.
I'll be back Monday night with a new review.
Runtime: 104 minutes
Directed by: Andrey Konchalovskiy
Starring: Sly Stallone, Kurt Russell (no relation, I swear), Jack Palance, Teri Hatcher
From: Warner Brothers
First off, I have to mention that my November movie plans have changed already. The movie that I was going to review next… I’ll wait for that to either hit the dollar theatre joints or I’ll just wait for it to come on DVD. I won’t get into why; it’s just better that way. The next movie I’ll review will be in a genre I haven’t really talked about on here before: the western. This movie, though, is an action/comedy buddy movie, but with an emphasis on the humor.
Tango & Cash is a movie I’ve known about for years but I didn’t feel like watching until a few minutes ago when I bought the DVD used. I watched it and was amused by it, even though it was in widescreen and not anamorphic. Basically, on one of those old TV’s it just looks bad and the black bars dominate things. Then it was released on Blu-Ray and as of course that is anamorphic, things are greatly improved. However, I didn’t rush out and buy it, as I wanted to save my money and there were more important things to purchase. One day, though, at Target it was on sale for real cheap so I finally got the Blu-Ray and last month I watched it.
This is a movie that had a troubled history (the director listed here did most of it, but due to the usual “creative differences”, was replaced) and there were squabbling about how it should turn out… while it is evident while watching it that there are times where things are rushed or just doesn’t seem quite right, somehow the movie works with its goofiness, charm, and near-constant one-liners, something that I usually would detest but for some reason it happens to work with this film.
The plot is that Stallone is Ray Tango, a prim and proper cop who dresses in suits and often checks his stocks. Russell is Gabe Cash, a gruff cop who enjoys wearing blue jeans. They both on their own go after drug dealers. Yves Perret (Palance, overacting in a delicious manner) is a major drug dealer and he’s upset at both cops for ruining his business. So he comes up with quite the plan. Instead of killing them and making them martyrs, they get set up to look like dirty cops that killed an FBI agent, necessitating them going to jail. That’s exactly what happens and it takes some help, but they escape and despite their many differences they have to work together to try and bring him down. Sly’s lady friend Kiki (Hatcher) gets involved too.
As I mentioned, the movie is more comedy than action, although the action you do see is entertaining and not poorly done. Some familiar faces from 80 genre movies appear, such as James Hong, Brion James, and the unique-looking Robert Z’Dar, possessor of a one of a kind face. The plot moves along pretty quickly. There’s a great-looking proto-SUV assault vehicle that gets used by the heroes, to great effect. And, the one-liners come often. If you don’t like that sort of thing, the movie may not be for you. Then again, that sort of thing isn’t always for me either and yet whether it be due to the stars or because the majority of them are actually amusing, it worked for me. So, if you can see it in Blu-Ray and you enjoy action comedies with the emphasis on the latter, check this out.
I'll be back Monday night with a new review.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
House on Haunted Hill
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: William Castle
Starring: The Great Vincent Price, Elisha Cook, Jr., Carol Ohmart, Richard Long
From: William Castle Productions
To end this month of talking about horror movies, it is appropriate to talk about a classic haunted house film that I just finished watching on Turner Classic Movies. I had seen it once before but that was many years ago. My plans are that I’ll talk about something in another genre and then after that I’ll talk about another horror movie, but one that was on the big screen. No, not a Saw movie. I’ve never seen any of them, believe it or not.
This was from master showman William Castle, who was great at coming up with gimmicks to promote his movies, such as with this, theatres could have a skeleton come flying out and about during a certain point in the movie. He was quite the interesting guy and I wish there were more wacky characters like him in the film business now. At least it would make things more fun. His Wikipedia page has some info about him.
The movie is simple yet effective. Floating heads (literally) start off the movie right away and explain what the plot it. I mean, the pace is pretty quick and like with the last movie I reviewed, for its short runtime a lot is packed in. Five random people are chosen by a wacky couple (Price and Ohmart; Price is a huge reason why this movie is as fun as it is) to spend the night in a haunted house. They end up getting locked in there and each have a gun. If they can survive until sun up, each person gets 10 thousand dollars. It’s so simple and yet it manages to work. It sure as hell didn’t work with the 1999 remake of this, though. Just take my word for it: that movie is just awful and unpleasant, while the original is fun and entertaining. It’s not blood-curdling horror by any means but if you enjoy something that’s a little goofy (I mean, a house has a random pit of acid?) then this is not a bad way to spend 75 minutes. It’s always nice to watch Vincent Price in action and as usual he delivered a memorable performance. Also, the performance of the skeleton (billed as "himself") was memorable.
The plot is actually not as straightforward as it may first sound; Price’s old lady is his fourth wife and he apparently wants her killed. So, that adds some drama to things. Then, there are various twists and turns so things aren’t as they first appear to be. Things pop out suddenly and while it’s light in tone it doesn’t mean it’s not suspenseful or dread-filled, as it is if you go with it. That is why the movie is pretty famous in some circles.
I hope that everyone had a nice Halloween. I’ll be back Wednesday night with a new review.
Runtime: 75 minutes
Directed by: William Castle
Starring: The Great Vincent Price, Elisha Cook, Jr., Carol Ohmart, Richard Long
From: William Castle Productions
To end this month of talking about horror movies, it is appropriate to talk about a classic haunted house film that I just finished watching on Turner Classic Movies. I had seen it once before but that was many years ago. My plans are that I’ll talk about something in another genre and then after that I’ll talk about another horror movie, but one that was on the big screen. No, not a Saw movie. I’ve never seen any of them, believe it or not.
This was from master showman William Castle, who was great at coming up with gimmicks to promote his movies, such as with this, theatres could have a skeleton come flying out and about during a certain point in the movie. He was quite the interesting guy and I wish there were more wacky characters like him in the film business now. At least it would make things more fun. His Wikipedia page has some info about him.
The movie is simple yet effective. Floating heads (literally) start off the movie right away and explain what the plot it. I mean, the pace is pretty quick and like with the last movie I reviewed, for its short runtime a lot is packed in. Five random people are chosen by a wacky couple (Price and Ohmart; Price is a huge reason why this movie is as fun as it is) to spend the night in a haunted house. They end up getting locked in there and each have a gun. If they can survive until sun up, each person gets 10 thousand dollars. It’s so simple and yet it manages to work. It sure as hell didn’t work with the 1999 remake of this, though. Just take my word for it: that movie is just awful and unpleasant, while the original is fun and entertaining. It’s not blood-curdling horror by any means but if you enjoy something that’s a little goofy (I mean, a house has a random pit of acid?) then this is not a bad way to spend 75 minutes. It’s always nice to watch Vincent Price in action and as usual he delivered a memorable performance. Also, the performance of the skeleton (billed as "himself") was memorable.
