Doomsday (2008)
48% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 63 reviews)
Runtime: 113 minutes (unrated version)
Directed by: Neil Marshall
Starring: Rhona Mitra, Bob Hoskins, Craig Conway, Adrian Lester, Malcolm McDowell
From: Universal/Rogue/Intrepid/Crystal Sky
As this is the last day of the year and in the past some people have thought that the end of the year = end of the world, it’s appropriate that I talk about a movie released in early 2008 concerning a post-apocalyptic society, a deadly Reaper Virus and the lengths England goes through to find a cure for it. It’s by Neil Marshall, and the only other flick of his I saw was The Descent, which most people gush over for but I thought it was pretty overrated myself. But, with this…
Doomsday is about the Reaper Virus starting in Glasgow, Scotland in 2008, where it laid waste to the town and it got to the point where the entire country is walled off to the rest of the world and everyone in it is left to die, pretty much. Flash forward 25 years later and the virus manages to spread to London; big trouble. So, the government sends in a team (including Eden (Mitra)) to hunt for scientist Kane (McDowell) in Scotland who was working on a cure for the virus. From there you get everything from a Bentley Continental GT (hey, even if they’re sitting for 25 years they start right up, according to this flick) to young cannibal punks, from animals being destroyed by machinery to a medieval society. It’s also obviously inspired by such movies as the Mad Max flicks, Excalibur, Escape From New York, and quite a few others.
Sure, it’s clear that it’s a homage to those movies of old and in general the characters are just there, but dammit, if you go with it and not think too much about the plot, you should have a great time with it, especially if you’re a fan of the movies that it was inspired by. There’s a nice variety of action, from hand to hand combat, to shootouts, to a wild car chase involving that aforementioned Bentley. There’s also very black humor, reminiscent of that era also. The soundtrack at times sounds like something from the late 70’s to early 80’s and characters have names like Carpenter and Miller, further showing the nod to respect to those classic flicks of old. But, this wild mish-mash stands on its own, I say, and like with Rambo, if you enjoy very bloody violence, this is for you, as you often get that.
Note that from what I understand, the unrated version doesn’t add any sort of violence or nudity or anything like that, but rather expands random scenes with random stuff. I can’t say if it’s any better than the theatrical version or not, so either version is fine for viewing.
I'll be back in a few days with my first review of 2010; who knows what it will be, though.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Rambo
Rambo (2008)
37% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 140 reviews)
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sly himself, Julie Benz, Matthew Marsden, Maung Maung Khim
From: Lions Gate/Weinstein Company/Millennium Films/Nu Image/etc.
Finally, I’ve returned and amongst other things, I was in Kansas on a vacation to hang out with family. But now I can do this, and at times I’ll be able to watch these movies on a Blu-Ray player. Yep, pretty great and now I feel like I’m in the 21st century.
I decided to rent this from Blockbuster, as I’ve heard from elsewhere that this is a quality Blu-Ray disc that will demonstrate how great the format is. And that was true. I saw this once on the big screen at a drive-in, of all places, then I saw it on DVD but it’s been more than a year since the DVD viewing.
I’ve seen all four of the Rambo flicks; it’s something that you have this series when it’s based on an anti-war novel that was much more ambiguous. First Blood is a really good dramatic flick about a Vietnam vet who gets mistreated in a small town and he snaps. The second one is a rousing action flick where we cheered on vicariously as Rambo kicked some Commie ass in Vietnam. The third one has him going to Afghanistan to assist a group that pretty much morphed into the Taliban (well, whoops, but at the time they hated the Commies! Still, whoops) to save his old SAS commander, Col. Trautman. This one, though, was different.
John Rambo is now in northern Thailand, operating a longboat for hire, and is an old bitter man at what has happened with his life. A group of Christian missionaries come to him to ask him to deliver them to Burma, a horrible war-torn place where the government are at constant battle with the Karen tribe of the country and as seen in the movie, do horrible things to those that oppose the military dictatorship. In fact, Stallone made the movie to give attention to what is a problem that is ignored by much of the world for whatever reasons. Much filming was done near the area and the evil military guys are actually the Karen people themselves that had to deal with the oppressive government and they risked a lot to be in this flick. It’s quite the story. But back to the movie… Rambo is finally convinced to take them to their destination, but they get kidnapped and it takes Rambo-having to resort to his old killing ways-and a band of mercenaries hired by the leader of the missionaries, coming to the area to look for his people, to try and make the rescue.
Sure, at times some of the characters are dopey and one-note, but overall, this is a *very* violent and bloody film where you see some horrific stuff done by the military to innocent citizens, and extremely graphic stuff overall done by them and Rambo & gang in revenge. But, it’s a great character arc for Rambo and things come full circle for him and the ending is a satisfying coda for the character. Of course, there will be a 5th film in the franchise that has had several different plots and now will be around the Mexican slave trade, but the coda is still pretty nice. Stallone films the movie well (you can actually see what happens in the action scenes, as there’s no shaky cam BS; that’s pretty novel these days, so you get to see all the carnage) and there is little downtime; things move briskly. So, it’s a satisfying experience and if you enjoy the Rambo character in those other films and enjoy gloriously violent movies, this is a must-see, especially if it's on Blu-Ray, as that disc's picture and sound are stupendous.
I'll be back tomorrow with another take on a Blu-Ray movie.
37% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 140 reviews)
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sly himself, Julie Benz, Matthew Marsden, Maung Maung Khim
From: Lions Gate/Weinstein Company/Millennium Films/Nu Image/etc.
Finally, I’ve returned and amongst other things, I was in Kansas on a vacation to hang out with family. But now I can do this, and at times I’ll be able to watch these movies on a Blu-Ray player. Yep, pretty great and now I feel like I’m in the 21st century.
I decided to rent this from Blockbuster, as I’ve heard from elsewhere that this is a quality Blu-Ray disc that will demonstrate how great the format is. And that was true. I saw this once on the big screen at a drive-in, of all places, then I saw it on DVD but it’s been more than a year since the DVD viewing.
I’ve seen all four of the Rambo flicks; it’s something that you have this series when it’s based on an anti-war novel that was much more ambiguous. First Blood is a really good dramatic flick about a Vietnam vet who gets mistreated in a small town and he snaps. The second one is a rousing action flick where we cheered on vicariously as Rambo kicked some Commie ass in Vietnam. The third one has him going to Afghanistan to assist a group that pretty much morphed into the Taliban (well, whoops, but at the time they hated the Commies! Still, whoops) to save his old SAS commander, Col. Trautman. This one, though, was different.
John Rambo is now in northern Thailand, operating a longboat for hire, and is an old bitter man at what has happened with his life. A group of Christian missionaries come to him to ask him to deliver them to Burma, a horrible war-torn place where the government are at constant battle with the Karen tribe of the country and as seen in the movie, do horrible things to those that oppose the military dictatorship. In fact, Stallone made the movie to give attention to what is a problem that is ignored by much of the world for whatever reasons. Much filming was done near the area and the evil military guys are actually the Karen people themselves that had to deal with the oppressive government and they risked a lot to be in this flick. It’s quite the story. But back to the movie… Rambo is finally convinced to take them to their destination, but they get kidnapped and it takes Rambo-having to resort to his old killing ways-and a band of mercenaries hired by the leader of the missionaries, coming to the area to look for his people, to try and make the rescue.
Sure, at times some of the characters are dopey and one-note, but overall, this is a *very* violent and bloody film where you see some horrific stuff done by the military to innocent citizens, and extremely graphic stuff overall done by them and Rambo & gang in revenge. But, it’s a great character arc for Rambo and things come full circle for him and the ending is a satisfying coda for the character. Of course, there will be a 5th film in the franchise that has had several different plots and now will be around the Mexican slave trade, but the coda is still pretty nice. Stallone films the movie well (you can actually see what happens in the action scenes, as there’s no shaky cam BS; that’s pretty novel these days, so you get to see all the carnage) and there is little downtime; things move briskly. So, it’s a satisfying experience and if you enjoy the Rambo character in those other films and enjoy gloriously violent movies, this is a must-see, especially if it's on Blu-Ray, as that disc's picture and sound are stupendous.
I'll be back tomorrow with another take on a Blu-Ray movie.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Avatar
Avatar (2009)
82% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 218 reviews)
Runtime: 162 minutes
Directed by: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez
From: 20th Century Fox
Here is a film that I’ve heard about ever since I heard a brief mention of it in the book The 50 Greatest Movies Never Made, which came out 10 years ago. It wasn’t one of the 50 movies, but rather it got brought up in the Honorable Mention section. Interestingly enough, a planned Star Trek movie about the original crew and their beginnings in Starfleet Academy was one of the 50 Greatest Movies; funny then that this idea was expanded upon and brought to life in the big hit movie that came out in May, which was better than what I thought it would be. I can also say the same about this movie.
In case you’re one of the few that don’t know, it’s set in 2154 and it’s about a human corporation that is on a planet called Pandora, inhabited by blue human-cats known as the Na’vi. Working with the corporation is a scientist team that creates avatars, which allow for humans to control a created Na’vi creature remotely. One guy, Jake Sully, joins the project after his twin brother is killed; Jake happens to be paralyzed below the waist due to his prior tour as a Marine. I won’t spoil too much after that as hey, the trailers made it clear how the movie would go.
I’ll admit that the story isn’t exactly complex; not that I was expecting The Usual Suspects or Lock, Stock, & Two Smoking Barrels here, but I can understand why some people didn’t care for it due to its simplistic story. Me, I didn’t really listen to the hype and how the movie “would be a game-changer” and all those grandiose claims, some of them coming from the filmmakers themselves. But, if you aren’t bothered by a pulp-y story and instead can kick back and enjoy the awesome visuals (especially in 3-D; next month I’ll see it in IMAX 3-D), then you should enjoy this, even though it’s a lengthy film; my patience was never tried and I enjoyed being in that world and how unique things were on Earth, even though a lot of it is based on Earth creatures. Fancy that. The film just looks great and in 3-D, it’s even better. It took Cameron so long to make this as it took that long for the technology to come along and make the movie possible. It ends up being amazing and it’s the best computer effects I’ve ever seen; it eclipses what has come before it, I say. The action stuff is a blast too.
So, overall, if you want to see this, do so on the big screen as seeing it at home just won’t be the same. Don’t listen to the idiot fanboys out there who expected way too much out of it or were expecting something else. Instead, if you can tolerate subtlety that is about as faint as a chainsaw to the face (the Na’vi being like Native Americans is laid on pretty thick) then you should enjoy the flick that is part action, part romance, part drama, and all entertainment, as you get to see the likes of sniveling corporate types, a macho Colonel (Lang, in a tremendous scenery-chewing performance), and a noble scientist (Weaver). The audience I saw it with Sunday night really dug it, giving it the loudest cheers and applause I can ever recall at a theatre. So, I think you’ll end up enjoying it too, and I’m saying this as someone who before the movie wasn’t sure how it would be, given the underwhelming trailers I saw beforehand.
I'll be back and post something by the very end of year at the latest, I promise.
82% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 218 reviews)
Runtime: 162 minutes
Directed by: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez
From: 20th Century Fox
Here is a film that I’ve heard about ever since I heard a brief mention of it in the book The 50 Greatest Movies Never Made, which came out 10 years ago. It wasn’t one of the 50 movies, but rather it got brought up in the Honorable Mention section. Interestingly enough, a planned Star Trek movie about the original crew and their beginnings in Starfleet Academy was one of the 50 Greatest Movies; funny then that this idea was expanded upon and brought to life in the big hit movie that came out in May, which was better than what I thought it would be. I can also say the same about this movie.
In case you’re one of the few that don’t know, it’s set in 2154 and it’s about a human corporation that is on a planet called Pandora, inhabited by blue human-cats known as the Na’vi. Working with the corporation is a scientist team that creates avatars, which allow for humans to control a created Na’vi creature remotely. One guy, Jake Sully, joins the project after his twin brother is killed; Jake happens to be paralyzed below the waist due to his prior tour as a Marine. I won’t spoil too much after that as hey, the trailers made it clear how the movie would go.
I’ll admit that the story isn’t exactly complex; not that I was expecting The Usual Suspects or Lock, Stock, & Two Smoking Barrels here, but I can understand why some people didn’t care for it due to its simplistic story. Me, I didn’t really listen to the hype and how the movie “would be a game-changer” and all those grandiose claims, some of them coming from the filmmakers themselves. But, if you aren’t bothered by a pulp-y story and instead can kick back and enjoy the awesome visuals (especially in 3-D; next month I’ll see it in IMAX 3-D), then you should enjoy this, even though it’s a lengthy film; my patience was never tried and I enjoyed being in that world and how unique things were on Earth, even though a lot of it is based on Earth creatures. Fancy that. The film just looks great and in 3-D, it’s even better. It took Cameron so long to make this as it took that long for the technology to come along and make the movie possible. It ends up being amazing and it’s the best computer effects I’ve ever seen; it eclipses what has come before it, I say. The action stuff is a blast too.
So, overall, if you want to see this, do so on the big screen as seeing it at home just won’t be the same. Don’t listen to the idiot fanboys out there who expected way too much out of it or were expecting something else. Instead, if you can tolerate subtlety that is about as faint as a chainsaw to the face (the Na’vi being like Native Americans is laid on pretty thick) then you should enjoy the flick that is part action, part romance, part drama, and all entertainment, as you get to see the likes of sniveling corporate types, a macho Colonel (Lang, in a tremendous scenery-chewing performance), and a noble scientist (Weaver). The audience I saw it with Sunday night really dug it, giving it the loudest cheers and applause I can ever recall at a theatre. So, I think you’ll end up enjoying it too, and I’m saying this as someone who before the movie wasn’t sure how it would be, given the underwhelming trailers I saw beforehand.
I'll be back and post something by the very end of year at the latest, I promise.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Porky's
Porky's (1982)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Bob Clark
Starring: Dan Monahan, Mark Herrier, Wyatt Knight, Kim Cattrall, Nancy Parsons
From: 20th Century Fox
My apologies for getting this up so late but I’ve been busy with various things the past two weeks, so it’s only now that I’m able to do this; it isn’t something I have watched recently but I’ve seen at least parts of it many times before (it’s very re-watchable to me, and most movies aren’t like that with me), so here you go.
If you’re a fan of raunchy comedies (such as, hey, The Hangover, which I’ll get on DVD sooner or later) then this is something for you. It’s set in South Florida (and based on actual exploits, so they say, in the lives of in the 1950’s and it’s a group of wild and horny teenagers at Angel Beach High School and it’s basically a set of vignettes in them attempting to get laid, spying on girls showering, and going to a nightclub in the middle of the Everglades known as Porky’s, in order to score with the ladies there. Throughout you had various subplots that all play off in the end, such as Catrall’s character and why she’s called Lassie. Not to spoil anything, but she doesn’t spend the entire movie fully clothed and I’ll put it that way.
It’s something you should have a good time with, as you can tell it’s a flick that the cast had a good time with. Many lol’s all around. It moves at a fast pace, too. There’s even a moral thing with a Jewish character that just moved to town, and even the edgier characters find out that he’s not so bad after all. The ending is a lot of fun. So, you can either check it out on a channel like Fox Movie Channel or you can find the Ultimate Collection of all three Porky’s flicks for a cheap price. As for the sequels, the second one is entertaining enough, although it falls apart with about 20 minutes to go; I guess it isn’t surprising if it includes everything from the KKK to a Seminole Indian, to a random guy playing a zombie, to Shakespeare and censorship! The last one has Porky returning and it involves blackmail, a riverboat gambling operation, and a high school basketball championship. It’s dopey at times but I still had fun with it. The first one is the best, though.
Now, there’s been talk of a remake (from Howard Stern!) of the original but it hasn’t come through. Apparently, there is going to be a college sequel that ignores the third flick and the remake still may arrive one of these days. I don't have high hopes for those flicks.
I'll be back by this time next week, as by then I will have seen Avatar, and now I'm real interested in how that flick turns out.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Bob Clark
Starring: Dan Monahan, Mark Herrier, Wyatt Knight, Kim Cattrall, Nancy Parsons
From: 20th Century Fox
My apologies for getting this up so late but I’ve been busy with various things the past two weeks, so it’s only now that I’m able to do this; it isn’t something I have watched recently but I’ve seen at least parts of it many times before (it’s very re-watchable to me, and most movies aren’t like that with me), so here you go.
If you’re a fan of raunchy comedies (such as, hey, The Hangover, which I’ll get on DVD sooner or later) then this is something for you. It’s set in South Florida (and based on actual exploits, so they say, in the lives of in the 1950’s and it’s a group of wild and horny teenagers at Angel Beach High School and it’s basically a set of vignettes in them attempting to get laid, spying on girls showering, and going to a nightclub in the middle of the Everglades known as Porky’s, in order to score with the ladies there. Throughout you had various subplots that all play off in the end, such as Catrall’s character and why she’s called Lassie. Not to spoil anything, but she doesn’t spend the entire movie fully clothed and I’ll put it that way.
It’s something you should have a good time with, as you can tell it’s a flick that the cast had a good time with. Many lol’s all around. It moves at a fast pace, too. There’s even a moral thing with a Jewish character that just moved to town, and even the edgier characters find out that he’s not so bad after all. The ending is a lot of fun. So, you can either check it out on a channel like Fox Movie Channel or you can find the Ultimate Collection of all three Porky’s flicks for a cheap price. As for the sequels, the second one is entertaining enough, although it falls apart with about 20 minutes to go; I guess it isn’t surprising if it includes everything from the KKK to a Seminole Indian, to a random guy playing a zombie, to Shakespeare and censorship! The last one has Porky returning and it involves blackmail, a riverboat gambling operation, and a high school basketball championship. It’s dopey at times but I still had fun with it. The first one is the best, though.