The plot is actually not as straightforward as it may first sound; Price’s old lady is his fourth wife and he apparently wants her killed. So, that adds some drama to things. Then, there are various twists and turns so things aren’t as they first appear to be. Things pop out suddenly and while it’s light in tone it doesn’t mean it’s not suspenseful or dread-filled, as it is if you go with it. That is why the movie is pretty famous in some circles.
I hope that everyone had a nice Halloween. I’ll be back Wednesday night with a new review.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Horror of Dracula
Horror of Dracula (1958)
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Terence Fisher
Starring: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling
From: Hammer
Here’s the classic horror movie I mentioned at the end of my last post. It’s from the great British film studio Hammer, which became famous starting in the 50’s for their horror movies, doing stuff in color, being sexually charged and not being afraid of showing blood, which was quite different from the usual horror flick back in the time period. Wikipedia has a nice article about the history of the film studio, which had laid dormant for many years but recently returned, basically in name only but still…
I managed to pick this movie basically at random and thankfully, a random Chinese streaming video website (of all things) had it up in 2 parts so I watched it that way. I know, not the most ethical thing to do, but it’s not like I’m the only one who does things like this!
I’ve never read the Bram Stoker novel so I can’t really compare the book to the movie, but I know that a lot of things were changed… not that it means a whole lot to me. The story-set in Germany-revolves around vampire hunters trying to track down the famed Dracula (Lee, who was totally awesome in this role). One guy, a Mr. Harker, tries to do so but only stakes the “bride”; it is up to Dr. Van Helsing (Cushing, also awesome in his role) to do so, while having to deal with the bloodsucker now getting his revenge against the Harker family.
This movie is a great yarn and it moves very quickly. It’s not that long but a lot of stuff is packed into it. Besides the great performances by the two leads, the movie is moody and atmospheric (another Hammer trademark) and the sets all look very well-done. The German setting-yes, not Transylvania-provides some nice scenery. They aren’t afraid to show blood or the effects of someone getting staked in the heart (hint, a lot of blood will come out). Van Helsing can be nice to someone like a little kid but he otherwise is very serious and can be rather blunt and direct when it comes to eradicating the famed vampire. Meanwhile, Dracula is of course menacing and yet can be suave and charming too. What is important to note is that he is NOT a Edward Cullen wussy sparkling vampire sort of crap; when he gets his revenge on the Harker family, he does so ruthlessly, not messing around at all. He’s a real bastard, in other words. I much prefer this sort of vampire to the type that come in nonsense like Twilight or The Vampire Diaries!
By the way, here is a page from another Blogpost site which shows some random stills from the movie; you can see how nice the sets are, for example.
It all comes together to create a fun package and if you enjoy horror movies and want to see something different from the usual stuff in the genre that is dominant in recent years, this is something worth seeing. Like I said, it’s not difficult to find online. If you search for “Dracula 1958” (its original title; the new title was for the U.S. so that people wouldn’t confuse it with the Bela Lugosi classic) on Google Video, you’ll find it in 2 parts.
I’ll be back Halloween night, and I have no idea what film in the genre I’ll review, but I’ll try to make it a good one.
Runtime: 82 minutes
Directed by: Terence Fisher
Starring: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling
From: Hammer
Here’s the classic horror movie I mentioned at the end of my last post. It’s from the great British film studio Hammer, which became famous starting in the 50’s for their horror movies, doing stuff in color, being sexually charged and not being afraid of showing blood, which was quite different from the usual horror flick back in the time period. Wikipedia has a nice article about the history of the film studio, which had laid dormant for many years but recently returned, basically in name only but still…
I managed to pick this movie basically at random and thankfully, a random Chinese streaming video website (of all things) had it up in 2 parts so I watched it that way. I know, not the most ethical thing to do, but it’s not like I’m the only one who does things like this!
I’ve never read the Bram Stoker novel so I can’t really compare the book to the movie, but I know that a lot of things were changed… not that it means a whole lot to me. The story-set in Germany-revolves around vampire hunters trying to track down the famed Dracula (Lee, who was totally awesome in this role). One guy, a Mr. Harker, tries to do so but only stakes the “bride”; it is up to Dr. Van Helsing (Cushing, also awesome in his role) to do so, while having to deal with the bloodsucker now getting his revenge against the Harker family.
This movie is a great yarn and it moves very quickly. It’s not that long but a lot of stuff is packed into it. Besides the great performances by the two leads, the movie is moody and atmospheric (another Hammer trademark) and the sets all look very well-done. The German setting-yes, not Transylvania-provides some nice scenery. They aren’t afraid to show blood or the effects of someone getting staked in the heart (hint, a lot of blood will come out). Van Helsing can be nice to someone like a little kid but he otherwise is very serious and can be rather blunt and direct when it comes to eradicating the famed vampire. Meanwhile, Dracula is of course menacing and yet can be suave and charming too. What is important to note is that he is NOT a Edward Cullen wussy sparkling vampire sort of crap; when he gets his revenge on the Harker family, he does so ruthlessly, not messing around at all. He’s a real bastard, in other words. I much prefer this sort of vampire to the type that come in nonsense like Twilight or The Vampire Diaries!
By the way, here is a page from another Blogpost site which shows some random stills from the movie; you can see how nice the sets are, for example.
It all comes together to create a fun package and if you enjoy horror movies and want to see something different from the usual stuff in the genre that is dominant in recent years, this is something worth seeing. Like I said, it’s not difficult to find online. If you search for “Dracula 1958” (its original title; the new title was for the U.S. so that people wouldn’t confuse it with the Bela Lugosi classic) on Google Video, you’ll find it in 2 parts.
I’ll be back Halloween night, and I have no idea what film in the genre I’ll review, but I’ll try to make it a good one.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Case 39
Case 39 (2009)
23% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 62 reviews)
Directed by: Christian Alvart
Runtime: 109 minutes
Starring: Renee Zellweger, Jodelle Ferland, Bradley Cooper, Ian McShane
From: Paramount Vantage
Here is a movie I didn’t think I was ever going to see. But, last night I had free time and wanted to get out of the house, so I returned to the drive-in in Lakeland and I saw the double feature of this, preceded by Paranormal Activity 2; of course, that movie in that format isn’t quite the same, but I was still entertained by it. This movie, though…
In case you don’t remember, it was released the first week of October as one of the many horror flicks coming out at that time. They all beat upon each other and none of them did that particularly well; not a surprise to me, dividing the horror fans that way. This is noteworthy for some of its major names… along with the fact that they started filming this in late 2006. No kidding. There were many re-shoots (I even noticed it once, but if you looked closely enough, Renee looked noticeably different due to plastic surgery, hair styles, or what have you) and the United States was like the last place in the world to get the movie. More often than not, a film being on the shelf for that long is a giant red flag. After I actually watched the damn thing, that theory was proven to be correct.
I don’t know how much about the movie is known by people (heck, I’m not sure if I’ve seen the official trailer or not; the one I’ve seen online is rather misleading, to say the least), but as I doubt that many people care about this movie… I’ll make the comparison to the movie Orphan, i.e. my very first review. That movie-which ends up being similar to this in a few ways-stomps all over this one. I don’t blame the little girl starring in this movie (Ferland); with what she had to work with, she was fine, being both cute and creepy. It’s just that the story and the other people acting around her… for many of them it was just another paycheck, in other words. Interestingly enough, both little Esther (Isabelle Furhman) and popular little girl Chloe Moritz could have been in that role; not that it would have really changed this movie at all.
To be brief, Zellweger delivers her usual Zellwegerian performance as Emily Jenkins, a social worker who has to deal with 38 cases as once (is this how it really works?) but then is giving a 39th one; there, it looks as if some wacko parents are abusing an adorable little girl. She tugs Emily’s heartstrings and eventually the parents are caught trying to cook her in an oven! She’s saved and somehow, Emily is allowed to briefly adopt her. That proves to be a mistake, though, as various things suddenly start happening… and I’ll leave it at that.
This movie overall just isn’t that scary or terrifying at all. Despite some laughably dumb stuff you get to see, it’s also pretty boring overall. The first half mainly isn’t the problem; it derails totally in the second half once you get to see just what exactly is going on. It’s rather laughable, the killings are. And Emily acts REALLY stupid before and after she finds out what it is. Think and act logically, that does not happen. She could have even tried to attack the villain (as an attempt would have made the audience happy, at least), but nope, does not happen. Things get stupider and stupider until the very end and the film is just a waste of time. Aside from the goofy premise of what’s causing all the mayhem, the movie is otherwise not fresh at all, is not even interesting to look at, and flicks like Orphan are more worth your time than even spending a few bucks to rent this once it comes to DVD/Blu-Ray. I mean, other people noticed it more times than I did, but there's at least one *really noticeable* instance where Renee looks very different, due to wearing a bad wig to look like she did before massive reshoots happened. But it's kind of hard to hide plastic surgery on your face...
However, I will mention one thing that did make me chuckle. Near the end of the movie, through ways that I won’t get into as it’s spoilers, someone calls Renee a pumpkinhead; pumpkinhead! For some reason, that seems totally appropriate and for the rest of my life, I may think of Renee Zellweger as a pumpkinhead. At least I could garner SOME kind of enjoyment from this otherwise pointless motion picture.
I’ll be back Thursday night and for that I think I’ll go back (way back) to review a classic bit of horror.
23% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 62 reviews)
Directed by: Christian Alvart
Runtime: 109 minutes
Starring: Renee Zellweger, Jodelle Ferland, Bradley Cooper, Ian McShane
From: Paramount Vantage
Here is a movie I didn’t think I was ever going to see. But, last night I had free time and wanted to get out of the house, so I returned to the drive-in in Lakeland and I saw the double feature of this, preceded by Paranormal Activity 2; of course, that movie in that format isn’t quite the same, but I was still entertained by it. This movie, though…
In case you don’t remember, it was released the first week of October as one of the many horror flicks coming out at that time. They all beat upon each other and none of them did that particularly well; not a surprise to me, dividing the horror fans that way. This is noteworthy for some of its major names… along with the fact that they started filming this in late 2006. No kidding. There were many re-shoots (I even noticed it once, but if you looked closely enough, Renee looked noticeably different due to plastic surgery, hair styles, or what have you) and the United States was like the last place in the world to get the movie. More often than not, a film being on the shelf for that long is a giant red flag. After I actually watched the damn thing, that theory was proven to be correct.
I don’t know how much about the movie is known by people (heck, I’m not sure if I’ve seen the official trailer or not; the one I’ve seen online is rather misleading, to say the least), but as I doubt that many people care about this movie… I’ll make the comparison to the movie Orphan, i.e. my very first review. That movie-which ends up being similar to this in a few ways-stomps all over this one. I don’t blame the little girl starring in this movie (Ferland); with what she had to work with, she was fine, being both cute and creepy. It’s just that the story and the other people acting around her… for many of them it was just another paycheck, in other words. Interestingly enough, both little Esther (Isabelle Furhman) and popular little girl Chloe Moritz could have been in that role; not that it would have really changed this movie at all.
To be brief, Zellweger delivers her usual Zellwegerian performance as Emily Jenkins, a social worker who has to deal with 38 cases as once (is this how it really works?) but then is giving a 39th one; there, it looks as if some wacko parents are abusing an adorable little girl. She tugs Emily’s heartstrings and eventually the parents are caught trying to cook her in an oven! She’s saved and somehow, Emily is allowed to briefly adopt her. That proves to be a mistake, though, as various things suddenly start happening… and I’ll leave it at that.
This movie overall just isn’t that scary or terrifying at all. Despite some laughably dumb stuff you get to see, it’s also pretty boring overall. The first half mainly isn’t the problem; it derails totally in the second half once you get to see just what exactly is going on. It’s rather laughable, the killings are. And Emily acts REALLY stupid before and after she finds out what it is. Think and act logically, that does not happen. She could have even tried to attack the villain (as an attempt would have made the audience happy, at least), but nope, does not happen. Things get stupider and stupider until the very end and the film is just a waste of time. Aside from the goofy premise of what’s causing all the mayhem, the movie is otherwise not fresh at all, is not even interesting to look at, and flicks like Orphan are more worth your time than even spending a few bucks to rent this once it comes to DVD/Blu-Ray. I mean, other people noticed it more times than I did, but there's at least one *really noticeable* instance where Renee looks very different, due to wearing a bad wig to look like she did before massive reshoots happened. But it's kind of hard to hide plastic surgery on your face...
However, I will mention one thing that did make me chuckle. Near the end of the movie, through ways that I won’t get into as it’s spoilers, someone calls Renee a pumpkinhead; pumpkinhead! For some reason, that seems totally appropriate and for the rest of my life, I may think of Renee Zellweger as a pumpkinhead. At least I could garner SOME kind of enjoyment from this otherwise pointless motion picture.