Now, there’s been talk of a remake (from Howard Stern!) of the original but it hasn’t come through. Apparently, there is going to be a college sequel that ignores the third flick and the remake still may arrive one of these days. I don't have high hopes for those flicks.
I'll be back by this time next week, as by then I will have seen Avatar, and now I'm real interested in how that flick turns out.
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Thing
The Thing (1982)
Runtime: 109 minutes
Directed by: John Carpenter
Starring: Kurt Russell (no relation, I swear), Keith David, T.K. Carter, Richard Dysart, Wilford Brimley
From: Universal
Here is a flick that I’ve only seen twice now, but I need to have in my collection one of these days rather than borrowing it from the local library.
If you haven’t seen this classic horror flick yet*, it’s about a research team representing the United States in Antarctica and how they ran into trouble once a crazy Norwegian chases a dog into camp and the Norseman gets killed. The dog isn’t a dog, but actually an alien organism (the title creature) which can assimilate any living organism and once it comes into contact with a human being while they are alone, they’ll kill the person and transform into that person and do a perfect imitation of the person. Explained like that, it may sound goofy, but the film is pretty great. It’s very suspenseful as there’s paranoia all around with people arguing with others over whom is real and who is just an imitation. It’s quite tense and it’s all great, especially the special effects, which still look tremendous 27 years later and in the planned prequel movie to this which is supposed to be made one of these days, it will be computer CGI and you know that it won’t look as good. Also, I have a feeling that they won’t be able to get the quality of actors that you had here and have them deliver as good performances as you had here. I tell you, Wilford Brimley here wasn’t the kind old fellow who shills oatmeal or diabetes medication!
• Which is based on the short-story Who Goes There and was previously made into the 1951 movie The Thing From Another World, although this film is more faithful to the story than TTFAW was.
So, if you haven’t seen this movie yet and you like scary flicks which have some horrifying/strange images, this is a must-see.
I’ll be back in about a week’s time with at least one new review.
Runtime: 109 minutes
Directed by: John Carpenter
Starring: Kurt Russell (no relation, I swear), Keith David, T.K. Carter, Richard Dysart, Wilford Brimley
From: Universal
Here is a flick that I’ve only seen twice now, but I need to have in my collection one of these days rather than borrowing it from the local library.
If you haven’t seen this classic horror flick yet*, it’s about a research team representing the United States in Antarctica and how they ran into trouble once a crazy Norwegian chases a dog into camp and the Norseman gets killed. The dog isn’t a dog, but actually an alien organism (the title creature) which can assimilate any living organism and once it comes into contact with a human being while they are alone, they’ll kill the person and transform into that person and do a perfect imitation of the person. Explained like that, it may sound goofy, but the film is pretty great. It’s very suspenseful as there’s paranoia all around with people arguing with others over whom is real and who is just an imitation. It’s quite tense and it’s all great, especially the special effects, which still look tremendous 27 years later and in the planned prequel movie to this which is supposed to be made one of these days, it will be computer CGI and you know that it won’t look as good. Also, I have a feeling that they won’t be able to get the quality of actors that you had here and have them deliver as good performances as you had here. I tell you, Wilford Brimley here wasn’t the kind old fellow who shills oatmeal or diabetes medication!
• Which is based on the short-story Who Goes There and was previously made into the 1951 movie The Thing From Another World, although this film is more faithful to the story than TTFAW was.
So, if you haven’t seen this movie yet and you like scary flicks which have some horrifying/strange images, this is a must-see.
I’ll be back in about a week’s time with at least one new review.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Ninja Assassin
Ninja Assassin (2009)
28% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 78 reviews)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: James McTiegue
Starring: Rain, Naomie Harris, Ben Miles, Rick Yune, Sho Kosugi
From: Warner Brothers/Legendary Pictures/Dark Castle Entertainment
Here is a movie that I saw on Saturday night, due to me being bored and not having anything to do; having a theatre that’s only 3 and a half miles away from where I live is pretty convenient. It’s a flick I’ve heard about for months now but when it came near releasing time, there were mixed reviews, and I’m not talking about the critics; I’m talking about action/martial arts fans.
This is about a young ninja (Korean pop star Rain; there's a joke about him looking like he was in a boy band; he WAS in a boy band way back when. Some people laughed in the theatre in a way that suggested they were "smart" and knew that bit of trivia too) and it shows his current life and how he grew up to be a ninja; that process was arduous and very difficult, to say the least, especially if it’s run by a legendary martial arts actor like Sho Kosugi. Mixed in with that is an investigation by EUROPOL in Berlin (where much of the current-day scenes are set in) into the role that ninjas have had in history in assassinating people, thus explaining the title. Without giving too much away, Rain’s character ends up being a protagonist that you root for.
The action and blood… you’ll get to see in the opening scene that it’s *very* bloody and violent; a ninja lays waste to some ruffians at their hideout and it’s glorious stuff seeing them get torn to shreds (literally) and all the blood flying about, even if it’s CGI and it’s not that realistic. The rest of the movie doesn’t match the opening in terms of intensity, but there’s a good amount of wild action that you get to see. Sure, it’s filmed in a way that isn’t what I’d call “shaky cam” but it’s very quick editing and the camera doesn’t stay in place and moves around a lot. It’s an unfortunate trend of action moves in recent years but given the gimmick of ninjas being so stealthy, I can excuse it somewhat, and it didn’t bother me too much in this movie as much as it did some others. The action was entertaining and there was bloody carnage.
As for the story.. it’s for the birds. Then again, even in those “chop-socky” movies that I rate highly (such as some of Jackie Chan’s American flicks or the great duo of Tony Jaa’s Ong-Bak and The Protector) have stories that aren’t worth talking about but the action stuff is so grand you don’t care that much about the stories. If the story would’ve been better and the action filmed more satisfactory to my tastes, this would’ve been pretty awesome; as is, though, I had a good time with it and if you like this sort of flick, you may want to go see it on the big screen… at least in a dollar theatre in like 2 months or so if you must.
28% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 78 reviews)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: James McTiegue
Starring: Rain, Naomie Harris, Ben Miles, Rick Yune, Sho Kosugi
From: Warner Brothers/Legendary Pictures/Dark Castle Entertainment
Here is a movie that I saw on Saturday night, due to me being bored and not having anything to do; having a theatre that’s only 3 and a half miles away from where I live is pretty convenient. It’s a flick I’ve heard about for months now but when it came near releasing time, there were mixed reviews, and I’m not talking about the critics; I’m talking about action/martial arts fans.
This is about a young ninja (Korean pop star Rain; there's a joke about him looking like he was in a boy band; he WAS in a boy band way back when. Some people laughed in the theatre in a way that suggested they were "smart" and knew that bit of trivia too) and it shows his current life and how he grew up to be a ninja; that process was arduous and very difficult, to say the least, especially if it’s run by a legendary martial arts actor like Sho Kosugi. Mixed in with that is an investigation by EUROPOL in Berlin (where much of the current-day scenes are set in) into the role that ninjas have had in history in assassinating people, thus explaining the title. Without giving too much away, Rain’s character ends up being a protagonist that you root for.
The action and blood… you’ll get to see in the opening scene that it’s *very* bloody and violent; a ninja lays waste to some ruffians at their hideout and it’s glorious stuff seeing them get torn to shreds (literally) and all the blood flying about, even if it’s CGI and it’s not that realistic. The rest of the movie doesn’t match the opening in terms of intensity, but there’s a good amount of wild action that you get to see. Sure, it’s filmed in a way that isn’t what I’d call “shaky cam” but it’s very quick editing and the camera doesn’t stay in place and moves around a lot. It’s an unfortunate trend of action moves in recent years but given the gimmick of ninjas being so stealthy, I can excuse it somewhat, and it didn’t bother me too much in this movie as much as it did some others. The action was entertaining and there was bloody carnage.
As for the story.. it’s for the birds. Then again, even in those “chop-socky” movies that I rate highly (such as some of Jackie Chan’s American flicks or the great duo of Tony Jaa’s Ong-Bak and The Protector) have stories that aren’t worth talking about but the action stuff is so grand you don’t care that much about the stories. If the story would’ve been better and the action filmed more satisfactory to my tastes, this would’ve been pretty awesome; as is, though, I had a good time with it and if you like this sort of flick, you may want to go see it on the big screen… at least in a dollar theatre in like 2 months or so if you must.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Race With The Devil
Race With The Devil (1975)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Jack Starrett (replacing Lee Frost)
Starring: Peter Fonda, Warren Oates, Loretta Swit, Lara Parker, R.G. Armstrong
From: 20th Century Fox
Here is a movie I’ve heard about for awhile now (I don’t remember where first) and had available for viewing for awhile also, but finally I got around to watching it just recently.
It’s a movie SO a product of its times, from the fashion, to the fact that the main vehicle is a motorhome, and other things… this is about a pair of guys involved with dirtbikes; one of them races (Fonda) and the other runs a store (Oates). Well, Oates has a fancy new motorhome, looking all 70’s and stuff. The two men and their significant others (Swit and Parker; yes, Loretta was Hot Lips on M*A*S*H) decide to embark on a much-needed trip filled with R &R, headed to Aspen, Colorado. They leave San Antonio and stay in remote locations as hey, their RV has everything they need, right? Well, one night they get drunk and they happen to see a… satanic sacrifice! There’s another trend from that decade, fear of devil worshippers and cults. They get spotted and they barely escape. From there they try to move on but they get the feeling that there are more people in the cult than they first realized…
This is a flick which combines several different genres, from horror to b-movie action to exploitation to even a car chase scene, but this one involves an RV. If you think about it the plot isn’t all that realistic, but if you check your brain at the door, you should enjoy this. It’s a movie that has some humor, but a lot of creepiness in that you don’t know who to trust, and you don’t know what will happen next. It’s suspenseful and it’s punctuated by the action stuff, especially the car chase at the end, where you see stuff blow up and some people get their comeuppance. The ending… it’s totally 70’s, too, I’ll put it that way. There was a remake planed a few years ago but it didn’t happen and who knows if it’ll ever happen. I don’t know how it’ll be if they take it out of the 70’s and they don’t have quality actors like Fonda and Oates in the lead; they’ll probably change the ending too so that would be no good, I say. Maybe it’s best if they remake something else besides this, as I don’t think you could really improve it. So, if you see it on something like Fox Movie Channel (which shows it once in a while) it may be worth checking out if you sound intrigued by it.
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Jack Starrett (replacing Lee Frost)
Starring: Peter Fonda, Warren Oates, Loretta Swit, Lara Parker, R.G. Armstrong
From: 20th Century Fox
Here is a movie I’ve heard about for awhile now (I don’t remember where first) and had available for viewing for awhile also, but finally I got around to watching it just recently.
It’s a movie SO a product of its times, from the fashion, to the fact that the main vehicle is a motorhome, and other things… this is about a pair of guys involved with dirtbikes; one of them races (Fonda) and the other runs a store (Oates). Well, Oates has a fancy new motorhome, looking all 70’s and stuff. The two men and their significant others (Swit and Parker; yes, Loretta was Hot Lips on M*A*S*H) decide to embark on a much-needed trip filled with R &R, headed to Aspen, Colorado. They leave San Antonio and stay in remote locations as hey, their RV has everything they need, right? Well, one night they get drunk and they happen to see a… satanic sacrifice! There’s another trend from that decade, fear of devil worshippers and cults. They get spotted and they barely escape. From there they try to move on but they get the feeling that there are more people in the cult than they first realized…
This is a flick which combines several different genres, from horror to b-movie action to exploitation to even a car chase scene, but this one involves an RV. If you think about it the plot isn’t all that realistic, but if you check your brain at the door, you should enjoy this. It’s a movie that has some humor, but a lot of creepiness in that you don’t know who to trust, and you don’t know what will happen next. It’s suspenseful and it’s punctuated by the action stuff, especially the car chase at the end, where you see stuff blow up and some people get their comeuppance. The ending… it’s totally 70’s, too, I’ll put it that way. There was a remake planed a few years ago but it didn’t happen and who knows if it’ll ever happen. I don’t know how it’ll be if they take it out of the 70’s and they don’t have quality actors like Fonda and Oates in the lead; they’ll probably change the ending too so that would be no good, I say. Maybe it’s best if they remake something else besides this, as I don’t think you could really improve it. So, if you see it on something like Fox Movie Channel (which shows it once in a while) it may be worth checking out if you sound intrigued by it.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
College
College (2008)
5% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 39 reviews)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Deb Hagan
Starring: Drake Bell, Andrew Caldwell, Kevin Covais, Haley Bennett
From: MGM
Now that I have time to do one of these, I’ll talk about a movie I saw last fall on the big screen and again on DVD a few months later (as I’m a masochist), and boy is it a turkey. I know, I know… I can see why MGM may end up going bankrupt if one of the few movies they put out the last few years was stuff as bad as this.
This was a movie that was advertised decently on channels like ESPN August of last year, so I was surprised that it did real poorly at the box office. I decided to see it on the Tuesday afternoon after it was released. Then I saw it was for good reason why it tanked at the box office; sure, I heard before I saw it that it was no good, but that’s certainly the case.
This flick is about a trio of high school seniors who visit a college and they spend a weekend there. There’s the nerdy lead, a fat crass sidekick, and a major nerd who gets picked on by the fat guy. They are no Seth, Evan, and especially not McLovin’. Now, some of the advertising was it saying that it was the ultimate movie about college, or some such nonsense. That was NOT the case, and in fact it rather blatantly ripped off of movies like Superbad and some others… in fact, let me copy and paste from a MySpace blog I wrote at the time:
I could mention a few things as to the start of September, but the only interesting thing I'll bring up now is some movie advice. I'm sure that last week many of you saw ads for College, the ridiculously generically titled movie that is just another raunchy comedy. I still went and saw it as hey, it sounded interesting, and it managed to bomb big time at the box office, coming in at FIFTEENTH place after Monday's tallies were counted up for the three days. I doubt MGM spend all that advertising money to have it not come close to making the top 10. I mean, ouch. Sure, Hamlet 2 is an even bigger bomb, but ever since I saw an ad for it way back in April I thought it looked like horseshit, so I'm amused it tanked so badly.
College, though, is pretty wretched. I'm glad I only paid matinee prices to see it. It's like a low-budget ripoff of movies such as Superbad (or any other Apatow film) and Revenge of the Nerds. There were pretty blatant ripoffs of both movies (among other "homage's"), such as camera shots (and the three main guys… blatant copies of McLovin, Seth, and Evan) and a raid on a frat house that was such a steal from Nerds, they played an imitation "Mission Impossible" theme as if they went out of their way to remind people that in Nerds, the original theme to the 60's show played when the Tri Lambs (oh yeah, and they was even a reference to "The Lamda's" in College; honestly!) raided the Pi's sorority house.
Besides that, the real problem is the script. They made the character not likeable at all. Not McLovin, Not Seth, and Not Evan (that might as well be their names) are people you don't really care for and don't want to get behind and support. You know, the way they acted and how they took all that abuse from the Not Alpha Beta's when they didn't have to take it… the movie was about seeing the abuse that the dorks took in gross fashion rather than trying to be funny. I only was amused (much less laughed) at a few moments, and that was it. Not even the appearance of Verne Troyer as himself-yes, really-and the appearance of many bare boobies made things any better. So yeah, EPIC FAIL (despite the presence of the cute girls that were part of the Not Pi sorority), and what a disappointment.
While I do realize it was a Tuesday afternoon in an Orlando theater that is not the most popular, I was still surprised I was the only person in the theatre.
After seeing it again on DVD, I never want to watch it again; the unrated version does nothing to help it out. Like I said, the main problem is the script, not the actors; the lead girls were cute, which is always nice, but you hated how the characters were written, as the situation they were put in where they “had” to take a ridiculous amount of abuse from the Not Alpha Beta frat… and it was mainly because they wanted to be accepted by those loathsome characters, and then later it was because they thought that the chicks they were hooked up with would suddenly hate them because they’re still in high school… which actually does happen at first and then suddenly things are fine again. Of course. Even the ending sequence where the bad guys get their comeuppance isn’t entertaining; rather, I was left wondering how they were able to do all that in such a short amount of time. So yeah, never watch this (not even if you’re a horny guy and want to see a bunch of nudity, as you can just do the same on the Internet) and stick to the movies that they emulated instead.
I'll be back by this time next week with at least one new review.
5% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 39 reviews)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Deb Hagan
Starring: Drake Bell, Andrew Caldwell, Kevin Covais, Haley Bennett
From: MGM
Now that I have time to do one of these, I’ll talk about a movie I saw last fall on the big screen and again on DVD a few months later (as I’m a masochist), and boy is it a turkey. I know, I know… I can see why MGM may end up going bankrupt if one of the few movies they put out the last few years was stuff as bad as this.
This was a movie that was advertised decently on channels like ESPN August of last year, so I was surprised that it did real poorly at the box office. I decided to see it on the Tuesday afternoon after it was released. Then I saw it was for good reason why it tanked at the box office; sure, I heard before I saw it that it was no good, but that’s certainly the case.
This flick is about a trio of high school seniors who visit a college and they spend a weekend there. There’s the nerdy lead, a fat crass sidekick, and a major nerd who gets picked on by the fat guy. They are no Seth, Evan, and especially not McLovin’. Now, some of the advertising was it saying that it was the ultimate movie about college, or some such nonsense. That was NOT the case, and in fact it rather blatantly ripped off of movies like Superbad and some others… in fact, let me copy and paste from a MySpace blog I wrote at the time:
I could mention a few things as to the start of September, but the only interesting thing I'll bring up now is some movie advice. I'm sure that last week many of you saw ads for College, the ridiculously generically titled movie that is just another raunchy comedy. I still went and saw it as hey, it sounded interesting, and it managed to bomb big time at the box office, coming in at FIFTEENTH place after Monday's tallies were counted up for the three days. I doubt MGM spend all that advertising money to have it not come close to making the top 10. I mean, ouch. Sure, Hamlet 2 is an even bigger bomb, but ever since I saw an ad for it way back in April I thought it looked like horseshit, so I'm amused it tanked so badly.