I’ll be back Thursday night and for that I think I’ll go back (way back) to review a classic bit of horror.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Paranormal Activity 2
Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)
69% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 42 reviews)
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Tod Williams
Starring: Brian Boland, Sprague Grayden, Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat
From: Paramount
Yep, I wasn’t planning on seeing this movie already; in fact I had pretty much left myself in the dark on what the sequel was going to be about. I enjoyed the first movie a lot when I saw it last fall. My view on it is assuredly different from many other people as I first heard about it from the website Dread Central on their podcast back in the fall of ’07 and since then it’d be periodically mentioned but many of the listeners there grew frustrated with the process of hearing about a movie heavily hyped by the site and yet hardly anyone could go and see it as it only had a few random screenings around Los Angeles and that was it… until a miracle happened last year and via viral marketing it became a shockingly huge hit and even was number one at the box office for a weekend, something I could have never predicted when I first heard about the almost no budget film back in ’07. Anyhow, I had fears about the sequel; it was being made very quickly so that it’d be out at this time, there is a different writer/director (although the guy who came up with it all, Oren Peli, would still be on as a producer) and just by history most horror sequels are crap compared to the originals. Just look at the Blair Witch Project sequel; I’d never seen it but the more traditional film to the found footage original is HATED by most horror fans.
But, it was the opportunity to see the first PA and the sequel back to back last night (which was done at various locations across the country) made me go out and see it… and this was a very wise choice on my part. The first movie had a real small crowd show up at the huge auditorium at Winter Park. The sequel drew a larger crowd but it still looked small in such a large room. Also, I sat far away from everyone else; I don’t know why but it made me feel like I had leprosy or something! Anyway, the crowd seemed to enjoy PA2 quite a bit, yelling and shrieking at all the jump scares and freaking out during the night scenes and all the tension those scenes had. When the end credits hit-after a long moment of just a black screen-there were many relieved sighs. The film also worked on me and at least at the moment I’d say it’s a little better than the first. It’s very similar to the first but a fresh spin it put on things with the focus being on a family rather than a two person couple and you get some security camera footage in the house along with a handheld camera.
I’m not sure how much I should reveal here, but the family in question is actually the sister of Katie (Featherston) and it takes place at the same time as the first Paranormal Activity. The two movies go together very well and some things in the first are elaborated upon here (such as learning more about the demon in question) and a viewing of the original movie before you see this one may not be the worst idea. Revealing much more than that about the story would probably ruin things so I’ll shut up about that.
On another topic, though, if you were a fan of the busty Katie, then you should enjoy the one scene she has where you see her in a bikini top. I didn’t complain about that scene myself!
So, if you loved the original, you should see this with a crowd and enjoy the scares and frights with an audience; if you hated the first (and I know some personally who did; that disappoints me but to each their own) then your opinion on this won’t change as the two are very similar. As I'm a fan of the first... that's why I dug this and I think it's pretty incredible to think that many IMAX screens are showing this for the rest of the month. Again, no way could I have predicted back in '07 that there would be a sequel to this, and I could see it on an IMAX screen, whether a legit one or a much smaller one.
I’ll be back Monday night with a new review.
69% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 42 reviews)
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Tod Williams
Starring: Brian Boland, Sprague Grayden, Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat
From: Paramount
Yep, I wasn’t planning on seeing this movie already; in fact I had pretty much left myself in the dark on what the sequel was going to be about. I enjoyed the first movie a lot when I saw it last fall. My view on it is assuredly different from many other people as I first heard about it from the website Dread Central on their podcast back in the fall of ’07 and since then it’d be periodically mentioned but many of the listeners there grew frustrated with the process of hearing about a movie heavily hyped by the site and yet hardly anyone could go and see it as it only had a few random screenings around Los Angeles and that was it… until a miracle happened last year and via viral marketing it became a shockingly huge hit and even was number one at the box office for a weekend, something I could have never predicted when I first heard about the almost no budget film back in ’07. Anyhow, I had fears about the sequel; it was being made very quickly so that it’d be out at this time, there is a different writer/director (although the guy who came up with it all, Oren Peli, would still be on as a producer) and just by history most horror sequels are crap compared to the originals. Just look at the Blair Witch Project sequel; I’d never seen it but the more traditional film to the found footage original is HATED by most horror fans.
But, it was the opportunity to see the first PA and the sequel back to back last night (which was done at various locations across the country) made me go out and see it… and this was a very wise choice on my part. The first movie had a real small crowd show up at the huge auditorium at Winter Park. The sequel drew a larger crowd but it still looked small in such a large room. Also, I sat far away from everyone else; I don’t know why but it made me feel like I had leprosy or something! Anyway, the crowd seemed to enjoy PA2 quite a bit, yelling and shrieking at all the jump scares and freaking out during the night scenes and all the tension those scenes had. When the end credits hit-after a long moment of just a black screen-there were many relieved sighs. The film also worked on me and at least at the moment I’d say it’s a little better than the first. It’s very similar to the first but a fresh spin it put on things with the focus being on a family rather than a two person couple and you get some security camera footage in the house along with a handheld camera.
I’m not sure how much I should reveal here, but the family in question is actually the sister of Katie (Featherston) and it takes place at the same time as the first Paranormal Activity. The two movies go together very well and some things in the first are elaborated upon here (such as learning more about the demon in question) and a viewing of the original movie before you see this one may not be the worst idea. Revealing much more than that about the story would probably ruin things so I’ll shut up about that.
On another topic, though, if you were a fan of the busty Katie, then you should enjoy the one scene she has where you see her in a bikini top. I didn’t complain about that scene myself!
So, if you loved the original, you should see this with a crowd and enjoy the scares and frights with an audience; if you hated the first (and I know some personally who did; that disappoints me but to each their own) then your opinion on this won’t change as the two are very similar. As I'm a fan of the first... that's why I dug this and I think it's pretty incredible to think that many IMAX screens are showing this for the rest of the month. Again, no way could I have predicted back in '07 that there would be a sequel to this, and I could see it on an IMAX screen, whether a legit one or a much smaller one.
I’ll be back Monday night with a new review.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Halloween II
Halloweeen II (1981)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Rick Rosenthal
Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence, Charles Cyphers, Lance Guest
From: Universal
No, I’m not writing about the apparently awful Rob Zombie Halloween II that came out last year. Rather, this is the first sequel to the legendary original Halloween, a movie I haven’t seen recently but remember pretty well as I’ve seen it on a few occasions. Back in 2007 there was a special one night only 20th anniversary screening so I got to watch it on the big screen. However, I’ve only seen this particular film once, at least ten years ago on a VHS tape! I really didn’t remember too much about it. I more remember “The Halloween that has nothing to do with Michael Myers (III) and the fourth and fifth in the series (with Danielle Harris; believe it or not, on another night there was a nationwide deal where amazingly those two movies in the series were shown back to back on the big screen) rather than this one. I haven’t seen the others in the series and believe me, Rob Zombie’s contributions to the series don’t count at all.
The plot to this is rather simple; it starts right after the first one ends… which if you don’t remember, Laurie Strode (Curtis) is able to escape Myers after Dr. Loomis (Pleasence) shoots him six times and falls off a balcony, but then vanishes. This movie has Laurie going to the hospital-which is staffed by a totally incompetent crew-but Michael discovers where she’s at. Meanwhile, Dr. Loomis and Sheriff Brackett (Cyphers) are on the hunt for him.
This movie was produced and written by John Carpenter and Deborah Hill so you’d hope that two of the main forces behind the original could work their magic again. Well… there were some creepy and chilling moments (e.g., there’s a scene where in the background a character gets strangled by Michael and in the foreground there’s another character, totally oblivious to what’s going on behind them) but far too often the film ends up being disjointed, confused, and just plain dumb. You’re happy to see Michael kill some of those doofuses, and I don’t know if that was supposed to be the plan. And then there’s a rather ridiculous finale, especially when you consider the subsequent sequels. Alas, tis a shame…
There is one interesting thing I do have to mention, and it revolves around the back of the DVD case for this motion picture; I rented this from Blockbuster recently and as with most of their rentals the DVD’s come in their original case. On it I suddenly noticed quite the blatant spoiler, and yes I’ll be revealing it but I’m sure that most of you already know it by now.
I have no idea how this got out and Universal didn't notice it, but if you read the blurb on the back of the DVD, it says the following:
"It seems the inhuman Michael Myers is still very much alive and out for more revenge as he stalks the deserted halls of the hospital where his sister lays waiting. As he gets closer and close to his terrified target, Dr. Loomis discovers the chilling mystery behind the crazy psychopath's savage actions."
Um, idiots at Universal... not only did you spoil the "chilling mystery" but then right after you did so, you bragged that the movie HAD a "chilling mystery"! I couldn't believe it when I realized they made such an obvious mistake and it wasn't caught by anyone before it was released. Yes, it is true that the mystery is the relationship between Michael and Laurie (something that was later admitted to be a mistake), but to spoil it like that was not something I was expecting.
I'll be back Friday night with a new review.
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Rick Rosenthal
Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence, Charles Cyphers, Lance Guest
From: Universal
No, I’m not writing about the apparently awful Rob Zombie Halloween II that came out last year. Rather, this is the first sequel to the legendary original Halloween, a movie I haven’t seen recently but remember pretty well as I’ve seen it on a few occasions. Back in 2007 there was a special one night only 20th anniversary screening so I got to watch it on the big screen. However, I’ve only seen this particular film once, at least ten years ago on a VHS tape! I really didn’t remember too much about it. I more remember “The Halloween that has nothing to do with Michael Myers (III) and the fourth and fifth in the series (with Danielle Harris; believe it or not, on another night there was a nationwide deal where amazingly those two movies in the series were shown back to back on the big screen) rather than this one. I haven’t seen the others in the series and believe me, Rob Zombie’s contributions to the series don’t count at all.
The plot to this is rather simple; it starts right after the first one ends… which if you don’t remember, Laurie Strode (Curtis) is able to escape Myers after Dr. Loomis (Pleasence) shoots him six times and falls off a balcony, but then vanishes. This movie has Laurie going to the hospital-which is staffed by a totally incompetent crew-but Michael discovers where she’s at. Meanwhile, Dr. Loomis and Sheriff Brackett (Cyphers) are on the hunt for him.
This movie was produced and written by John Carpenter and Deborah Hill so you’d hope that two of the main forces behind the original could work their magic again. Well… there were some creepy and chilling moments (e.g., there’s a scene where in the background a character gets strangled by Michael and in the foreground there’s another character, totally oblivious to what’s going on behind them) but far too often the film ends up being disjointed, confused, and just plain dumb. You’re happy to see Michael kill some of those doofuses, and I don’t know if that was supposed to be the plan. And then there’s a rather ridiculous finale, especially when you consider the subsequent sequels. Alas, tis a shame…
There is one interesting thing I do have to mention, and it revolves around the back of the DVD case for this motion picture; I rented this from Blockbuster recently and as with most of their rentals the DVD’s come in their original case. On it I suddenly noticed quite the blatant spoiler, and yes I’ll be revealing it but I’m sure that most of you already know it by now.
I have no idea how this got out and Universal didn't notice it, but if you read the blurb on the back of the DVD, it says the following:
"It seems the inhuman Michael Myers is still very much alive and out for more revenge as he stalks the deserted halls of the hospital where his sister lays waiting. As he gets closer and close to his terrified target, Dr. Loomis discovers the chilling mystery behind the crazy psychopath's savage actions."
Um, idiots at Universal... not only did you spoil the "chilling mystery" but then right after you did so, you bragged that the movie HAD a "chilling mystery"! I couldn't believe it when I realized they made such an obvious mistake and it wasn't caught by anyone before it was released. Yes, it is true that the mystery is the relationship between Michael and Laurie (something that was later admitted to be a mistake), but to spoil it like that was not something I was expecting.
I'll be back Friday night with a new review.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Ax 'Em
Ax Em (1992)
Runtime: 71 minutes
“Directed” by: Michael Mfume
“Starring”: Michael Mfume, Sandra Pulley, Joe Clair, Racquel Price
From: Nubian Prince Pictures
Here’s a rather unique review for today. Not only is it more story-telling than talking about the actual movie, but the movie itself has to be the worst I’ve ever seen!
It all begins in the late 90’s, when a relative of mine gave my family and I a stack of old videotapes; many of them were taped off of the pay cable channels in the 80’s, which is pretty awesome. However-and I’ll never know how he got it-the stack also had an all-black horror movie called The Weekend It Lives. It was awful! It looked to be a student film and it was as awful as can be. The dialogue could hardly be heard, the “special” effects weren’t all that special, things dragged on forever, and it was often howlingly bad when it wasn’t painfully bad.