College, though, is pretty wretched. I'm glad I only paid matinee prices to see it. It's like a low-budget ripoff of movies such as Superbad (or any other Apatow film) and Revenge of the Nerds. There were pretty blatant ripoffs of both movies (among other "homage's"), such as camera shots (and the three main guys… blatant copies of McLovin, Seth, and Evan) and a raid on a frat house that was such a steal from Nerds, they played an imitation "Mission Impossible" theme as if they went out of their way to remind people that in Nerds, the original theme to the 60's show played when the Tri Lambs (oh yeah, and they was even a reference to "The Lamda's" in College; honestly!) raided the Pi's sorority house.
Besides that, the real problem is the script. They made the character not likeable at all. Not McLovin, Not Seth, and Not Evan (that might as well be their names) are people you don't really care for and don't want to get behind and support. You know, the way they acted and how they took all that abuse from the Not Alpha Beta's when they didn't have to take it… the movie was about seeing the abuse that the dorks took in gross fashion rather than trying to be funny. I only was amused (much less laughed) at a few moments, and that was it. Not even the appearance of Verne Troyer as himself-yes, really-and the appearance of many bare boobies made things any better. So yeah, EPIC FAIL (despite the presence of the cute girls that were part of the Not Pi sorority), and what a disappointment.
While I do realize it was a Tuesday afternoon in an Orlando theater that is not the most popular, I was still surprised I was the only person in the theatre.
After seeing it again on DVD, I never want to watch it again; the unrated version does nothing to help it out. Like I said, the main problem is the script, not the actors; the lead girls were cute, which is always nice, but you hated how the characters were written, as the situation they were put in where they “had” to take a ridiculous amount of abuse from the Not Alpha Beta frat… and it was mainly because they wanted to be accepted by those loathsome characters, and then later it was because they thought that the chicks they were hooked up with would suddenly hate them because they’re still in high school… which actually does happen at first and then suddenly things are fine again. Of course. Even the ending sequence where the bad guys get their comeuppance isn’t entertaining; rather, I was left wondering how they were able to do all that in such a short amount of time. So yeah, never watch this (not even if you’re a horny guy and want to see a bunch of nudity, as you can just do the same on the Internet) and stick to the movies that they emulated instead.
I'll be back by this time next week with at least one new review.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
An Addendum
I was in a rush to post my last entry, so I neglected to mention some things.
When the movie was originally released in America, its distributor was the recently mentioned American International Pictures, the low-budget entity. In their wisdom, they decided to dub the movie into “American English” rather than “Australian English”. Despite it making money elsewhere around the world, AIP didn’t do much with it in the states aside from the dubbing. I guess it’s not a surprise that shortly after this, they went out of business.
Two times in the movie there's an effect you see twice where in real time you'll briefly see eyes pop out of someone's head (as if a cartoon) right before a big moment. I read years ago in a book about how it's done naturally but I don't recall it now. Director George Miller was in the medical field originally, so I'm sure that's how he learned to do that. If you freeze it at the right time... it's an image that creeps me out, at least!
One more thing about the weirdness factor. The young child that Max and Jessie have… it’s name is Sprog. Sprog! I have no idea what kind of name that is either, and it looked to be it’s real name instead of a nickname.
But despite stuff like this, like I said before this is something I recommend. The way it’s shot, the music, the action scenes… good stuff.
When the movie was originally released in America, its distributor was the recently mentioned American International Pictures, the low-budget entity. In their wisdom, they decided to dub the movie into “American English” rather than “Australian English”. Despite it making money elsewhere around the world, AIP didn’t do much with it in the states aside from the dubbing. I guess it’s not a surprise that shortly after this, they went out of business.
Two times in the movie there's an effect you see twice where in real time you'll briefly see eyes pop out of someone's head (as if a cartoon) right before a big moment. I read years ago in a book about how it's done naturally but I don't recall it now. Director George Miller was in the medical field originally, so I'm sure that's how he learned to do that. If you freeze it at the right time... it's an image that creeps me out, at least!
One more thing about the weirdness factor. The young child that Max and Jessie have… it’s name is Sprog. Sprog! I have no idea what kind of name that is either, and it looked to be it’s real name instead of a nickname.
But despite stuff like this, like I said before this is something I recommend. The way it’s shot, the music, the action scenes… good stuff.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Mad Max
Mad Max (1979)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: George Miller
Starring: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keyes-Byrne, Steve Brisley
From: Kennedy-Miller Productions
Here’s a movie that I hadn’t seen before but yet should have done so sooner than I did. This is the first in the Mad Max series-obviously-and with the recent announcement that the fourth in the series (Fury Road) is FINALLY going to be made and released in 2011 (talks of a fourth movie have been going on for more than 20 years now!), so why not talk about the first one here?
It’s a tale set “a few years from now” in a wasteland future where chaos and disorder reign, the cops were all leather outfits and as a chase passes by a small Australian town, tow trucks follow the action, knowing that they’ll end up being in use sooner or later. Max Rockatansky (Gibson; that’s quite the name) is considered the best cop when it comes to these pursuits. The movie opens with a big car chase out of the gate and the end result is Max chasing a low-level villain (a member of a biker gang) known as The Nightrider, and Nightrider crashes his car and is killed instantly. The crazy biker gang-led by The Toecutter (Keyes-Byrne)-is upset over one of their own dying and they get revenge due to that and an incident where another member gets arrested but released due to every citizen being too afraid to testify against them. They feud with each other and after some horrific incidents, Max goes on the warpath, and it’s a great thing.
The entire movie had a weird tone and vibe to it, especially with the crazy biker gang. A few times I was a little perplexed but it didn’t hamper my enjoyment of the flick. It overall goes with the flow of the movie and it works amongst all the action and the awesome car chases as against what he wanted to have happen, Max started to turn into the type of person that he was seeking revenge against, adding subtext to the proceedings. So, I give this a high recommendation and eventually I’ll get around to seeing the even more beloved The Road Warrior and the not so beloved Beyond Thunderdome (a.k.a. The One With Tina Turner; it’s the only one of the three that I remember seeing at least a few minutes of in the past before last night), but I don’t know when that’ll be as the rest of this month will probably be busy for me, and that goes for updating this also, but I’ll try to add one or two more before the month is over with.
Oh, and it has to be said that there’s a scene an hour in with Jessie (Samuel) where you see that she’s wearing Uggs! I kid you not. I know that they were around back then and it was an Australian invention, but I hadn’t even heard of them until a few years ago and I was never expecting to see them here. That scene has a flub as for the rest of it she has on sandals, but if you look for it you’ll see it.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: George Miller
Starring: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keyes-Byrne, Steve Brisley
From: Kennedy-Miller Productions
Here’s a movie that I hadn’t seen before but yet should have done so sooner than I did. This is the first in the Mad Max series-obviously-and with the recent announcement that the fourth in the series (Fury Road) is FINALLY going to be made and released in 2011 (talks of a fourth movie have been going on for more than 20 years now!), so why not talk about the first one here?
It’s a tale set “a few years from now” in a wasteland future where chaos and disorder reign, the cops were all leather outfits and as a chase passes by a small Australian town, tow trucks follow the action, knowing that they’ll end up being in use sooner or later. Max Rockatansky (Gibson; that’s quite the name) is considered the best cop when it comes to these pursuits. The movie opens with a big car chase out of the gate and the end result is Max chasing a low-level villain (a member of a biker gang) known as The Nightrider, and Nightrider crashes his car and is killed instantly. The crazy biker gang-led by The Toecutter (Keyes-Byrne)-is upset over one of their own dying and they get revenge due to that and an incident where another member gets arrested but released due to every citizen being too afraid to testify against them. They feud with each other and after some horrific incidents, Max goes on the warpath, and it’s a great thing.
The entire movie had a weird tone and vibe to it, especially with the crazy biker gang. A few times I was a little perplexed but it didn’t hamper my enjoyment of the flick. It overall goes with the flow of the movie and it works amongst all the action and the awesome car chases as against what he wanted to have happen, Max started to turn into the type of person that he was seeking revenge against, adding subtext to the proceedings. So, I give this a high recommendation and eventually I’ll get around to seeing the even more beloved The Road Warrior and the not so beloved Beyond Thunderdome (a.k.a. The One With Tina Turner; it’s the only one of the three that I remember seeing at least a few minutes of in the past before last night), but I don’t know when that’ll be as the rest of this month will probably be busy for me, and that goes for updating this also, but I’ll try to add one or two more before the month is over with.
Oh, and it has to be said that there’s a scene an hour in with Jessie (Samuel) where you see that she’s wearing Uggs! I kid you not. I know that they were around back then and it was an Australian invention, but I hadn’t even heard of them until a few years ago and I was never expecting to see them here. That scene has a flub as for the rest of it she has on sandals, but if you look for it you’ll see it.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Gremlins
Gremlins (1984)
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Joe Dante
Starring: Zach Galligan, Phoebe Cates, Corey Feldman, Hoyt Axton
From: Warner Brothers/Amblin
Here is a movie that I haven’t seen in at least 20 years (no kidding) but I finally got around to seeing it… due to the theatre at Universal Studios in Orlando showing it. The past week they showed National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, which is a “new classic” Christmas flick, but I’ve seen that enough times that I didn’t need to go out and see it. But, with this flick, seeing it on the big screen would be nice for a flick where I only remember the first few minutes and the one scene with the chair. It ended up being an old film print rather than a DVD projection, which was nice, even though the print was at times on the sketchy side. I ended up being one of four people there to see this, and of course, two of the four decide to chat with each other at random points during the screening, like a bunch of Troglodytes. That is a common occurrence for a movie at this theatre, let me tell you that much. Universal seems to be a beacon for the rudest most ignorant people. But, they left with like a half hour to go. Why, I don’t know. Then again, I can’t explain why the other person left with about 15 minutes to go; that’s right, I saw the final 15 minutes of this by myself in the big auditorium. What losers.
As for the movie, I was more familiar with the really strange sequel rather than this, but I still remembered the basic rules of the mogwai and what you’re not supposed to do with them, and I’m sure most readers will be familiar with those rules too. Anyway, I wasn’t sure what to expect with this, but it was a horror comedy (a lot of the humor black in nature) that-despite some of the creepier stuff-is for most ages. I mean, it has to be for kids when you see gremlins dressed up in clothing, drinking beer, smoking cigarettes, and singing Christmas carols! The gremlin flashing Phoebe Cates* is something for the adults, though.
Overall, it’s a movie that I ended up enjoying. The special effects still look nice 25 years later and while some of the characters/situations were broad in nature (the “evil old lady” was just that) it was something that I shut off my brain for and I liked this tale of how creatures wreaked havoc on an idyllic small town. There were some surprising moments along the way, such as which character managed to memorably kill a few gremlins in one scene. So, if you haven’t seen this before or haven’t seen it in a long time, it’s worth it to check it out, I say. I presume that in the next few weeks Universal will continue to show Christmas-themed movies so depending on what films they show I may return back there before this year is over with.
• In the 80’s, Phoebe Cates was a babe, no doubt about it. She looked great here but her best moment was in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a movie I’ve seen once before and to be honest, thought was quite overrated. However, the one scene of her in the red bikini… wow! That was clearly the highlight of the film for me.
Runtime: 106 minutes
Directed by: Joe Dante
Starring: Zach Galligan, Phoebe Cates, Corey Feldman, Hoyt Axton
From: Warner Brothers/Amblin
Here is a movie that I haven’t seen in at least 20 years (no kidding) but I finally got around to seeing it… due to the theatre at Universal Studios in Orlando showing it. The past week they showed National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, which is a “new classic” Christmas flick, but I’ve seen that enough times that I didn’t need to go out and see it. But, with this flick, seeing it on the big screen would be nice for a flick where I only remember the first few minutes and the one scene with the chair. It ended up being an old film print rather than a DVD projection, which was nice, even though the print was at times on the sketchy side. I ended up being one of four people there to see this, and of course, two of the four decide to chat with each other at random points during the screening, like a bunch of Troglodytes. That is a common occurrence for a movie at this theatre, let me tell you that much. Universal seems to be a beacon for the rudest most ignorant people. But, they left with like a half hour to go. Why, I don’t know. Then again, I can’t explain why the other person left with about 15 minutes to go; that’s right, I saw the final 15 minutes of this by myself in the big auditorium. What losers.
As for the movie, I was more familiar with the really strange sequel rather than this, but I still remembered the basic rules of the mogwai and what you’re not supposed to do with them, and I’m sure most readers will be familiar with those rules too. Anyway, I wasn’t sure what to expect with this, but it was a horror comedy (a lot of the humor black in nature) that-despite some of the creepier stuff-is for most ages. I mean, it has to be for kids when you see gremlins dressed up in clothing, drinking beer, smoking cigarettes, and singing Christmas carols! The gremlin flashing Phoebe Cates* is something for the adults, though.
Overall, it’s a movie that I ended up enjoying. The special effects still look nice 25 years later and while some of the characters/situations were broad in nature (the “evil old lady” was just that) it was something that I shut off my brain for and I liked this tale of how creatures wreaked havoc on an idyllic small town. There were some surprising moments along the way, such as which character managed to memorably kill a few gremlins in one scene. So, if you haven’t seen this before or haven’t seen it in a long time, it’s worth it to check it out, I say. I presume that in the next few weeks Universal will continue to show Christmas-themed movies so depending on what films they show I may return back there before this year is over with.
• In the 80’s, Phoebe Cates was a babe, no doubt about it. She looked great here but her best moment was in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a movie I’ve seen once before and to be honest, thought was quite overrated. However, the one scene of her in the red bikini… wow! That was clearly the highlight of the film for me.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Freaks
Freaks (1932)
Runtime: 64 minutes
Directed by: Tod Browning
Starring: Wallace Ford, Leila Hyams, and a wide variety of circus performers (“freaks”)
From: MGM
First off, an apology for not posting but a small amount of entries the past few weeks. My schedule has just prevented me from seeing too many flicks. I was hoping to write about a movie appropriate for Veteran’s Day but I doubt that’ll happen, unless I have time to watch the appropriate flick within the next few days and just post that a few days late. Instead, a review of a movie that I’ve seen a few times, including the latest time, when it followed up something I taped on Turner Classic Movies (that movie I taped isn’t even worth mentioning, or reviewing on here for that matter) while I was sleeping.
This is a one of a kind film and I am surprised it ever got made; you certainly couldn’t make it in this day and age without a huge shitstorm of controversy. Then again, after a test screening for this film before it was released in 1932, there was shitstorm then and that’s why the flick was cut from around 90 minutes to only 64, and that footage is lost forever, sad to say.
The thing is, this film is genuinely considered by most people (including me) to be very good to great; it’s true, despite the truncated nature. It’s about a traveling circus that has a sideshow of “freaks”, and the oddities did come from real life sideshows, and they’re one of a kind. There are several stories presented but the main one is how a male midget is in a love triangle with a female midget and a normal-sized lady. However, the latter is actually in love with him only for his money and she’s in the plot with a strongman that’s her actual lover. The freaks find out about the plot and… I don’t want to give anything else away but the final few minutes features several images that you’ll never forget; I mean, even amongst a unique film like this, those images stand out.
As it's in public domain, you can actually watch the movie for free on your computer on Google Video; it can be viewed here. If you're an fan of odd cinema this is a must but more casual fans may like it too. By this time next week I should have at least one thing new posted here.
Runtime: 64 minutes
Directed by: Tod Browning
Starring: Wallace Ford, Leila Hyams, and a wide variety of circus performers (“freaks”)
From: MGM
First off, an apology for not posting but a small amount of entries the past few weeks. My schedule has just prevented me from seeing too many flicks. I was hoping to write about a movie appropriate for Veteran’s Day but I doubt that’ll happen, unless I have time to watch the appropriate flick within the next few days and just post that a few days late. Instead, a review of a movie that I’ve seen a few times, including the latest time, when it followed up something I taped on Turner Classic Movies (that movie I taped isn’t even worth mentioning, or reviewing on here for that matter) while I was sleeping.
This is a one of a kind film and I am surprised it ever got made; you certainly couldn’t make it in this day and age without a huge shitstorm of controversy. Then again, after a test screening for this film before it was released in 1932, there was shitstorm then and that’s why the flick was cut from around 90 minutes to only 64, and that footage is lost forever, sad to say.
The thing is, this film is genuinely considered by most people (including me) to be very good to great; it’s true, despite the truncated nature. It’s about a traveling circus that has a sideshow of “freaks”, and the oddities did come from real life sideshows, and they’re one of a kind. There are several stories presented but the main one is how a male midget is in a love triangle with a female midget and a normal-sized lady. However, the latter is actually in love with him only for his money and she’s in the plot with a strongman that’s her actual lover. The freaks find out about the plot and… I don’t want to give anything else away but the final few minutes features several images that you’ll never forget; I mean, even amongst a unique film like this, those images stand out.
As it's in public domain, you can actually watch the movie for free on your computer on Google Video; it can be viewed here. If you're an fan of odd cinema this is a must but more casual fans may like it too. By this time next week I should have at least one thing new posted here.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Food of the Gods
The Food of the Gods (1976)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Bert I. Gordon
Starring: Marjoe Gortner, Pamela Franklin, Ralph Meeker, Ida Lupino
From: American International Pictures
Finally, I’ve returned and here’s a rather odd film to talk about. It’s a low-budget film in the mid 70’s from AIP, a studio legendary for making low-budget B-movies back from the mid 50’s to 1980 and had guys like Roger Corman working for them, producing fare for the drive-in circuit, amongst other places. Director Gordon spent much of his career working with AIP, and did films with “rear projection” special effects where regular people/items were made to look much larger than they actually are. I saw this more than 10 years ago back during the brief time that I had some HBO channels*. Yeah, this was on an HBO channel, because they had absolutely nothing else to show.