A few years later on a messageboard I see a thread where people are talking about a movie called Ax ‘Em. I look it over and then came to a horrifying conclusion; The Weekend It Lives was retitled Ax ‘Em and released on DVD! THAT movie getting a DVD release left me flabbergasted. But I never tracked that down.
Until, early this year when the Blockbuster located a few miles from me closed down (there’s still another one open, it’s just farther away) and one of the movies still on sale for a few bucks was Ax ‘Em. So, I finally got it and watched it. Aside from some minor things and it being shortened (not that it helped at all), it’s about the same as the original VHS tape.
By the way, in some strange trivia, the director/star’s father is Kweisi Mfume, a former President/CEO of the NAACP and a former Congressman! No kidding.
The movie is all about a group of African-American college students who go to a cabin for the weekend, but are attacked by a giant hulking killer who I presume is undead (I mean, his skin IS blue! Although, maybe he just uses colloidal silver…); that’s all you really need to know about the plot. The killer’s backstory is not important at all, trust me.
Besides the major problems I addressed already, there’s also such great moments as some of the awful stereotypes that are presented (shocking to me given who his dad is), the look of the film stock changing often-and all of it looking so awful it appears as if the film camera was a JVC camcorder from about 1985 or so. At least once you HEAR the director yell “Cut!” before the next scene starts. Characters often talk over each other, making the sound issues even worse.
If you’re extremely brave, you can actually watch the movie on YouTube! It takes a lot of nerve. Lest you don’t believe me, check out other reviews from the likes of Something Awful and Black Horror Movies. It is as bad as I’m saying it is! Why this movie (allegedly with a budget of SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS) ever made it past the student film stage is beyond my comprehension, except that it’s a part of the small “black horror movie” subgenre and there aren’t enough of those around. Well, I say it’s more a giant insult to that subgenre than anything else.
I'll be back Wednesday night, and I promise I'll review a movie far better than this one.
Runtime: 71 minutes
“Directed” by: Michael Mfume
“Starring”: Michael Mfume, Sandra Pulley, Joe Clair, Racquel Price
From: Nubian Prince Pictures
Here’s a rather unique review for today. Not only is it more story-telling than talking about the actual movie, but the movie itself has to be the worst I’ve ever seen!
It all begins in the late 90’s, when a relative of mine gave my family and I a stack of old videotapes; many of them were taped off of the pay cable channels in the 80’s, which is pretty awesome. However-and I’ll never know how he got it-the stack also had an all-black horror movie called The Weekend It Lives. It was awful! It looked to be a student film and it was as awful as can be. The dialogue could hardly be heard, the “special” effects weren’t all that special, things dragged on forever, and it was often howlingly bad when it wasn’t painfully bad.
A few years later on a messageboard I see a thread where people are talking about a movie called Ax ‘Em. I look it over and then came to a horrifying conclusion; The Weekend It Lives was retitled Ax ‘Em and released on DVD! THAT movie getting a DVD release left me flabbergasted. But I never tracked that down.
Until, early this year when the Blockbuster located a few miles from me closed down (there’s still another one open, it’s just farther away) and one of the movies still on sale for a few bucks was Ax ‘Em. So, I finally got it and watched it. Aside from some minor things and it being shortened (not that it helped at all), it’s about the same as the original VHS tape.
By the way, in some strange trivia, the director/star’s father is Kweisi Mfume, a former President/CEO of the NAACP and a former Congressman! No kidding.
The movie is all about a group of African-American college students who go to a cabin for the weekend, but are attacked by a giant hulking killer who I presume is undead (I mean, his skin IS blue! Although, maybe he just uses colloidal silver…); that’s all you really need to know about the plot. The killer’s backstory is not important at all, trust me.
Besides the major problems I addressed already, there’s also such great moments as some of the awful stereotypes that are presented (shocking to me given who his dad is), the look of the film stock changing often-and all of it looking so awful it appears as if the film camera was a JVC camcorder from about 1985 or so. At least once you HEAR the director yell “Cut!” before the next scene starts. Characters often talk over each other, making the sound issues even worse.
If you’re extremely brave, you can actually watch the movie on YouTube! It takes a lot of nerve. Lest you don’t believe me, check out other reviews from the likes of Something Awful and Black Horror Movies. It is as bad as I’m saying it is! Why this movie (allegedly with a budget of SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS) ever made it past the student film stage is beyond my comprehension, except that it’s a part of the small “black horror movie” subgenre and there aren’t enough of those around. Well, I say it’s more a giant insult to that subgenre than anything else.
I'll be back Wednesday night, and I promise I'll review a movie far better than this one.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Hills Have Eyes
The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Russ Grieve, Virginia Vincent, Robert Houston, James Whitworth, Michael Berryman
From: Blood Relations Co.
Here’s a movie that is probably well-known now amongst the general public for the remake and its sequel that were made back in the ’00, but I haven’t seen those before, nor did I see this movie… until earlier today. I picked it up at the local Blockbuster and finally viewed it. I knew the basic details and saw brief clips of the movie, but that was it.
This is about a family from Ohio who goes on vacation in California but take a detour into the middle of nowhere Nevada; a relative apparently granted a silver mine to them long ago and they want to claim it. It being a Chrysler Station Wagon towing a camper, there’s a mishap in the middle of the desert and they get stranded. From there they meet up with a crazed family of cannibals living in the desert, and mayhem ensues.
Yeah, I realized that the idea of cannibals being able to live out in the middle of nowhere and once in a blue moon catch some humans (or dogs) and otherwise sustaining on… well, something… is not something to spend a lot of time thinking about logically. However, the movie is pretty tense and it works very well. The film print (even in its 2003 DVD release) looks rather poor upconverted on my Blu-Ray player, but that actually helps to add to the 70’s-ness of it. There are some pretty terrifying moments and the villains are memorable, especially the distinctive Pluto (Berryman). Michael Berryman was born with some genetic conditions which result in him looking the way he does and thus makes him perfect for being the scary bad guy or the henchman in this genre.
Anyhow, the movie has raw intensity in spades and you can tell that this family is up s***’s creek and Jesus Christ in a crunch they have to resort to becoming animalistic themselves to try and survive. It’s something I recommend seeing if you haven’t already. Sure, there’s some goofiness but that was mainly its 70’s charm, from the guy who looks like Sonny Bono to the fashion to the phrase “Goddamn” being used often by one character and the phrase “Jesus Christ in a crunch” being uttered.
I have no clue how good the remake and its sequel are; I’ve heard mixed reviews to that. I can tell you that the sequel to THIS movie, though, is by all accounts God-awful and filled with flashbacks to the original to pad time. It was a total cash grab by Craven and that’s unfortunate.