The movie-which was “based on a portion” of the novel of the same title by H.G. Wells; it’s true) takes place on a random island in British Columbia (and that British Columbia scenery is scenic, if nothing else) and concerns a rural religious family (with Lupino, whom we see here much more than her ill-fated husband; Ida was slumming here as she had been acting since the mid 30’s and appeared in renowned movies with the likes of Edward G. Robinson, John Garfield, and even Humphrey Bogart) who finds a mysterious substance that causes rapid growth to the animals that consume it. So, it’s man vs. nature in what must be PETA’s wet dream as you see giant animals run wild, kill people, and cause destruction to Lupino, some random tourists on that island, and some members of a football team, including Gortner.
The special effects are what they are and in current times you can at least laugh at them but what makes this movie not good (despite a message of ecology and being nice to the environment) is that the story is pretty laughable and doesn’t make much sense. I mean, how haven’t the giant animals migrated off the island, especially, you know, the giant wasps? And, the climax doesn’t really make much sense at all, especially with how it was filmed and portrayed. Some parts of it PETA wouldn’t like, that’s for sure.
So, it’s not too boring of a movie so you can get entertainment out of it and laugh at the flick, but it’s definitely not something worth trying to look for on DVD. If you see it on TV somewhere and want to laugh at something, then maybe so.
• I saw it this latest time on THIStv, available on certain cable packages as part of digital; it’s usually in the HD channel area, even though the channel broadcasts standard definition stuff.
By the end of the weekend I hope to have at least one new review up.
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Bert I. Gordon
Starring: Marjoe Gortner, Pamela Franklin, Ralph Meeker, Ida Lupino
From: American International Pictures
Finally, I’ve returned and here’s a rather odd film to talk about. It’s a low-budget film in the mid 70’s from AIP, a studio legendary for making low-budget B-movies back from the mid 50’s to 1980 and had guys like Roger Corman working for them, producing fare for the drive-in circuit, amongst other places. Director Gordon spent much of his career working with AIP, and did films with “rear projection” special effects where regular people/items were made to look much larger than they actually are. I saw this more than 10 years ago back during the brief time that I had some HBO channels*. Yeah, this was on an HBO channel, because they had absolutely nothing else to show.
The movie-which was “based on a portion” of the novel of the same title by H.G. Wells; it’s true) takes place on a random island in British Columbia (and that British Columbia scenery is scenic, if nothing else) and concerns a rural religious family (with Lupino, whom we see here much more than her ill-fated husband; Ida was slumming here as she had been acting since the mid 30’s and appeared in renowned movies with the likes of Edward G. Robinson, John Garfield, and even Humphrey Bogart) who finds a mysterious substance that causes rapid growth to the animals that consume it. So, it’s man vs. nature in what must be PETA’s wet dream as you see giant animals run wild, kill people, and cause destruction to Lupino, some random tourists on that island, and some members of a football team, including Gortner.
The special effects are what they are and in current times you can at least laugh at them but what makes this movie not good (despite a message of ecology and being nice to the environment) is that the story is pretty laughable and doesn’t make much sense. I mean, how haven’t the giant animals migrated off the island, especially, you know, the giant wasps? And, the climax doesn’t really make much sense at all, especially with how it was filmed and portrayed. Some parts of it PETA wouldn’t like, that’s for sure.
So, it’s not too boring of a movie so you can get entertainment out of it and laugh at the flick, but it’s definitely not something worth trying to look for on DVD. If you see it on TV somewhere and want to laugh at something, then maybe so.
• I saw it this latest time on THIStv, available on certain cable packages as part of digital; it’s usually in the HD channel area, even though the channel broadcasts standard definition stuff.
By the end of the weekend I hope to have at least one new review up.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Happy Halloween
I'll wish everyone a Happy Halloween. Unfortunately, I've been busy all this week so no movie reviews to post. Check back here by this time next week for at least one new review; I'll try to watch something late tonight but that's not for certain.
I'll state that earlier this week I found the fixed version of Let The Right One In. It was at a Target and it was only for 10 bucks, so talk about a great deal. I finally saw it again with subtitles and it make it all the better. The original awful subtitles are still on the fixed disk, so you can compare the two if you want to, and laugh at how juvenile and dumbed down the original was. There's no way to exchange the original DVD, though, so sometime soon I'll have to go to an FYE or something and turn that and some other old DVD's in for cash.
Again, Happy Halloween and remember to turn your clocks back one hour tonight.
I'll state that earlier this week I found the fixed version of Let The Right One In. It was at a Target and it was only for 10 bucks, so talk about a great deal. I finally saw it again with subtitles and it make it all the better. The original awful subtitles are still on the fixed disk, so you can compare the two if you want to, and laugh at how juvenile and dumbed down the original was. There's no way to exchange the original DVD, though, so sometime soon I'll have to go to an FYE or something and turn that and some other old DVD's in for cash.
Again, Happy Halloween and remember to turn your clocks back one hour tonight.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Let The Right One In
Let The Right One In (Lat Den Ratte Komma In) (2008)
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 145 reviews)
Runtime: 115 minutes
Directed by: Tomas Alfredson
Starring: Kare Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson, Per Ragnar, Henrik Dahl
From: Magnolia Pictures/EFTI
I figured that with this time of the season, I should talk about at least one horror flick on here, right? I’d like to do a few before Halloween but my schedule may be too busy to allow me to do so. I do at least have the time to talk about this flick, one from Sweden that I saw in early November last year on the big screen at the Enzian when it was one of the first places in the U.S. to start regularly showing it.
It was a movie I heard VERY high praise for at Dread Central so I decided to go and see it, and it was a great experience seeing it projected like that.
Now, it’s a tale about someone young who feels alienated and alone in a town but suddenly they meet someone and they develop a romance but it turns out that the love interest is a vampire. I could be talking about Twilight but I’m not in this case; rather, that’s the plot to this movie. Let me copy and paste what I wrote about it at the time on a MySpace/Facebook blog:
“As for the movie I saw, I went to the arty Enzian Theater in Orlando (technically, Maitland) to watch a romantic vampire horror film from Sweden; yes, that's the best way to describe it. Its known in English as Let The Right One In. It's a movie based on a Swedish book which is about a 12 year old boy who is the bullied type and he meets a girl who is also 12… or at least looks 12… and he quickly realizes that she's more than a little weird. I won't say too much more about it or give out any SPOILERS~! Just note that it's more a romantic tale with horror elements in it, and yet it's awesomely shot and put together. No kidding, it probably will be the best movie I see this year, and that's not an exaggeration. It's at the Enzian tonight and tomorrow and then it'll be gone, but at the very least you should see it when it comes out on DVD, as it's a really awesome flick and I'm sure it's a million times better than those God-awful Saw movies or-sigh-that Hot Topic film Twilight, based on the Hot Topic fanbase-loving book of the same name.”
I stand by what I said then about it being the best film I saw that was released in 2008. Yes, even better than The Dark Knight, so that is saying quite a bit there.
What makes it so great is the marvelous storytelling, the pacing, and the performances from the two young leads, who as far as I can tell made their acting debuts with this. They did a tremendous job if you consider that factoid. A “romance” between 12 year olds may sound odd but it’s more of a puppy love thing where they like hanging out with each other, you know.
In the midst of their story you get Eli (Leandersson) doing vampire things while also getting to know Oskar (Hedebrant) as hey, that’s what she is. So, you do get to see some violence; it’s nothing like Twilight at all, that’s for damn sure! Also unlike Twilight, this is a much more complex movie than how I’m describing it. I don’t want to give too much away as viewing it while only knowing a little about it makes what you get to see all the better. There are some very memorable moments that will be difficult to forget. It’s a must-see. Note two things, though:
If you rent it or get it on DVD, make sure that you check the back of the box; on the bottom, make sure that it says “English Subtitles” (Theatrical)”, as that is key. When it was originally put out on DVD by Magnolia, instead of using the English subtitles that were used in the theatre, they had overly simplified English subtitles that pissed people off, and for good reason; I saw examples in stills online and yeah, they are insultingly bad and downright ruin the experience of watching it in that format. So, on the DVD I got the first day it came out, when I’ve watched the movie it was the English dubbed version (as the dubbed version uses the English that you saw in the theatrical subtitles), which is fine enough to make the movie still great, but one of these days I’ll bring that DVD and some others to an FYE or whatever and get money from selling it to them, while probably a day or two later get the correct DVD version so that I can finally watch it the same way I did at the Enzian. Trust me, dialogue is an important part of the film and the relationship between Oskar and Eli.
As you might have suspected already, the movie is going to be remade. It’s supposed to come out around this time next year and be known as Let Me In and be closer to the book than the Swedish movie was. There’s a big backlash against the remake in some circles as hey, it will all but fail in comparison to the original film and some things might get toned down when it gets “Americanized” and yeah, I’m not sure myself if Let Me In will be any good, let alone be as great as the original film.
Anyhow, if you haven’t seen this, it’s a must-see; if nothing else, you’ll never forget it.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 145 reviews)
Runtime: 115 minutes
Directed by: Tomas Alfredson
Starring: Kare Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson, Per Ragnar, Henrik Dahl
From: Magnolia Pictures/EFTI
I figured that with this time of the season, I should talk about at least one horror flick on here, right? I’d like to do a few before Halloween but my schedule may be too busy to allow me to do so. I do at least have the time to talk about this flick, one from Sweden that I saw in early November last year on the big screen at the Enzian when it was one of the first places in the U.S. to start regularly showing it.
It was a movie I heard VERY high praise for at Dread Central so I decided to go and see it, and it was a great experience seeing it projected like that.
Now, it’s a tale about someone young who feels alienated and alone in a town but suddenly they meet someone and they develop a romance but it turns out that the love interest is a vampire. I could be talking about Twilight but I’m not in this case; rather, that’s the plot to this movie. Let me copy and paste what I wrote about it at the time on a MySpace/Facebook blog:
“As for the movie I saw, I went to the arty Enzian Theater in Orlando (technically, Maitland) to watch a romantic vampire horror film from Sweden; yes, that's the best way to describe it. Its known in English as Let The Right One In. It's a movie based on a Swedish book which is about a 12 year old boy who is the bullied type and he meets a girl who is also 12… or at least looks 12… and he quickly realizes that she's more than a little weird. I won't say too much more about it or give out any SPOILERS~! Just note that it's more a romantic tale with horror elements in it, and yet it's awesomely shot and put together. No kidding, it probably will be the best movie I see this year, and that's not an exaggeration. It's at the Enzian tonight and tomorrow and then it'll be gone, but at the very least you should see it when it comes out on DVD, as it's a really awesome flick and I'm sure it's a million times better than those God-awful Saw movies or-sigh-that Hot Topic film Twilight, based on the Hot Topic fanbase-loving book of the same name.”
I stand by what I said then about it being the best film I saw that was released in 2008. Yes, even better than The Dark Knight, so that is saying quite a bit there.
What makes it so great is the marvelous storytelling, the pacing, and the performances from the two young leads, who as far as I can tell made their acting debuts with this. They did a tremendous job if you consider that factoid. A “romance” between 12 year olds may sound odd but it’s more of a puppy love thing where they like hanging out with each other, you know.
In the midst of their story you get Eli (Leandersson) doing vampire things while also getting to know Oskar (Hedebrant) as hey, that’s what she is. So, you do get to see some violence; it’s nothing like Twilight at all, that’s for damn sure! Also unlike Twilight, this is a much more complex movie than how I’m describing it. I don’t want to give too much away as viewing it while only knowing a little about it makes what you get to see all the better. There are some very memorable moments that will be difficult to forget. It’s a must-see. Note two things, though:
If you rent it or get it on DVD, make sure that you check the back of the box; on the bottom, make sure that it says “English Subtitles” (Theatrical)”, as that is key. When it was originally put out on DVD by Magnolia, instead of using the English subtitles that were used in the theatre, they had overly simplified English subtitles that pissed people off, and for good reason; I saw examples in stills online and yeah, they are insultingly bad and downright ruin the experience of watching it in that format. So, on the DVD I got the first day it came out, when I’ve watched the movie it was the English dubbed version (as the dubbed version uses the English that you saw in the theatrical subtitles), which is fine enough to make the movie still great, but one of these days I’ll bring that DVD and some others to an FYE or whatever and get money from selling it to them, while probably a day or two later get the correct DVD version so that I can finally watch it the same way I did at the Enzian. Trust me, dialogue is an important part of the film and the relationship between Oskar and Eli.
As you might have suspected already, the movie is going to be remade. It’s supposed to come out around this time next year and be known as Let Me In and be closer to the book than the Swedish movie was. There’s a big backlash against the remake in some circles as hey, it will all but fail in comparison to the original film and some things might get toned down when it gets “Americanized” and yeah, I’m not sure myself if Let Me In will be any good, let alone be as great as the original film.
Anyhow, if you haven’t seen this, it’s a must-see; if nothing else, you’ll never forget it.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The War Wagon
The War Wagon (1967)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Burt Kennedy
Starring: John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, Howard Keel, Robert Walker, Jr., Keenan Wynn, Bruce Cabot
From: Universal
Here is a movie that you probably haven’t heard of but if you’re a fan of fun Westerns with action and some humor, then you should find this by whatever means.
Wayne technically plays a bad guy, you could say, although he was set up to go to jail by an evil man (Cabot) who took over Wayne’s ranch *and* possesses the gold that’s there. During all that he’s shot at by an expert marksman/safecracker (Douglas) but Wayne is wounded rather than killed. That all happens before the movie starts so you hear about it throughout. The film actually starts off with Wayne being released from jail and he returns to town and Cabot tries to get rid of him. So, he tries to hire Douglas. But instead Wayne and Douglas team up and the Duke rounds up a motley crew (or maybe even Motley Crue) of men who conspire together to rob the gold from the Duke’s ranch that’s being transported in the title vehicle, which is an armor-plated wagon that even has a Gatling Gun on top and it’s accompanied by a slew of heavily armed henchmen. Simple yet effective plot and there’s really no wasted minute in this flick. Things move along at a great clip and it all ties together in the end.
Wayne and Douglas didn’t have a lot in common in real life and the same goes with their characters; I mean, the Duke sure as hell didn’t wear an all black leather getup with flashy scarf and one black glove with a gaudy diamond on the outside like Kirk did, although that would’ve been quite the look for old John! The other characters are also entertaining and the main ones have character arcs and everything. It’s breezy fun and while you could say that maybe the action scenes could be a little longer, otherwise I really enjoyed it.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Burt Kennedy
Starring: John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, Howard Keel, Robert Walker, Jr., Keenan Wynn, Bruce Cabot
From: Universal
Here is a movie that you probably haven’t heard of but if you’re a fan of fun Westerns with action and some humor, then you should find this by whatever means.
Wayne technically plays a bad guy, you could say, although he was set up to go to jail by an evil man (Cabot) who took over Wayne’s ranch *and* possesses the gold that’s there. During all that he’s shot at by an expert marksman/safecracker (Douglas) but Wayne is wounded rather than killed. That all happens before the movie starts so you hear about it throughout. The film actually starts off with Wayne being released from jail and he returns to town and Cabot tries to get rid of him. So, he tries to hire Douglas. But instead Wayne and Douglas team up and the Duke rounds up a motley crew (or maybe even Motley Crue) of men who conspire together to rob the gold from the Duke’s ranch that’s being transported in the title vehicle, which is an armor-plated wagon that even has a Gatling Gun on top and it’s accompanied by a slew of heavily armed henchmen. Simple yet effective plot and there’s really no wasted minute in this flick. Things move along at a great clip and it all ties together in the end.
Wayne and Douglas didn’t have a lot in common in real life and the same goes with their characters; I mean, the Duke sure as hell didn’t wear an all black leather getup with flashy scarf and one black glove with a gaudy diamond on the outside like Kirk did, although that would’ve been quite the look for old John! The other characters are also entertaining and the main ones have character arcs and everything. It’s breezy fun and while you could say that maybe the action scenes could be a little longer, otherwise I really enjoyed it.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Sleeper
Sleeper (1973)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, John Beck, Mary Gregory
From: United Artists
To state a quote that’s on the back of the DVD for this flick, the movie is “a bizarre mixture of New York neuroses, splendidly lunatic sight gags, Alice in Wonderland illogic, and too funny to be painful satire.” That is pretty apt.
Here is a movie I’ve seen once before when I rented it from a videostore that went out of business, but I found it at another rental place recently so I decided to watch it again as I didn’t remember too much about it. The plot is that Woody is a nebbish Jew (but of course) who unwittingly gets locked in a cryogenic capsule and he’s awaken in 2173 and the world is much different; it’s a totalitarian state and he’s awoken by a pair of scientists who are part of the underground movement to overthrow the evil government. Everyone has sex artificially and it’s a sterile world. He ends up running into a socialite (Keaton) and they eventually work together to help the movement.
The movie is a comedy that’s rather odd and strange at times but I enjoyed it and I was able to put up with the absurdist stuff, which I’m not always able to do while watching or listening to other forms of entertainment. The main thing is that the flick is like a silent film in several ways, from all the physical humor to the pratfalls to the groovy Dixieland jazz (where you got to hear Woody himself play clarinet) score and so on and so forth. But, you still get to hear much in the way of puns and witty dialogue. By the way, if you’ve never seen a silent comedy from the likes of Chaplin, Buster Keaton, or Harold Lloyd, you really should. The physical comedy there is genius and with the way humor is these days that comedy is oh so fresh and at least with me, I really enjoy it. Note that-and I’m being as vague as I can now-the plot involves cloning, and human cloning at that; I’m sure that Allen didn’t expect that in 2009 human cloning would be such an issue; talk about having a tremendous amount of foresight.