One interesting thing about the movie is that the character of Bobby (Houston) is clearly a homosexual and yet it’s just that and it’s not addressed. Before I looked online I thought it was rather curious. He sounds like he’s gay, wore short yellow shorts in the beginning, and randomly did gymnastics. It turns out that Robert Houston is in real life a homosexual so it’s not like it was unintended homoeroticism or whatever. So you have to assume that the character of Bobby was a homosexual and it was totally random and didn’t mean anything to the movie. At least there was no stereotyping and he had to swish around or whatever. He managed to deliver a fine performance; I was just surprised when I first heard him speak, that’s all…
Plus, he gets cool points in my book for being a big part in putting together the movie Shogun Assassin, which Americanizes and combines the first two movies in the Lone Wolf & Cub series, which is a Japanese magna that was adapted into a set of six movies in the 70’s. I’ve only seen Shogun and the first movie in the Lone Wolf series, but it’s awesome sword-wielding bloody greatness. Plus, the theme to Shogun Assassin is tremendous.
I’ll be back Friday night with a new review.
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Russ Grieve, Virginia Vincent, Robert Houston, James Whitworth, Michael Berryman
From: Blood Relations Co.
Here’s a movie that is probably well-known now amongst the general public for the remake and its sequel that were made back in the ’00, but I haven’t seen those before, nor did I see this movie… until earlier today. I picked it up at the local Blockbuster and finally viewed it. I knew the basic details and saw brief clips of the movie, but that was it.
This is about a family from Ohio who goes on vacation in California but take a detour into the middle of nowhere Nevada; a relative apparently granted a silver mine to them long ago and they want to claim it. It being a Chrysler Station Wagon towing a camper, there’s a mishap in the middle of the desert and they get stranded. From there they meet up with a crazed family of cannibals living in the desert, and mayhem ensues.
Yeah, I realized that the idea of cannibals being able to live out in the middle of nowhere and once in a blue moon catch some humans (or dogs) and otherwise sustaining on… well, something… is not something to spend a lot of time thinking about logically. However, the movie is pretty tense and it works very well. The film print (even in its 2003 DVD release) looks rather poor upconverted on my Blu-Ray player, but that actually helps to add to the 70’s-ness of it. There are some pretty terrifying moments and the villains are memorable, especially the distinctive Pluto (Berryman). Michael Berryman was born with some genetic conditions which result in him looking the way he does and thus makes him perfect for being the scary bad guy or the henchman in this genre.
Anyhow, the movie has raw intensity in spades and you can tell that this family is up s***’s creek and Jesus Christ in a crunch they have to resort to becoming animalistic themselves to try and survive. It’s something I recommend seeing if you haven’t already. Sure, there’s some goofiness but that was mainly its 70’s charm, from the guy who looks like Sonny Bono to the fashion to the phrase “Goddamn” being used often by one character and the phrase “Jesus Christ in a crunch” being uttered.
I have no clue how good the remake and its sequel are; I’ve heard mixed reviews to that. I can tell you that the sequel to THIS movie, though, is by all accounts God-awful and filled with flashbacks to the original to pad time. It was a total cash grab by Craven and that’s unfortunate.
One interesting thing about the movie is that the character of Bobby (Houston) is clearly a homosexual and yet it’s just that and it’s not addressed. Before I looked online I thought it was rather curious. He sounds like he’s gay, wore short yellow shorts in the beginning, and randomly did gymnastics. It turns out that Robert Houston is in real life a homosexual so it’s not like it was unintended homoeroticism or whatever. So you have to assume that the character of Bobby was a homosexual and it was totally random and didn’t mean anything to the movie. At least there was no stereotyping and he had to swish around or whatever. He managed to deliver a fine performance; I was just surprised when I first heard him speak, that’s all…
Plus, he gets cool points in my book for being a big part in putting together the movie Shogun Assassin, which Americanizes and combines the first two movies in the Lone Wolf & Cub series, which is a Japanese magna that was adapted into a set of six movies in the 70’s. I’ve only seen Shogun and the first movie in the Lone Wolf series, but it’s awesome sword-wielding bloody greatness. Plus, the theme to Shogun Assassin is tremendous.
I’ll be back Friday night with a new review.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Tobe Hooper
Starring: Marilyn Burns, Allen Danzinger, Paul A. Partain, Gunnar Hansen
From: Vortex
I know, another famous horror movie that I’m talking about here, and it’s pretty difficult to think of anything new and fresh to say about this film (recently voted by a British magazine as the best movie ever in the genre), but I picked this for a few reasons. It wasn’t too long ago that I saw this again. Someday I’ll talk about some of its sequels-or maybe I’ll even see one of the two remake movies… but I do realize they don’t have the best reputation. I was going to watch something today online (not technically legal, but hey, who cares?) but plans changed. I do promise that the rest of the month I’ll try to be more obscure/interesting with my horror movie reviews.
Now, I have seen the second and third movie in this series; I say that the second one is wildly overrated in some circles. It’s actually a horror/comedy (!) and much of the comedy didn’t work for me. Meanwhile, the more serious third one-at least in unrated form-is wildly underrated. One of these days I’ll explain why in further detail.
As for this movie, it is low-budget greatness. Indeed, a lot of its effectiveness is that not only was it unnerving the entire time, but it looking like a low-rent print no matter which format its in makes things very creepy. It’s not slick, in other words. It’s brutally simple in various ways. Five young people (including a physically handicapped person in a wheelchair) visit a old homestead in the middle of nowhere Texas that belonged to the relatives of two of the five. They run into a wacked-out hitchhiker who gets thrown out after a straight razor attack. They find the homestead but stuff happens and a nearby house is actually the lair of Leatherface (Hansen) and family. Once they meet…
The movie has a reputation for being excessively violent or what have you, but actually there’s hardly any gore at all. It’s just so intense and brutal it *seems* like it is a gorefest a la a Jason Voorhees motion picture.
From the beginning to the very end it’s so unnerving, from the narration (by John Larroquette! So the story goes, his payment for the narration… a joint! Swear to God that’s the story) to the opening shots of a rotting corpse. It doesn’t let up from there. If you haven’t seen this, it’s a must-see as it’s well-deserving of its reputation and its huge influence on the horror genre.
I'll be back Wednesday night; like I said, something more interesting will be reviewed that time.
Runtime: 83 minutes
Directed by: Tobe Hooper
Starring: Marilyn Burns, Allen Danzinger, Paul A. Partain, Gunnar Hansen
From: Vortex
I know, another famous horror movie that I’m talking about here, and it’s pretty difficult to think of anything new and fresh to say about this film (recently voted by a British magazine as the best movie ever in the genre), but I picked this for a few reasons. It wasn’t too long ago that I saw this again. Someday I’ll talk about some of its sequels-or maybe I’ll even see one of the two remake movies… but I do realize they don’t have the best reputation. I was going to watch something today online (not technically legal, but hey, who cares?) but plans changed. I do promise that the rest of the month I’ll try to be more obscure/interesting with my horror movie reviews.
Now, I have seen the second and third movie in this series; I say that the second one is wildly overrated in some circles. It’s actually a horror/comedy (!) and much of the comedy didn’t work for me. Meanwhile, the more serious third one-at least in unrated form-is wildly underrated. One of these days I’ll explain why in further detail.
As for this movie, it is low-budget greatness. Indeed, a lot of its effectiveness is that not only was it unnerving the entire time, but it looking like a low-rent print no matter which format its in makes things very creepy. It’s not slick, in other words. It’s brutally simple in various ways. Five young people (including a physically handicapped person in a wheelchair) visit a old homestead in the middle of nowhere Texas that belonged to the relatives of two of the five. They run into a wacked-out hitchhiker who gets thrown out after a straight razor attack. They find the homestead but stuff happens and a nearby house is actually the lair of Leatherface (Hansen) and family. Once they meet…
The movie has a reputation for being excessively violent or what have you, but actually there’s hardly any gore at all. It’s just so intense and brutal it *seems* like it is a gorefest a la a Jason Voorhees motion picture.
From the beginning to the very end it’s so unnerving, from the narration (by John Larroquette! So the story goes, his payment for the narration… a joint! Swear to God that’s the story) to the opening shots of a rotting corpse. It doesn’t let up from there. If you haven’t seen this, it’s a must-see as it’s well-deserving of its reputation and its huge influence on the horror genre.
I'll be back Wednesday night; like I said, something more interesting will be reviewed that time.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Evil Dead
The Evil Dead (1981)
Runtime: 85 minutes
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Hal Delrich, Betsy Baker, Sarah York
From: Renaissance Pictures
Before I get to talking about this classic movie, I do have to mention the unfortunate thing that Hatchet II first got pulled from theatres in Canada and then the United States. No one really knows for certain why it got pulled. I find that to be a little odd. I don’t know if the MPAA got mad, or if AMC got scared, or they weren’t happy with how lackluster it performed in the few days it was out, or what the deal is. No matter what the movie can later brag about it being “too intense for theatres!” or whatever. I don’t think it’s worth all that hype, but that is just me.
Now, here’s another horror movie famed for how intense it is and all the gross-out stuff it has; this time, though, the film deserves the hype. This real low-budget horror movie filmed in Tennessee for only a few hundred thousand dollars back in ’79 more than holds up today and that’s why it has a big cult of fans and that’s why Campbell is a cult icon and that’s why Raimi managed to go from this to directing huge movies like the Spiderman series. Believe it or not, last night was only the second time I’ve seen this. The first time was back in my college days in Illinois. I enjoyed it then as much as I do now. As for the other two movies in the series, I got pissed off with the sequel right away when for no reason they decided to briefly retell the first movie in the span of a few minutes AND totally change it around. Then, there was way too much comedy for me and I think the first one is much better. I never bothered with Army of Darkness as it just doesn’t look interesting to me. I’ll prefer this, thank you very much.
The story is simple; 5 Michigan State students spend some time in a remote cabin in Tennessee; things are spooky right away but things go to hell in a handbasket when they find an audiotape of a professor who used to live there. They play back part of the tape and it’s of chanting from an ancient book, the Necronomicon, i.e. The Book of the Dead. One by one the poor students start to get possessed and that’s when things get insane… and rather messy and filled with goo also. I won’t say much more than that as I don’t want to give any spoilers here. It’s that the movie is very well done and is intense and filled with dread throughout, not to mention the fancy camerawork that helps make the movie so good. There is also some very dark humor, but it’s funny and not a detriment or ruins the mood. Sure, this motion picture is so graphic that some parts would have to be cut out to get an R rating, but if you can tolerate that sort of thing, this is a must if you haven’t checked it out yet. It deserves the cult status it has.
I’ll be back Monday night with a new horror review.
Runtime: 85 minutes
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Hal Delrich, Betsy Baker, Sarah York
From: Renaissance Pictures
Before I get to talking about this classic movie, I do have to mention the unfortunate thing that Hatchet II first got pulled from theatres in Canada and then the United States. No one really knows for certain why it got pulled. I find that to be a little odd. I don’t know if the MPAA got mad, or if AMC got scared, or they weren’t happy with how lackluster it performed in the few days it was out, or what the deal is. No matter what the movie can later brag about it being “too intense for theatres!” or whatever. I don’t think it’s worth all that hype, but that is just me.
Now, here’s another horror movie famed for how intense it is and all the gross-out stuff it has; this time, though, the film deserves the hype. This real low-budget horror movie filmed in Tennessee for only a few hundred thousand dollars back in ’79 more than holds up today and that’s why it has a big cult of fans and that’s why Campbell is a cult icon and that’s why Raimi managed to go from this to directing huge movies like the Spiderman series. Believe it or not, last night was only the second time I’ve seen this. The first time was back in my college days in Illinois. I enjoyed it then as much as I do now. As for the other two movies in the series, I got pissed off with the sequel right away when for no reason they decided to briefly retell the first movie in the span of a few minutes AND totally change it around. Then, there was way too much comedy for me and I think the first one is much better. I never bothered with Army of Darkness as it just doesn’t look interesting to me. I’ll prefer this, thank you very much.
The story is simple; 5 Michigan State students spend some time in a remote cabin in Tennessee; things are spooky right away but things go to hell in a handbasket when they find an audiotape of a professor who used to live there. They play back part of the tape and it’s of chanting from an ancient book, the Necronomicon, i.e. The Book of the Dead. One by one the poor students start to get possessed and that’s when things get insane… and rather messy and filled with goo also. I won’t say much more than that as I don’t want to give any spoilers here. It’s that the movie is very well done and is intense and filled with dread throughout, not to mention the fancy camerawork that helps make the movie so good. There is also some very dark humor, but it’s funny and not a detriment or ruins the mood. Sure, this motion picture is so graphic that some parts would have to be cut out to get an R rating, but if you can tolerate that sort of thing, this is a must if you haven’t checked it out yet. It deserves the cult status it has.
I’ll be back Monday night with a new horror review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)