If what I said sounds appealing to you, then it’s worth trying to find either on a channel like TCM, rental, or Netflix, or whatever.
Check back here around this time next week for some new reviews.
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, John Beck, Mary Gregory
From: United Artists
To state a quote that’s on the back of the DVD for this flick, the movie is “a bizarre mixture of New York neuroses, splendidly lunatic sight gags, Alice in Wonderland illogic, and too funny to be painful satire.” That is pretty apt.
Here is a movie I’ve seen once before when I rented it from a videostore that went out of business, but I found it at another rental place recently so I decided to watch it again as I didn’t remember too much about it. The plot is that Woody is a nebbish Jew (but of course) who unwittingly gets locked in a cryogenic capsule and he’s awaken in 2173 and the world is much different; it’s a totalitarian state and he’s awoken by a pair of scientists who are part of the underground movement to overthrow the evil government. Everyone has sex artificially and it’s a sterile world. He ends up running into a socialite (Keaton) and they eventually work together to help the movement.
The movie is a comedy that’s rather odd and strange at times but I enjoyed it and I was able to put up with the absurdist stuff, which I’m not always able to do while watching or listening to other forms of entertainment. The main thing is that the flick is like a silent film in several ways, from all the physical humor to the pratfalls to the groovy Dixieland jazz (where you got to hear Woody himself play clarinet) score and so on and so forth. But, you still get to hear much in the way of puns and witty dialogue. By the way, if you’ve never seen a silent comedy from the likes of Chaplin, Buster Keaton, or Harold Lloyd, you really should. The physical comedy there is genius and with the way humor is these days that comedy is oh so fresh and at least with me, I really enjoy it. Note that-and I’m being as vague as I can now-the plot involves cloning, and human cloning at that; I’m sure that Allen didn’t expect that in 2009 human cloning would be such an issue; talk about having a tremendous amount of foresight.
If what I said sounds appealing to you, then it’s worth trying to find either on a channel like TCM, rental, or Netflix, or whatever.
Check back here around this time next week for some new reviews.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Food, Inc
Food, Inc (2008)
97% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 77 reviews)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Robert Kenner
Starring: Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser
From: Magnolia Pictures
To copy and paste from a MySpace entry I wrote in July:
The first thing was on Friday night, when I went to the Regal Theatre at Winter Park to attend the opening night of a documentary entitled Food Inc. I wasn’t really planning on seeing it but then Friday afternoon I realized that I had Jack Shit to do on that night so I might as well go and see a movie. The documentary-to explain it as simply as possible-exposes the food industry and explains that much of the stuff you buy in the supermarket is really from one of a few companies, and naturally that kind of control leads to people on the farm being mistreated, the rise in E. coli, and all that stuff. One thing they did was push for organic foods; a few weeks ago I talked about my feelings on THAT subject (to me, it’s all hogwash as the idea of non-organic foods being “bad” for you is just unfounded, I think) and even though they mentioned it here as a way to go against the grain (pun intended in some ways) I still wasn’t exactly convinced that organic is really the best way to go no matter what. Still, it was a very interesting and informative documentary that explained something I didn’t know too much about, even if I didn’t always agree with it.
One guy involved with the movie, Eric Schlosser, wrote the very good book Fast Food Nation a few years ago (and was the only great part on the DVD of that overrated Super Size Me; before anyone asks, I haven’t seen the fictional movie version of Fast Food Nation, as I’ve heard mixed reviews on it) and also wrote the book Reefer Madness (the title taken from a hilariously awful 1930’s movie) about underground economies in America; I also recommend that.
The screening had a decent enough attendance and there wasn’t really any problem with the audience, which is always noteworthy. A pair of people from a local organic co-op place (meaning that you order food online and you can pick it up at various locations; a novel idea, at least) were plugging their wares there.
I don't have too much else to say about it now, except that it's coming out on DVD in a few weeks so you can see it that way. Sure, I don't know how the filmmakers think the world could be fed under the model of farming that they advocate, it's still an important movie to see if you're wondering about our food supply, where it comes from, and how it's run.
97% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 77 reviews)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Robert Kenner
Starring: Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser
From: Magnolia Pictures
To copy and paste from a MySpace entry I wrote in July:
The first thing was on Friday night, when I went to the Regal Theatre at Winter Park to attend the opening night of a documentary entitled Food Inc. I wasn’t really planning on seeing it but then Friday afternoon I realized that I had Jack Shit to do on that night so I might as well go and see a movie. The documentary-to explain it as simply as possible-exposes the food industry and explains that much of the stuff you buy in the supermarket is really from one of a few companies, and naturally that kind of control leads to people on the farm being mistreated, the rise in E. coli, and all that stuff. One thing they did was push for organic foods; a few weeks ago I talked about my feelings on THAT subject (to me, it’s all hogwash as the idea of non-organic foods being “bad” for you is just unfounded, I think) and even though they mentioned it here as a way to go against the grain (pun intended in some ways) I still wasn’t exactly convinced that organic is really the best way to go no matter what. Still, it was a very interesting and informative documentary that explained something I didn’t know too much about, even if I didn’t always agree with it.
One guy involved with the movie, Eric Schlosser, wrote the very good book Fast Food Nation a few years ago (and was the only great part on the DVD of that overrated Super Size Me; before anyone asks, I haven’t seen the fictional movie version of Fast Food Nation, as I’ve heard mixed reviews on it) and also wrote the book Reefer Madness (the title taken from a hilariously awful 1930’s movie) about underground economies in America; I also recommend that.
The screening had a decent enough attendance and there wasn’t really any problem with the audience, which is always noteworthy. A pair of people from a local organic co-op place (meaning that you order food online and you can pick it up at various locations; a novel idea, at least) were plugging their wares there.
I don't have too much else to say about it now, except that it's coming out on DVD in a few weeks so you can see it that way. Sure, I don't know how the filmmakers think the world could be fed under the model of farming that they advocate, it's still an important movie to see if you're wondering about our food supply, where it comes from, and how it's run.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Annie Hall
Annie Hall (1977)
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Tony Robbins, Paul Simon, Christopher Walken
From: United Artists
Someone else whose career I need to see more work from is Woody Allen, who’s been in the film business since the 60’s and still directing and acting in flicks. Sure, you can carp about his personal life or the fact that he married the adopted daughter of his then love interest Mia Farrow, but his films, while uneven at times are his own and he’s one of a kind. Of the films I’ve seen from him, I haven’t watched them in awhile so I’ll wait until I can find them in a videostore or see them on a channel like TCM or AMC to talk about them on here. But, if you’re a “serious” fan of cinema then of course you should watch at least a few of his flicks, as they’re not too difficult to acquire and he’s done several different genres, from vulgar comedies to comedies relying on wordplay to dramas to mysteries to blends of various types.
This film, Annie Hall, is the flick that many says is Woody’s best, and indeed it’s the only one of his films that has won an Academy Award for Best Picture (and it’s second-shortest movie ever to win that award), but I only take the Oscars a little more seriously than Woody does, so the film’s high rating on IMDb may be a better judge of how the public at least thinks of it.
The movie is about the up and down romantic relationship between the flighty title character (Keaton) and Alvy Singer (Allen), a neurotic comedian (but of course for Woody) through the years. It’s done in an interesting way; it starts off with them being a bickering couple and then we go back and forth in time to examine Singer’s life from childhood to the present and also look at Annie’s past life and sometimes the present characters comment on what’s happening in the flashbacks and even talk to their past selves. Like I said, interesting, and Lord knows, Tarantino’s not the first one to play around with the narrative like that!
Also, Woody talks to his pal (Robbins, who looks like a young Will Ferrell, no kidding, which may be why he cast Ferrell in the movie Melinda and Melinda; Robbins recently had a health scare but I hear he's doing fine now) about living in NYC, and the town also gets some love. Robbins wishes for them to move to LA, and that ends up being an important plot point also.
I don’t want to give anything else away but it’s a movie that-while maybe best for “intellectual” types as you get to hear Allen’s opinions on many topics, some of which are heady, such as references to Fellini and the documentary The Sorrow & The Pity-I think you’ll enjoy even if you don’t get all the references as it’s a nice realistic love story (even though the characters are rich successful types) told in a way that is fresh even in 2009 even though some of its style has been used in TV shows and movies since 1977.
Check back here by the end of the week, where I'll post at least two new reviews.
Runtime: 93 minutes
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Tony Robbins, Paul Simon, Christopher Walken
From: United Artists
Someone else whose career I need to see more work from is Woody Allen, who’s been in the film business since the 60’s and still directing and acting in flicks. Sure, you can carp about his personal life or the fact that he married the adopted daughter of his then love interest Mia Farrow, but his films, while uneven at times are his own and he’s one of a kind. Of the films I’ve seen from him, I haven’t watched them in awhile so I’ll wait until I can find them in a videostore or see them on a channel like TCM or AMC to talk about them on here. But, if you’re a “serious” fan of cinema then of course you should watch at least a few of his flicks, as they’re not too difficult to acquire and he’s done several different genres, from vulgar comedies to comedies relying on wordplay to dramas to mysteries to blends of various types.
This film, Annie Hall, is the flick that many says is Woody’s best, and indeed it’s the only one of his films that has won an Academy Award for Best Picture (and it’s second-shortest movie ever to win that award), but I only take the Oscars a little more seriously than Woody does, so the film’s high rating on IMDb may be a better judge of how the public at least thinks of it.
The movie is about the up and down romantic relationship between the flighty title character (Keaton) and Alvy Singer (Allen), a neurotic comedian (but of course for Woody) through the years. It’s done in an interesting way; it starts off with them being a bickering couple and then we go back and forth in time to examine Singer’s life from childhood to the present and also look at Annie’s past life and sometimes the present characters comment on what’s happening in the flashbacks and even talk to their past selves. Like I said, interesting, and Lord knows, Tarantino’s not the first one to play around with the narrative like that!
Also, Woody talks to his pal (Robbins, who looks like a young Will Ferrell, no kidding, which may be why he cast Ferrell in the movie Melinda and Melinda; Robbins recently had a health scare but I hear he's doing fine now) about living in NYC, and the town also gets some love. Robbins wishes for them to move to LA, and that ends up being an important plot point also.
I don’t want to give anything else away but it’s a movie that-while maybe best for “intellectual” types as you get to hear Allen’s opinions on many topics, some of which are heady, such as references to Fellini and the documentary The Sorrow & The Pity-I think you’ll enjoy even if you don’t get all the references as it’s a nice realistic love story (even though the characters are rich successful types) told in a way that is fresh even in 2009 even though some of its style has been used in TV shows and movies since 1977.
Check back here by the end of the week, where I'll post at least two new reviews.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Brannigan
Brannigan (1975)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Douglas Hickox
Starring: John Wayne, Richard Attenborough, Mel Ferrer, Judy Geeson, John Vernon
From: United Artists
This is a movie I saw early this year but I remember enough about it to where I can talk about it on here.
Admittedly I’ve barely dug into Wayne’s catalogue of movies; one of these days I’ll rectify it. For now I’ll talk about this mid 70’s curio, one of two movies he filmed back to back where he played a cop (the other being McQ, another film worth seeing) and he played a gentler version of Dirty Harry, basically. It sounds odd, I know, but allegedly he was either thought of or turned down that famous role. I’ve heard different stories so I don’t know how valid it is, but those two movies certainly are inspired by that 1971 film and there’s also other similar flicks that are borrowed from, especially Bullitt.
This movie is about a Chicago cop who has to go to London to extradite a gangster back to the U.S. He is assigned a British female cop (Geeson) as a partner and with his gruff aggressive American manner he rubs Geeson and her boss (Attenborough) the wrong way. There are twists and turns along the way and you can get a good example of what you get to see by seeing its trailer on YouTube.
As you can see, there are nice flurries of action throughout and it doesn’t drag. Sure, there are some goofy moments, as you saw in the beginning of the trailer where a mid 60’s Wayne is able to knock down a wooden door from its hinges and then deliver a quip, but it’s all in good fun and the highlight is the barroom brawl. It’s not a must-see or anything but both McQ and Brannigan are sometimes on TV on stations like TCM or the HD stations so you can check it out there or rent the DVD if you’re able to.
Check back here tomorrow night.
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Douglas Hickox
Starring: John Wayne, Richard Attenborough, Mel Ferrer, Judy Geeson, John Vernon
From: United Artists
This is a movie I saw early this year but I remember enough about it to where I can talk about it on here.
Admittedly I’ve barely dug into Wayne’s catalogue of movies; one of these days I’ll rectify it. For now I’ll talk about this mid 70’s curio, one of two movies he filmed back to back where he played a cop (the other being McQ, another film worth seeing) and he played a gentler version of Dirty Harry, basically. It sounds odd, I know, but allegedly he was either thought of or turned down that famous role. I’ve heard different stories so I don’t know how valid it is, but those two movies certainly are inspired by that 1971 film and there’s also other similar flicks that are borrowed from, especially Bullitt.
This movie is about a Chicago cop who has to go to London to extradite a gangster back to the U.S. He is assigned a British female cop (Geeson) as a partner and with his gruff aggressive American manner he rubs Geeson and her boss (Attenborough) the wrong way. There are twists and turns along the way and you can get a good example of what you get to see by seeing its trailer on YouTube.
As you can see, there are nice flurries of action throughout and it doesn’t drag. Sure, there are some goofy moments, as you saw in the beginning of the trailer where a mid 60’s Wayne is able to knock down a wooden door from its hinges and then deliver a quip, but it’s all in good fun and the highlight is the barroom brawl. It’s not a must-see or anything but both McQ and Brannigan are sometimes on TV on stations like TCM or the HD stations so you can check it out there or rent the DVD if you’re able to.
Check back here tomorrow night.
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Conqueror
The Conqueror (1956)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Dick Powell
Starring: John Wayne, Susan Hayward, Pedro Armendariz, Agnes Moorehead
From: RKO Radio Pictures
Remember this post I made in late August, talking about that awful-looking Genghis Khan movie that’s going to be out on DVD… well, sometime in the future? Here is my take on the John Wayne film that I referenced there.
This movie is about Khan (i.e. Temujin) early in adulthood and how (and this is definitely not a historically accurate movie, as they admitted in the opening crawl) he fell in love with a Tartar woman, who just happens to be the daughter of the guy who killed his father. Yet, he still fell in love with her. Go figure. Their relationship is just ridiculous. He bitch-slaps her and they ridicule each other, and yet they still kiss each other and of course she later falls in love with him. The script was just no good. There’s intrigue and romance and all that, but it’s hollow and stupid, and even though there’s a lot of unintentional humor in the movie, it’s a chore to get through the almost 2 hour runtime in one sitting. Temujin’s brother betrays him… just because. Like I said, no good.
Sure, the southern Utah scenery was pretty (although I have no clue if it looks like Mongolia or not) and the sets and costumes looked nice, and you can see that the movie had money behind it (6 million bucks in 1954 money, which is almost 50 million in 2009 money) but it’s never engaging and the action scenes aren’t even all that thrilling (even though it should have been with all the people involved in the scenes) so that’s a problem.
Another big problem is the casting. The Duke as Genghis Khan doesn’t work, needless to say. There’s a few versions of the story, but he had to make one more movie for RKO and he either wanted or was forced to star in this, playing a role meant for Marlon Brando. The script has him delivering flowery lines such as: “She is a woman - much woman. Should her perfidy be less than that of other women?” and “There are moments for wisdom, Juhmuga, then I listen to you--and there are moments for action--then I listen to my blood. I feel this Tartar woman is for me, and my blood says, 'TAKE HER!” in his trademark drawl and it’s preposterous. Him with his eyes slanted back, a Fu Manchu mustache and the outfits was also preposterous. Susan Hayward as a Tartar (an ancient band of people who live around Russia and those surrounding countries) was laughable as they didn’t even try to make her look ethnic as hey, she looks western European and is a redhead. The rest of the cast is the same and it doesn’t help the film’s credibility at all. So, if you can find it cheap (although you can watch a version of it edited down a few minutes on Google Video) or rent it for a library like I did, if you have the patience for it, you may want to get it and laugh at it. Although…
Considering the fact that some of it was filmed near a nuclear test site and a large number of people in the cast/crew developed cancer later in life, probably due to radiation poisoning, and that sobering fact may make you not enjoy the flick at all if you think about it for too long.
And yet it still looks better than that Khan movie with Charlton Heston and the bad guy from Kindergarten Cop.
If you want to see a better flick with Genghis, check out Mongol. Sure, I'd say it's a little overrated but it's much better than the two movies I've talked about here.
If my Internet doesn't crap out on me due to BrightHouse being brutally incompetent, by the end of the weekend I'll have new stuff posted here.
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Dick Powell
Starring: John Wayne, Susan Hayward, Pedro Armendariz, Agnes Moorehead
From: RKO Radio Pictures
Remember this post I made in late August, talking about that awful-looking Genghis Khan movie that’s going to be out on DVD… well, sometime in the future? Here is my take on the John Wayne film that I referenced there.
This movie is about Khan (i.e. Temujin) early in adulthood and how (and this is definitely not a historically accurate movie, as they admitted in the opening crawl) he fell in love with a Tartar woman, who just happens to be the daughter of the guy who killed his father. Yet, he still fell in love with her. Go figure. Their relationship is just ridiculous. He bitch-slaps her and they ridicule each other, and yet they still kiss each other and of course she later falls in love with him. The script was just no good. There’s intrigue and romance and all that, but it’s hollow and stupid, and even though there’s a lot of unintentional humor in the movie, it’s a chore to get through the almost 2 hour runtime in one sitting. Temujin’s brother betrays him… just because. Like I said, no good.
Sure, the southern Utah scenery was pretty (although I have no clue if it looks like Mongolia or not) and the sets and costumes looked nice, and you can see that the movie had money behind it (6 million bucks in 1954 money, which is almost 50 million in 2009 money) but it’s never engaging and the action scenes aren’t even all that thrilling (even though it should have been with all the people involved in the scenes) so that’s a problem.
Another big problem is the casting. The Duke as Genghis Khan doesn’t work, needless to say. There’s a few versions of the story, but he had to make one more movie for RKO and he either wanted or was forced to star in this, playing a role meant for Marlon Brando. The script has him delivering flowery lines such as: “She is a woman - much woman. Should her perfidy be less than that of other women?” and “There are moments for wisdom, Juhmuga, then I listen to you--and there are moments for action--then I listen to my blood. I feel this Tartar woman is for me, and my blood says, 'TAKE HER!” in his trademark drawl and it’s preposterous. Him with his eyes slanted back, a Fu Manchu mustache and the outfits was also preposterous. Susan Hayward as a Tartar (an ancient band of people who live around Russia and those surrounding countries) was laughable as they didn’t even try to make her look ethnic as hey, she looks western European and is a redhead. The rest of the cast is the same and it doesn’t help the film’s credibility at all. So, if you can find it cheap (although you can watch a version of it edited down a few minutes on Google Video) or rent it for a library like I did, if you have the patience for it, you may want to get it and laugh at it. Although…
Considering the fact that some of it was filmed near a nuclear test site and a large number of people in the cast/crew developed cancer later in life, probably due to radiation poisoning, and that sobering fact may make you not enjoy the flick at all if you think about it for too long.
And yet it still looks better than that Khan movie with Charlton Heston and the bad guy from Kindergarten Cop.
If you want to see a better flick with Genghis, check out Mongol. Sure, I'd say it's a little overrated but it's much better than the two movies I've talked about here.
If my Internet doesn't crap out on me due to BrightHouse being brutally incompetent, by the end of the weekend I'll have new stuff posted here.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Toy Story/Toy Story 2
Toy Story (1995)
100% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 64 reviews)
Runtime: 81 minutes
Directed by: John Lasseter
Starring: The voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Jim Varney, Wallace Shawn
From: Disney/Pixar
Would you believe that I hadn’t seen the first Toy Story since ’96 and I had never seen Toy Story 2 before? Sad but true. So, I figured that the double feature of the two movies in 3D is a great way for me to get to see both and in an awesome format.
Recently during the late evening I saw this. The crowd wasn’t large at all and yet of course some people there were Troglodytes. But, even though they were dumb they didn’t cause any problems when the movies started, so I really can’t carp too loudly. I definitely can’t carp about the presentation as the picture looked great (the 3D wasn’t overdone or distracting) and the inserts they had before the movies and during the 10 minute intermission were fun and fit perfectly.
I won’t describe the movie as I’m sure just about everyone knows what it’s about, but this tale featuring such stuff as friendship, jealousy, revenge, being happy with who you really are, childhood innocence, and other things is a classic and works great with both adults and children. As the first-ever feature-length computer animated film, it still looks great 14 years later and the story itself more than holds up, as it is timeless. The kid next door Sid is quite the villain and you enjoy his comeuppance. The climax involving Buzz and Woody still looks great in 2009. So, I’m happy that I finally saw this again in a great format and now I wish I would have seen it again much sooner than I did.
Toy Story 2 (1999)
100% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 130 reviews)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: John Lasseter/Ash Brannon/Lee Unkrich
Starring: The voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Jim Varney, Wallace Shawn, Wayne Knight
From: Disney/Pixar
Like I said before I hadn’t seen this before so I had no idea what to expect. What I got was a bigger story in scope, a great opening segment, other great action sequences, and a story about loss, children growing up, losing touch with your friends as you get older, and all that jazz. The villains have motives that make logical sense and yet you still root against them and again you’ll enjoy their comeuppance. Everything is bigger in scope-as I said already-and it all looks great due to the improved technology. It was great seeing such an awesome flick in this way for the very first time. Many people say that it's better than the first (and it's a rare feat for a sequel to be better than the original) and I'll have to agree with them, although it's close and both are classics. I also enjoyed the end credits bit where it was like a Jackie Chan movie and you saw bloopers and outtakes.
Check this spot out in a few days to see what new stuff I have posted.
100% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 64 reviews)
Runtime: 81 minutes
Directed by: John Lasseter
Starring: The voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Jim Varney, Wallace Shawn
From: Disney/Pixar
Would you believe that I hadn’t seen the first Toy Story since ’96 and I had never seen Toy Story 2 before? Sad but true. So, I figured that the double feature of the two movies in 3D is a great way for me to get to see both and in an awesome format.
Recently during the late evening I saw this. The crowd wasn’t large at all and yet of course some people there were Troglodytes. But, even though they were dumb they didn’t cause any problems when the movies started, so I really can’t carp too loudly. I definitely can’t carp about the presentation as the picture looked great (the 3D wasn’t overdone or distracting) and the inserts they had before the movies and during the 10 minute intermission were fun and fit perfectly.
I won’t describe the movie as I’m sure just about everyone knows what it’s about, but this tale featuring such stuff as friendship, jealousy, revenge, being happy with who you really are, childhood innocence, and other things is a classic and works great with both adults and children. As the first-ever feature-length computer animated film, it still looks great 14 years later and the story itself more than holds up, as it is timeless. The kid next door Sid is quite the villain and you enjoy his comeuppance. The climax involving Buzz and Woody still looks great in 2009. So, I’m happy that I finally saw this again in a great format and now I wish I would have seen it again much sooner than I did.
Toy Story 2 (1999)
100% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 130 reviews)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: John Lasseter/Ash Brannon/Lee Unkrich
Starring: The voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Jim Varney, Wallace Shawn, Wayne Knight
From: Disney/Pixar
Like I said before I hadn’t seen this before so I had no idea what to expect. What I got was a bigger story in scope, a great opening segment, other great action sequences, and a story about loss, children growing up, losing touch with your friends as you get older, and all that jazz. The villains have motives that make logical sense and yet you still root against them and again you’ll enjoy their comeuppance. Everything is bigger in scope-as I said already-and it all looks great due to the improved technology. It was great seeing such an awesome flick in this way for the very first time. Many people say that it's better than the first (and it's a rare feat for a sequel to be better than the original) and I'll have to agree with them, although it's close and both are classics. I also enjoyed the end credits bit where it was like a Jackie Chan movie and you saw bloopers and outtakes.
Check this spot out in a few days to see what new stuff I have posted.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Untraceable
Untraceable (2008)
14% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 138 reviews)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Gregory Hoblit
Starring: Diane Lane, Colin Hanks, Billy Burke, Joseph Cross
From: Screen Gems/Lakeshore Entertainment
Here is a movie I saw earlier in the year. I won’t mention the circumstances behind me watching this (as after all I’ve always heard it was not good) but I did and it lived up, or rather down, to its reputation.
This is another thriller revolving around computers and the Internet and set in the Pacific Northwest (meaning: plenty of rainfall). I guess Firewall and this did it because Microsoft is located in the area… I don’t know, it’s just a guess. Here, Lane plays the head of a cybercrimes unit in Portland, Oregon along with Hanks and they investigate a major case that happens to be in their own backyard. A mysterious person is killing people and streaming it on the Internet for people to see, and the more hits he gets, the quicker they die. How he lives up to the movie title is done via mumbo jumbo, not all of which is realistic with current technology. I mean, the scene involving the OnStar in Lane’s car… I don’t think that can actually be done.
But, the downfall of this generic thriller with torture porn elements is that (besides it being boring more often than not) is that it’s hypocritical. It criticizes both people who anonymously do bad things on the ‘net and people who enjoy graphic violence and yet… this movie exploits the story of someone who does bad thing on the ‘net AND the movie yells at you for trying to enjoy this. Why should you enjoy this if it bashes you as an anonymous person on the Internet and rips you for trying to like the violence seen on the screen?
All that plus a really preposterous scene where one victim is able to communicate nonverbally where he’s located at and given the horrific conditions he’s experiencing at the time… this is another flick that I say you skip as hey, there are way too many movies out there (tens of thousands) and many of them are more worthy of seeing than this one.
Look below for another review I posted of another "techno thriller".
I'll be back sometime next week.
14% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 138 reviews)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Gregory Hoblit
Starring: Diane Lane, Colin Hanks, Billy Burke, Joseph Cross
From: Screen Gems/Lakeshore Entertainment
Here is a movie I saw earlier in the year. I won’t mention the circumstances behind me watching this (as after all I’ve always heard it was not good) but I did and it lived up, or rather down, to its reputation.
This is another thriller revolving around computers and the Internet and set in the Pacific Northwest (meaning: plenty of rainfall). I guess Firewall and this did it because Microsoft is located in the area… I don’t know, it’s just a guess. Here, Lane plays the head of a cybercrimes unit in Portland, Oregon along with Hanks and they investigate a major case that happens to be in their own backyard. A mysterious person is killing people and streaming it on the Internet for people to see, and the more hits he gets, the quicker they die. How he lives up to the movie title is done via mumbo jumbo, not all of which is realistic with current technology. I mean, the scene involving the OnStar in Lane’s car… I don’t think that can actually be done.
But, the downfall of this generic thriller with torture porn elements is that (besides it being boring more often than not) is that it’s hypocritical. It criticizes both people who anonymously do bad things on the ‘net and people who enjoy graphic violence and yet… this movie exploits the story of someone who does bad thing on the ‘net AND the movie yells at you for trying to enjoy this. Why should you enjoy this if it bashes you as an anonymous person on the Internet and rips you for trying to like the violence seen on the screen?
All that plus a really preposterous scene where one victim is able to communicate nonverbally where he’s located at and given the horrific conditions he’s experiencing at the time… this is another flick that I say you skip as hey, there are way too many movies out there (tens of thousands) and many of them are more worthy of seeing than this one.
Look below for another review I posted of another "techno thriller".
I'll be back sometime next week.
Firewall
Firewall (2006)
19% (based on 151 movie reviews)
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: Richard Loncraine
Starring: Harrison Ford, Virginia Madsen, Paul Bettany, Robert Patrick, Mary Lynn Rajskub
From: Warner Brothers/Village Roadshow Productions
This is movie I’ve certainly heard of but I have had no desire to ever see it. Through a series of events I won’t recap, I was pretty much forced to watch this earlier this week.
It’s one of those “techno thrillers” (as you can probably gather from the title, if you know much of anything about computers) about a security expert at a bank (Ford) who has his family kidnapped by a gallery of rogues, led by Bettany, and he is forced to rob his own bank and give the money to the rogues. That’s pretty much the entire plot. I overall did not care for it at all. What turned me off the most was how cartoon-y evil the villains were, especially Bettany. You see them slap and punch Madsen, yell and be physically abusive to their kids, and even yell at their barking dog! Plus, Paul even treats his henchmen like crap the entire time, so don’t ask me why they went along with such an ass who is so disloyal to his help. So yeah, you hate the villains but in a “bad” way, and the problem is that you don’t like anyone else either! Talk about bad writing.
As for the technology, not all of it that you see in the flick is made-up babble, but some of it is. I mean, some stuff is rather preposterous. I won’t want to give any spoilers but in this case I have to… it’s to prove a point. You get to see a device involving the scanner from a fax machine wired to an iPod… and it works to capture images! As I heard from someone else, fax machines are so damn slow, how could it possibly capture a viewable image that scrolls by fast? Plus, you see a woman drive an old early 70’s Plymouth vehicle and yet she has an expensive laptop and cell phone… figures.
Yeah, in the end you get some action in what otherwise is just a drama/thriller and it’s a goofy setting and a fight you see is not bad but it’s definitely not one of Harrison’s best by an y stretch of the imagination (not even if you only include the movies he’s done in the past 10 years, when his career has been lean), the impressive-looking cast doesn’t get to do too much (and the guy who played the T-1000 is made to look like a real wimp, so I wouldn’t recommend you go out and see this. Add in no real originality or unexpected plot twists (at least Sorority Row tried to pull off some plot twists, but whether they’re “real” or just red herrings to trick the audience, I’d rather not say in order not to spoil anything, but it’s still more interesting than anything you see in oh so predictable flick like Firewall) and yeah, don’t see this.
19% (based on 151 movie reviews)
Runtime: 105 minutes
Directed by: Richard Loncraine
Starring: Harrison Ford, Virginia Madsen, Paul Bettany, Robert Patrick, Mary Lynn Rajskub
From: Warner Brothers/Village Roadshow Productions
This is movie I’ve certainly heard of but I have had no desire to ever see it. Through a series of events I won’t recap, I was pretty much forced to watch this earlier this week.
It’s one of those “techno thrillers” (as you can probably gather from the title, if you know much of anything about computers) about a security expert at a bank (Ford) who has his family kidnapped by a gallery of rogues, led by Bettany, and he is forced to rob his own bank and give the money to the rogues. That’s pretty much the entire plot. I overall did not care for it at all. What turned me off the most was how cartoon-y evil the villains were, especially Bettany. You see them slap and punch Madsen, yell and be physically abusive to their kids, and even yell at their barking dog! Plus, Paul even treats his henchmen like crap the entire time, so don’t ask me why they went along with such an ass who is so disloyal to his help. So yeah, you hate the villains but in a “bad” way, and the problem is that you don’t like anyone else either! Talk about bad writing.
As for the technology, not all of it that you see in the flick is made-up babble, but some of it is. I mean, some stuff is rather preposterous. I won’t want to give any spoilers but in this case I have to… it’s to prove a point. You get to see a device involving the scanner from a fax machine wired to an iPod… and it works to capture images! As I heard from someone else, fax machines are so damn slow, how could it possibly capture a viewable image that scrolls by fast? Plus, you see a woman drive an old early 70’s Plymouth vehicle and yet she has an expensive laptop and cell phone… figures.
Yeah, in the end you get some action in what otherwise is just a drama/thriller and it’s a goofy setting and a fight you see is not bad but it’s definitely not one of Harrison’s best by an y stretch of the imagination (not even if you only include the movies he’s done in the past 10 years, when his career has been lean), the impressive-looking cast doesn’t get to do too much (and the guy who played the T-1000 is made to look like a real wimp, so I wouldn’t recommend you go out and see this. Add in no real originality or unexpected plot twists (at least Sorority Row tried to pull off some plot twists, but whether they’re “real” or just red herrings to trick the audience, I’d rather not say in order not to spoil anything, but it’s still more interesting than anything you see in oh so predictable flick like Firewall) and yeah, don’t see this.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sorority Row
Sorority Row (2009)
25% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 59 reviews)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Stewart Hendler
Starring: Briana Evigan, Rumer Willis, Jamie Chung, Audrina Patridge, Carrie Fisher
From: Summit Entertainment
Sorority Row is a movie I’ve heard about for awhile and it’s a remake of the 80’s flick The House on Sorority Row, which I haven’t seen before so I’m unable to compare the two. What caught my eye with the remake was, to be blunt, the attractive women in the cast and seeing them wear not much in the way of clothing! I know, shallow, but that’s how I feel. Man, Briana Evigan… very nice.
I already mentioned the problems I had last week in watching this movie, so I only saw the first half of it. Yesterday, I finally got to see this in full. As I figured from seeing the first half of it, it’s a goofy trashy movie that you can’t really take seriously, and yet it is entertaining trash and while the kills weren’t that inventive they were still good overall and looked fine enough.
You probably know the plot already if you’ve seen the trailer as a lot is given away, but it’s all about several ladies in a sorority, including the bitchy girl that’s the unofficial leader, and what happens when a prank against a guy goes awry and one of their sisters is accidentally killed, so they cover it up. Problems arise the night of graduation. Yeah, it does sound a whole lot like I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is a film I enjoyed way back when. I Still Know…, though, is a horrible movie and it shouldn’t be seen; I mean, the big plot point of that film is knowing the capital of Brazil! No lie.
Sorority Row, like I said, is entertaining trash and I can’t say is “good”, but it’s not ”bad”, IMO. You’ll have to put up with some goofy and eye-rolling dialogue, but if you can and you like horror flicks with some nice gore and a good amount of nudity (mainly female, but some male too) then you may have fun with this. It’s almost out of first-run theatres now but I wouldn’t be surprised if it made it to some dollar theatres in like a month or two, so you can wait for that or until it comes to DVD, probably before 2009 is over with. What a stocking-stuffer! I’d like to stuff… oh wait that’s way too crude, nevermind.
I’ll be back in a few.
25% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 59 reviews)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Stewart Hendler
Starring: Briana Evigan, Rumer Willis, Jamie Chung, Audrina Patridge, Carrie Fisher
From: Summit Entertainment
Sorority Row is a movie I’ve heard about for awhile and it’s a remake of the 80’s flick The House on Sorority Row, which I haven’t seen before so I’m unable to compare the two. What caught my eye with the remake was, to be blunt, the attractive women in the cast and seeing them wear not much in the way of clothing! I know, shallow, but that’s how I feel. Man, Briana Evigan… very nice.
I already mentioned the problems I had last week in watching this movie, so I only saw the first half of it. Yesterday, I finally got to see this in full. As I figured from seeing the first half of it, it’s a goofy trashy movie that you can’t really take seriously, and yet it is entertaining trash and while the kills weren’t that inventive they were still good overall and looked fine enough.
You probably know the plot already if you’ve seen the trailer as a lot is given away, but it’s all about several ladies in a sorority, including the bitchy girl that’s the unofficial leader, and what happens when a prank against a guy goes awry and one of their sisters is accidentally killed, so they cover it up. Problems arise the night of graduation. Yeah, it does sound a whole lot like I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is a film I enjoyed way back when. I Still Know…, though, is a horrible movie and it shouldn’t be seen; I mean, the big plot point of that film is knowing the capital of Brazil! No lie.
Sorority Row, like I said, is entertaining trash and I can’t say is “good”, but it’s not ”bad”, IMO. You’ll have to put up with some goofy and eye-rolling dialogue, but if you can and you like horror flicks with some nice gore and a good amount of nudity (mainly female, but some male too) then you may have fun with this. It’s almost out of first-run theatres now but I wouldn’t be surprised if it made it to some dollar theatres in like a month or two, so you can wait for that or until it comes to DVD, probably before 2009 is over with. What a stocking-stuffer! I’d like to stuff… oh wait that’s way too crude, nevermind.
I’ll be back in a few.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Paranormal Activity
Paranormal Activity (2007)
92% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 24 reviews)
Runtime: 85 minutes (don't believe the 99 minutes that has been bandied about)
Directed by: Oren Peli
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat
From: Paramount/Dreamworks/Blumhouse Productions
I’ve talked about this movie before and there’s a really informative article from the LA Times here which explains the history of the movie and why it sat on the shelf for so long, but FINALLY now I can talk about it after seeing it in person.
To copy and paste from a recent MySpace blog:
I’m not sure if this was the arrangement that all the other 11 theatres had when they showed this last night and Friday night, but what everyone had to go through at Universal was enter in, wait in line, then the line was moved outside and then they only let people into the auditorium a few people at a time and then wait at least a minute before they let a few more people in at a time. THEN, you had to enter the auditorium (and be told where to sit exactly) first before going back to concessions to get stuff there! It was a total dick dance and I'm presuming based on past experience that it was probably a Universal thing (the staff being rude on that night didn't help matters) rather than a needlessly complex thing that was demanded by Paramount that all theatres MUST do. To quote another theatre-goer, "What, hasn't this place ever had a sell out before?" Why didn't they just have people enter the theatre normally rather than do this dick dance, I don't know, but it came dangerously close to ruining the whole night for me. I'm glad I ended up liking the movie and had a great experience once the film started. I don’t really want to give anything away (and when I eventually talk more about the movie on my movie blog page, I’ll try to be vague about it) as it’d ruin the surprises, but for a simple movie that isn’t complex and costs about as much as the cheapest compact car, it is VERY freaky and many people there were screaming in terror during the scary scenes. It’s supposed to be in wider release next month, or so I understand, so you can wait to see it then, or see it at Universal the first few days of next month if you can go to it at midnight and are willing to put up with that BS treatment I described above. Even with their dick dance thing, the movie IS worth that aggravation, and then some.
OK, onto the movie. As I said before, it's about a young couple who move into a new house and some sort of spirit that's bothered the girl intermittently since childhood pops up again and this time the boyfriend confronts it, and from the usage of a handheld camera hooked up to a laptop, they record what happens at night when they're asleep. We see everything happen in one house through the span of about 20 days. You'd think that with the setup and the budget, no way could it be as scary as advertised. Well, trust me, it IS very freaky. I mean, it's certainly scarier than most horror flicks out there, and it's the opposite of a gore-fest and what is so scary is the setting, the usage of sound, and strange out of the world images that lets you know something other-worldly is going on. There's probably a backlash due to all the hyperbole that's been used in the advertising, but don't let that sway you from seeing it if you can. It's in more towns this upcoming weekend and info can be found on such places as the movie's official website.
In general, the "sold out" auditorium (although the first few rows were empty) was freaked out of their minds by it. I'm sure I knew more about the movie than many of them did; I wish I knew how they all heard about it and if any had known about the movie for as long as I did. They ran mainly horror trailers and the only one that got applause (!) was the crappy no-budget one for Saw VI. I'm sure they would've gone wild if they had shown the New Moon trailer! No wonder why they were freaked out as much as they were. I was certainly chilled by it and I was on edge but there were people shrieking in terror and there was groans when they knew something bad was going to happen... and the surprises, I wouldn't be surprised if people jumped out of their seats due to fright. I know the ending minute or two is something I won't forget due to the surprise and one unnatural moment in particular.
Like I said, believe the hype and if you can see it, you MUST. It really is that good, and a 15,000 dollar movie having this kind of run is an amazing success story.
I'll be back by the end of the week.
92% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 24 reviews)
Runtime: 85 minutes (don't believe the 99 minutes that has been bandied about)
Directed by: Oren Peli
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat
From: Paramount/Dreamworks/Blumhouse Productions
I’ve talked about this movie before and there’s a really informative article from the LA Times here which explains the history of the movie and why it sat on the shelf for so long, but FINALLY now I can talk about it after seeing it in person.
To copy and paste from a recent MySpace blog:
I’m not sure if this was the arrangement that all the other 11 theatres had when they showed this last night and Friday night, but what everyone had to go through at Universal was enter in, wait in line, then the line was moved outside and then they only let people into the auditorium a few people at a time and then wait at least a minute before they let a few more people in at a time. THEN, you had to enter the auditorium (and be told where to sit exactly) first before going back to concessions to get stuff there! It was a total dick dance and I'm presuming based on past experience that it was probably a Universal thing (the staff being rude on that night didn't help matters) rather than a needlessly complex thing that was demanded by Paramount that all theatres MUST do. To quote another theatre-goer, "What, hasn't this place ever had a sell out before?" Why didn't they just have people enter the theatre normally rather than do this dick dance, I don't know, but it came dangerously close to ruining the whole night for me. I'm glad I ended up liking the movie and had a great experience once the film started. I don’t really want to give anything away (and when I eventually talk more about the movie on my movie blog page, I’ll try to be vague about it) as it’d ruin the surprises, but for a simple movie that isn’t complex and costs about as much as the cheapest compact car, it is VERY freaky and many people there were screaming in terror during the scary scenes. It’s supposed to be in wider release next month, or so I understand, so you can wait to see it then, or see it at Universal the first few days of next month if you can go to it at midnight and are willing to put up with that BS treatment I described above. Even with their dick dance thing, the movie IS worth that aggravation, and then some.
OK, onto the movie. As I said before, it's about a young couple who move into a new house and some sort of spirit that's bothered the girl intermittently since childhood pops up again and this time the boyfriend confronts it, and from the usage of a handheld camera hooked up to a laptop, they record what happens at night when they're asleep. We see everything happen in one house through the span of about 20 days. You'd think that with the setup and the budget, no way could it be as scary as advertised. Well, trust me, it IS very freaky. I mean, it's certainly scarier than most horror flicks out there, and it's the opposite of a gore-fest and what is so scary is the setting, the usage of sound, and strange out of the world images that lets you know something other-worldly is going on. There's probably a backlash due to all the hyperbole that's been used in the advertising, but don't let that sway you from seeing it if you can. It's in more towns this upcoming weekend and info can be found on such places as the movie's official website.
In general, the "sold out" auditorium (although the first few rows were empty) was freaked out of their minds by it. I'm sure I knew more about the movie than many of them did; I wish I knew how they all heard about it and if any had known about the movie for as long as I did. They ran mainly horror trailers and the only one that got applause (!) was the crappy no-budget one for Saw VI. I'm sure they would've gone wild if they had shown the New Moon trailer! No wonder why they were freaked out as much as they were. I was certainly chilled by it and I was on edge but there were people shrieking in terror and there was groans when they knew something bad was going to happen... and the surprises, I wouldn't be surprised if people jumped out of their seats due to fright. I know the ending minute or two is something I won't forget due to the surprise and one unnatural moment in particular.
Like I said, believe the hype and if you can see it, you MUST. It really is that good, and a 15,000 dollar movie having this kind of run is an amazing success story.
I'll be back by the end of the week.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
An Update
Let me cut and paste from my latest blog on MySpace/Facebook:
Originally I had tonight planned as me seeing a pair of movies at the theatres at CityWalk (Sorority Row and then Paranormal Activity, a movie I’ve talked about recently that has gotten a LOT of hype and CityWalk is one of only like 8 places all across this country showing it this weekend) but things changed when I found out that the Friday night midnight screening was sold out. Yeah, they’re showing it only once a day at midnight and that’s it and it’s this Friday, Saturday, and then next Thursday through Saturday and then that’s it. With the way things are now I’d better see it as soon as I can so even though I have my sisters (and husband of one of them) coming down this weekend I now had to change things around and tonight was me going to Universal, seeing Sorority Row there that night, and get a ticket to see Paranormal Activity tomorrow night at midnight. It means that even though I didn’t want to do it that way, I will be seeing a wrestling show Saturday evening in nearby Minneola and then leaving from that and going straight to CityWalk.
Unfortunately, things got screwed up AGAIN and it’s because I went and saw Sorority Row and unfortunately, because of some complete baboons in the audience making noise as if they were at a zoo, I had to leave as there was no possible way I could concentrate and focus on the movie when those monkeys were so disruptive. I don’t know what’s worse, them acting that way or the few other people in the auditorium doing nothing about it, as if they’re ok with that disrespectful ignorant crap. I’m not a fan of ignorance, in case you couldn’t tell. At first they made some noise but it was intermittent. Then, it became nonstop and it was just unbearable. When I left I walked by them and I stopped and gave them a dirty look! Really. They deserved it. Then again, they deserved a large bag of popcorn and several sodas dumped on them, but alas… I stopped and talked to management before I left and I got a free pass to use at anytime at any AMC joint, so depending on how things go I’ll have to use that this upcoming week during an unbusy time for me (and where I’ll be more confident there won’t be any Troglodytes around) I’ll have to see the movie in full. It sure as shit will NOT be at CityWalk. In fact, after Paranormal Activity tomorrow night it’ll be a long while before I go to Universal, let alone that theatre. I’ve had problems there and one other time I had to go get a free pass due to more baboons being disruptive. It’s best if I try to avoid all that Halloween Horror Nights garbage. No offense to anyone who likes it, but it’s not for me, that’s what I’ll say about it. It started tonight so yeah it’s a zoo there, but thankfully it wasn’t filled with baboons; it’s just that the ones I saw were in a theatre and hell, it looked like a mom and some kids, none of whom looked to be old enough to have too many pubes, to state it crudely! What an appropriate movie for them. What I saw of it, it was crappy, sure, but still entertaining. Hot women wearing a scanty amount of clothing and nighties… I enjoyed that, and I certainly enjoyed looking at Briana Evigan too. But yes, they haven’t showed any old movies at CityWalk in months so it will be a long time before I go back there after tomorrow night.
Yes, not good times. I'll continue the horror kick I'm on by reviewing those movies within the next week when I (hope) to see them, so check back then.
Originally I had tonight planned as me seeing a pair of movies at the theatres at CityWalk (Sorority Row and then Paranormal Activity, a movie I’ve talked about recently that has gotten a LOT of hype and CityWalk is one of only like 8 places all across this country showing it this weekend) but things changed when I found out that the Friday night midnight screening was sold out. Yeah, they’re showing it only once a day at midnight and that’s it and it’s this Friday, Saturday, and then next Thursday through Saturday and then that’s it. With the way things are now I’d better see it as soon as I can so even though I have my sisters (and husband of one of them) coming down this weekend I now had to change things around and tonight was me going to Universal, seeing Sorority Row there that night, and get a ticket to see Paranormal Activity tomorrow night at midnight. It means that even though I didn’t want to do it that way, I will be seeing a wrestling show Saturday evening in nearby Minneola and then leaving from that and going straight to CityWalk.
Unfortunately, things got screwed up AGAIN and it’s because I went and saw Sorority Row and unfortunately, because of some complete baboons in the audience making noise as if they were at a zoo, I had to leave as there was no possible way I could concentrate and focus on the movie when those monkeys were so disruptive. I don’t know what’s worse, them acting that way or the few other people in the auditorium doing nothing about it, as if they’re ok with that disrespectful ignorant crap. I’m not a fan of ignorance, in case you couldn’t tell. At first they made some noise but it was intermittent. Then, it became nonstop and it was just unbearable. When I left I walked by them and I stopped and gave them a dirty look! Really. They deserved it. Then again, they deserved a large bag of popcorn and several sodas dumped on them, but alas… I stopped and talked to management before I left and I got a free pass to use at anytime at any AMC joint, so depending on how things go I’ll have to use that this upcoming week during an unbusy time for me (and where I’ll be more confident there won’t be any Troglodytes around) I’ll have to see the movie in full. It sure as shit will NOT be at CityWalk. In fact, after Paranormal Activity tomorrow night it’ll be a long while before I go to Universal, let alone that theatre. I’ve had problems there and one other time I had to go get a free pass due to more baboons being disruptive. It’s best if I try to avoid all that Halloween Horror Nights garbage. No offense to anyone who likes it, but it’s not for me, that’s what I’ll say about it. It started tonight so yeah it’s a zoo there, but thankfully it wasn’t filled with baboons; it’s just that the ones I saw were in a theatre and hell, it looked like a mom and some kids, none of whom looked to be old enough to have too many pubes, to state it crudely! What an appropriate movie for them. What I saw of it, it was crappy, sure, but still entertaining. Hot women wearing a scanty amount of clothing and nighties… I enjoyed that, and I certainly enjoyed looking at Briana Evigan too. But yes, they haven’t showed any old movies at CityWalk in months so it will be a long time before I go back there after tomorrow night.
Yes, not good times. I'll continue the horror kick I'm on by reviewing those movies within the next week when I (hope) to see them, so check back then.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Blood Creek
Blood Creek (a.k.a. Town Creek, or Creek) (2009)
Runtime: Approximately 85 minutes
Directed by: Joel Schumacher
Starring: Dominic Purcell, Henry Cavill, Michael Fassbender
From: Lionsgate Entertainment/Gold Circle Films
A quick story:
Last August Lionsgate Films released a movie called The Midnight Meat Train into theatres… but it was a rather odd story. To copy and paste my comments on the film from when I wrote about it on my Facebook/MySpace page last August:
“Wednesday night I went to the cheap second-run theatre in east Orlando to see a horror film called Midnight Meat Train. Now, it's a movie that came out just recently and yet it's already in there… it's a long story as to why Lion's Gate released it to the cheap theatres, but basically they changed regimes and they want to dick over the people that made the movie, so that's why it was only in about 100 crappy theatres. Horror fans were understandably pissed over this happening, as it was a highly anticipated movie that is based on a short story of the same name by famed horror author Clive Barker, probably best known for being the dude that wrote the story that became the Hellraiser movie. Overall, the movie was uneven but I ended up enjoying it. The kills were pretty great and bloody, and it was creepy also. Funnily enough, Vinnie Jones is also in it, along with Brooke Shields! Yes, Brooke Shields.”
I haven’t seen it since then, but that movie did not deserve the fate it got. I mean, it wasn’t that bad. It was shown in Orlando at the Touchstar Cinemas Colonial Promenade 6, which is a real old run-down place with non stadium seating and yeah, you get what you paid for in terms of price.
Well, I went back there as once again Lionsgate dumped a horror flick into these second-run theatres, and this time I believe it’s even less than they booked Meat Train into. As for the night I had going out to see this last night and what I thought of everything…
I drove over there and the place is the same it’s always been. Me and two random people were there, none of us knowing each other, and I don’t know if they heard about this movie due to its controversial release or what, but yeah, only three random people in there including me.
The movie is a horror flick about… it’s not easy to describe in short without unveiling massive spoilers, but I’ll try. It’s about a mysterious German man-a Nazi, at that-who visits a West Virginia farm in 1936, what happens there, and how that relates to that area in current times (i.e. 2007, when this movie was filmed. Yeah, it sat in the can for that long. More often than not, that’s not a good sign). What you get to see in this movie is a rather amazing mix of stuff. Besides Nazi’s, there’s the drinking of blood (I’ve heard the main creature in this flick a “vampire” but I wouldn’t really say that, as besides the blood drinking there’s nothing to say that’s what it is), Norse runestones, dead animals and human beings that can be revived and do evil things… I can sort of understand why Lionsgate wouldn’t want to release something as strange as this, although releasing it this way instead is rather insulting.
The most interesting thing is that it was directed by Joel Schumacher, the guy who’s done stuff like Falling Down, The Lost Boys, and even those two garish cartoony Batman movies in the 90’s (Batman Forever and the truly hideous Batman & Robin) so him doing something like this is pretty jarring.
As for the movie, it’s not as bad as those no-budget direct to DVD horror flicks that must be in the thousands now. You know, stuff that most people have never heard of, and much of it is bottom of the barrel garbage that student filmmakers probably would’ve done a better job on. But, it’s still a bad film. I mean, the story is totally ridiculous, full of plot holes, and doesn’t make much sense with even a little scrutiny. The villain is supposed to be a powerful… well, thing… but it can’t escape the farm and it can’t even enter the house on the farm due to contrived reasons! The ending of the movie is even more preposterous. So, while it’s not a dull movie by any means, it’s ineptly made at times (scenes switch from day to night or vice versa with no warning) and at times it’s clear Lionsgate meddled with it somehow. At least it moves quickly and it’s not too long. I guessed around 85 minutes as I didn’t stick around to the end of the end credits.
As others have said, I don’t know why they just didn’t include it with their annual January After Dark Horrorfest, where it at least would have played in regular first-run theatres. That’s also what they should’ve done with Meat Train, which I’ll say is clearly better than Blood Creek.
Check back late this upcoming weekend with my take on several other movies.
Runtime: Approximately 85 minutes
Directed by: Joel Schumacher
Starring: Dominic Purcell, Henry Cavill, Michael Fassbender
From: Lionsgate Entertainment/Gold Circle Films
A quick story:
Last August Lionsgate Films released a movie called The Midnight Meat Train into theatres… but it was a rather odd story. To copy and paste my comments on the film from when I wrote about it on my Facebook/MySpace page last August:
“Wednesday night I went to the cheap second-run theatre in east Orlando to see a horror film called Midnight Meat Train. Now, it's a movie that came out just recently and yet it's already in there… it's a long story as to why Lion's Gate released it to the cheap theatres, but basically they changed regimes and they want to dick over the people that made the movie, so that's why it was only in about 100 crappy theatres. Horror fans were understandably pissed over this happening, as it was a highly anticipated movie that is based on a short story of the same name by famed horror author Clive Barker, probably best known for being the dude that wrote the story that became the Hellraiser movie. Overall, the movie was uneven but I ended up enjoying it. The kills were pretty great and bloody, and it was creepy also. Funnily enough, Vinnie Jones is also in it, along with Brooke Shields! Yes, Brooke Shields.”
I haven’t seen it since then, but that movie did not deserve the fate it got. I mean, it wasn’t that bad. It was shown in Orlando at the Touchstar Cinemas Colonial Promenade 6, which is a real old run-down place with non stadium seating and yeah, you get what you paid for in terms of price.
Well, I went back there as once again Lionsgate dumped a horror flick into these second-run theatres, and this time I believe it’s even less than they booked Meat Train into. As for the night I had going out to see this last night and what I thought of everything…
I drove over there and the place is the same it’s always been. Me and two random people were there, none of us knowing each other, and I don’t know if they heard about this movie due to its controversial release or what, but yeah, only three random people in there including me.
The movie is a horror flick about… it’s not easy to describe in short without unveiling massive spoilers, but I’ll try. It’s about a mysterious German man-a Nazi, at that-who visits a West Virginia farm in 1936, what happens there, and how that relates to that area in current times (i.e. 2007, when this movie was filmed. Yeah, it sat in the can for that long. More often than not, that’s not a good sign). What you get to see in this movie is a rather amazing mix of stuff. Besides Nazi’s, there’s the drinking of blood (I’ve heard the main creature in this flick a “vampire” but I wouldn’t really say that, as besides the blood drinking there’s nothing to say that’s what it is), Norse runestones, dead animals and human beings that can be revived and do evil things… I can sort of understand why Lionsgate wouldn’t want to release something as strange as this, although releasing it this way instead is rather insulting.
The most interesting thing is that it was directed by Joel Schumacher, the guy who’s done stuff like Falling Down, The Lost Boys, and even those two garish cartoony Batman movies in the 90’s (Batman Forever and the truly hideous Batman & Robin) so him doing something like this is pretty jarring.
As for the movie, it’s not as bad as those no-budget direct to DVD horror flicks that must be in the thousands now. You know, stuff that most people have never heard of, and much of it is bottom of the barrel garbage that student filmmakers probably would’ve done a better job on. But, it’s still a bad film. I mean, the story is totally ridiculous, full of plot holes, and doesn’t make much sense with even a little scrutiny. The villain is supposed to be a powerful… well, thing… but it can’t escape the farm and it can’t even enter the house on the farm due to contrived reasons! The ending of the movie is even more preposterous. So, while it’s not a dull movie by any means, it’s ineptly made at times (scenes switch from day to night or vice versa with no warning) and at times it’s clear Lionsgate meddled with it somehow. At least it moves quickly and it’s not too long. I guessed around 85 minutes as I didn’t stick around to the end of the end credits.
As others have said, I don’t know why they just didn’t include it with their annual January After Dark Horrorfest, where it at least would have played in regular first-run theatres. That’s also what they should’ve done with Meat Train, which I’ll say is clearly better than Blood Creek.
Check back late this upcoming weekend with my take on several other movies.
Friday, September 18, 2009
House of 1000 Corpses
House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
16% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 75 reviews)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Rob Zombie
Starring: Sid Haig, Bill Moseley, Karen Black, Rainn Wilson
From: Lionsgate Entertainment
As Halloween II is out in theatres (and not doing that well at that) I figured I should revisit a movie I saw in theatres in Normal, Illinois in 2003, back during the days when I rarely went to the cineplex at all. It is something that since then I saw once at a friend’s place in Illinois and then I think I saw it again in 2005 a few months before I saw The Devil’s Rejects (a movie I need to revisit as I haven’t seen it since I saw it on the big screen) but that’s it. During that time Zombie seemed to be doing well in the opinion of the hardcore horror fans. After the Halloween movies, though.. that isn’t the case.
The movie is about a group of college students who are in the backwoods late one night, trying to locate a haunted landmark, an infamous place of local lore (even in my old hometown of Belvidere there was a place like that, Bloods Point Road). Instead, they run into trouble and you get a movie that yeah, is certainly “inspired” by Texas Chainsaw Massacre-the original, at least-I haven’t seen either the remake or the prequel to the remake but I haven’t heard too many good things about either-but for what it is, I enjoyed it. Sure, Zombie needs to sing a different tune when it comes to having too much of the same stuff in all of his movies, but if you don’t think about that and instead just focus on this, you can tolerate the foul-mouthed white trash milieu and the graphic violence and enjoy the interesting colorful visuals and it's trashy but fun 70's style.
It was a surprise seeing Rainn Wilson in this; sure, I loathe The Office but I had no clue he was in this, as when I saw this he wasn’t famous due to his role on that program. Amongst the performances, the standout of course is the great Sid Haig as Captain Spaulding, as he’s so amusing and you have to laugh at him even though at times you know you shouldn’t. The victims…, er, I mean the college kids are your standard type and the acting doesn’t go above or below what you’d expect from a horror film. There’s nothing that’s cringe-worthy from anyone in the movie (not even from the girl now known as Sheri Moon-Zombie) so that’s good.
I’m glad that Lions Gate distributed it after Universal passed due to the pussified reason over the first cut of it being NC-17, which is exactly what happened, but as what always happens, they re-edited it until it became an R, so it’s odd to me they’d dump the film like that.
One thing about the DVD: I enjoyed how in the menus it "talked" to you and the characters were pretty amusing.
I'll be back next Friday night with at least one new review.
16% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 75 reviews)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Rob Zombie
Starring: Sid Haig, Bill Moseley, Karen Black, Rainn Wilson
From: Lionsgate Entertainment
As Halloween II is out in theatres (and not doing that well at that) I figured I should revisit a movie I saw in theatres in Normal, Illinois in 2003, back during the days when I rarely went to the cineplex at all. It is something that since then I saw once at a friend’s place in Illinois and then I think I saw it again in 2005 a few months before I saw The Devil’s Rejects (a movie I need to revisit as I haven’t seen it since I saw it on the big screen) but that’s it. During that time Zombie seemed to be doing well in the opinion of the hardcore horror fans. After the Halloween movies, though.. that isn’t the case.
The movie is about a group of college students who are in the backwoods late one night, trying to locate a haunted landmark, an infamous place of local lore (even in my old hometown of Belvidere there was a place like that, Bloods Point Road). Instead, they run into trouble and you get a movie that yeah, is certainly “inspired” by Texas Chainsaw Massacre-the original, at least-I haven’t seen either the remake or the prequel to the remake but I haven’t heard too many good things about either-but for what it is, I enjoyed it. Sure, Zombie needs to sing a different tune when it comes to having too much of the same stuff in all of his movies, but if you don’t think about that and instead just focus on this, you can tolerate the foul-mouthed white trash milieu and the graphic violence and enjoy the interesting colorful visuals and it's trashy but fun 70's style.
It was a surprise seeing Rainn Wilson in this; sure, I loathe The Office but I had no clue he was in this, as when I saw this he wasn’t famous due to his role on that program. Amongst the performances, the standout of course is the great Sid Haig as Captain Spaulding, as he’s so amusing and you have to laugh at him even though at times you know you shouldn’t. The victims…, er, I mean the college kids are your standard type and the acting doesn’t go above or below what you’d expect from a horror film. There’s nothing that’s cringe-worthy from anyone in the movie (not even from the girl now known as Sheri Moon-Zombie) so that’s good.
I’m glad that Lions Gate distributed it after Universal passed due to the pussified reason over the first cut of it being NC-17, which is exactly what happened, but as what always happens, they re-edited it until it became an R, so it’s odd to me they’d dump the film like that.
One thing about the DVD: I enjoyed how in the menus it "talked" to you and the characters were pretty amusing.
I'll be back next Friday night with at least one new review.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A Pair Of Tidbits
As I have some free time I’ll mention two quick things on here.
The first is that I’ll say “RIP Patrick Swayze”. I haven’t really seen too many of his flicks but having to go through something as rough as pancreatic cancer and the way he looked in the last few months of his life… it’s a sad thing. I can say about Road House, though, is that while it’s one of the most ridiculous movies ever made, if you turn your brain off and just go with it, it’s a lot of fun.
The second thing is that a movie I’ve heard about since October of ’07 is finally coming out in limited release and it has an interesting story behind it. The movie is Paranormal Activity and it’s a horror flick about a woman who is haunted by some sort of presence and it flares up again after she and her love interest move into a new house and he taunts said presence, and a camera set up to record what happens at night is the way that we get to see what happens when they’re asleep.
That’s what I heard back then and that’s all I’ve heard about it until now. It was first brought up on a Dinner for Fiends podcast on Dread Central and since then many people have been interested in it and not a lot of news has been said about it, except that when it was picked up by Paramount/Dreamworks, they were thinking of doing a bigger budget remake of it and releasing it along with the original, but they changed their plans. Apparently several endings were filmed until they got the right one, but I think it was other things that caused it to be on the shelf until next weekend, when it’s finally coming out in limited release.
The site has the list of theatres it’s scheduled in as of this moment. I am SO thankful that not only is it in Florida, but it’s right in Orlando. I’m not sure about it being at the Citywalk theatre, as in the past I’ve had problems with stupid monkeybrained knuckle-draggers that were in the crowd in the auditorium, but I’ll hope for the best here. I plan on being there on the 25th too, so a large crowd that does NOT lose interest in this and acts respectful will make me happy.
I'll be back by Friday night with a review of another horror flick.
The first is that I’ll say “RIP Patrick Swayze”. I haven’t really seen too many of his flicks but having to go through something as rough as pancreatic cancer and the way he looked in the last few months of his life… it’s a sad thing. I can say about Road House, though, is that while it’s one of the most ridiculous movies ever made, if you turn your brain off and just go with it, it’s a lot of fun.
The second thing is that a movie I’ve heard about since October of ’07 is finally coming out in limited release and it has an interesting story behind it. The movie is Paranormal Activity and it’s a horror flick about a woman who is haunted by some sort of presence and it flares up again after she and her love interest move into a new house and he taunts said presence, and a camera set up to record what happens at night is the way that we get to see what happens when they’re asleep.
That’s what I heard back then and that’s all I’ve heard about it until now. It was first brought up on a Dinner for Fiends podcast on Dread Central and since then many people have been interested in it and not a lot of news has been said about it, except that when it was picked up by Paramount/Dreamworks, they were thinking of doing a bigger budget remake of it and releasing it along with the original, but they changed their plans. Apparently several endings were filmed until they got the right one, but I think it was other things that caused it to be on the shelf until next weekend, when it’s finally coming out in limited release.
The site has the list of theatres it’s scheduled in as of this moment. I am SO thankful that not only is it in Florida, but it’s right in Orlando. I’m not sure about it being at the Citywalk theatre, as in the past I’ve had problems with stupid monkeybrained knuckle-draggers that were in the crowd in the auditorium, but I’ll hope for the best here. I plan on being there on the 25th too, so a large crowd that does NOT lose interest in this and acts respectful will make me happy.
I'll be back by Friday night with a review of another horror flick.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Adam
Adam (2009)
64% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 115 reviews)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Max Mayer
Starring: Hugh Dancy, Rose Byrne, Peter Gallagher, Frankie Faison, Mark Linn-Baker
From: Fox Searchlight Pictures
I heard about this romantic drama with dashes of comedy in it from seeing a trailer for it at a theatre earlier this summer. It’s about a guy with Asperger’s Syndrome so it’s a rather unusual topic to see on the big screen. I figured I would go and see it. Well, last weekend some people I know (but due to me feuding with them) saw this flick, said it was “The Blair Russell movie” due to their perceptions about me (even though I’ve never said anything about what they believe me to be; if they want to think that way, though, more power to them) but in any event, they stated that after watching the film they learned more about the affliction and they acted like they’ll treat people who they believe to have it differently. If it can educate people on what Asperger’s is, all the better.
The film is about an “Aspy” (Dancy) who had his father and main caretaker pass away, so the only dependent he has is his father’s friend (Faison). One day he meets up with a new lady-Beth-who moved into the same apartment complex (Byrne) and he took a fancy to her, but due to his Asperger’s, he has problems relating to people and at first he had difficulties trying to get to know Beth due to his social awkwardness and apparent lack of empathy for, well, most things. Soon, though, they get to know each other better and… in the midst of all that is Adam getting let go from the job by his boss (Linn-Baker; yes, he was the guy who lived with Cousin Balki on Perfect Strangers!) and he had to try and find a new job, and there’s also the fact that Beth’s dad (Gallagher; now, I never watched The O.C. but even I know what kind of character he played there; not to give too much away, but he didn’t act too much differently in this flick) is on trial for irregularities at his place of work.
Throughout the movie you get to see Adam and Beth getting to become more involved with each other while we see Adam get out of his shell more and we also see his affect on Beth. There are bumps in the road and I’ll leave it at that. Of course, what is portrayed in the movie should not make you think that everyone with Asperger’s acts quite as severely as the title character does, or that they all react badly to-say-lying. It was done for dramatic purposes and hopefully audiences are smart enough to realize that.
I enjoyed the performances from the leads (I don’t remember seeing Rose in any movies before, but she’s rather easy on the eyes and she looked pretty attractive in this flick) and the supporting players do a nice job too. The fact that the two leads are British and Australian and yet both do fine American accents is another thing to mention. Even if you don’t have the syndrome you might identify with him if you feel like you’re “different” or whatever.
So, I recommend you see this movie if you’re able to, as if nothing else you may learn something. It’s not that different from the usual romantic flick, I’m sure, but it’s quirky enough and I rate it pretty highly. I know it's gotten mixed reviews but I think that's a bunch of poppycock, myself.
By this time next week, expect a new review or two on here.
64% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 115 reviews)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Max Mayer
Starring: Hugh Dancy, Rose Byrne, Peter Gallagher, Frankie Faison, Mark Linn-Baker
From: Fox Searchlight Pictures
I heard about this romantic drama with dashes of comedy in it from seeing a trailer for it at a theatre earlier this summer. It’s about a guy with Asperger’s Syndrome so it’s a rather unusual topic to see on the big screen. I figured I would go and see it. Well, last weekend some people I know (but due to me feuding with them) saw this flick, said it was “The Blair Russell movie” due to their perceptions about me (even though I’ve never said anything about what they believe me to be; if they want to think that way, though, more power to them) but in any event, they stated that after watching the film they learned more about the affliction and they acted like they’ll treat people who they believe to have it differently. If it can educate people on what Asperger’s is, all the better.
The film is about an “Aspy” (Dancy) who had his father and main caretaker pass away, so the only dependent he has is his father’s friend (Faison). One day he meets up with a new lady-Beth-who moved into the same apartment complex (Byrne) and he took a fancy to her, but due to his Asperger’s, he has problems relating to people and at first he had difficulties trying to get to know Beth due to his social awkwardness and apparent lack of empathy for, well, most things. Soon, though, they get to know each other better and… in the midst of all that is Adam getting let go from the job by his boss (Linn-Baker; yes, he was the guy who lived with Cousin Balki on Perfect Strangers!) and he had to try and find a new job, and there’s also the fact that Beth’s dad (Gallagher; now, I never watched The O.C. but even I know what kind of character he played there; not to give too much away, but he didn’t act too much differently in this flick) is on trial for irregularities at his place of work.
Throughout the movie you get to see Adam and Beth getting to become more involved with each other while we see Adam get out of his shell more and we also see his affect on Beth. There are bumps in the road and I’ll leave it at that. Of course, what is portrayed in the movie should not make you think that everyone with Asperger’s acts quite as severely as the title character does, or that they all react badly to-say-lying. It was done for dramatic purposes and hopefully audiences are smart enough to realize that.
I enjoyed the performances from the leads (I don’t remember seeing Rose in any movies before, but she’s rather easy on the eyes and she looked pretty attractive in this flick) and the supporting players do a nice job too. The fact that the two leads are British and Australian and yet both do fine American accents is another thing to mention. Even if you don’t have the syndrome you might identify with him if you feel like you’re “different” or whatever.
So, I recommend you see this movie if you’re able to, as if nothing else you may learn something. It’s not that different from the usual romantic flick, I’m sure, but it’s quirky enough and I rate it pretty highly. I know it's gotten mixed reviews but I think that's a bunch of poppycock, myself.
By this time next week, expect a new review or two on here.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Mother, Jugs & Speed
Mother, Jugs & Speed (1976)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Peter Yates
Starring: Bill Cosby, Raquel Welch, Harvey Keitel, Dick Butkis, Larry Hagman
From: 20th Century Fox
A black comedy concerning an ambulance business starring the bizarre trio of Cosby, Welch, and Keitel, and directed by the guy who helmed Bullitt sounds like something that just wouldn’t work, but hey it does, for the most part.
The trio are members of a misfit ambulance service in Los Angeles who fight with other companies over who gets to reach a person needing a ride to a hospital first, as whoever gets there first is the one who gets to transport them there and of course they get more money the more people they help. With that kind of plot description, you know that you’ll get some dark, sarcastic humor, and that’s indeed the case.
Cosby is the veteran driver, Welch the dispatcher of the company, and Keitel is the ex-cop who’s just starting off there. It’s not the type of role that you’d expect out of Cosby, especially if you’re used to him being family friendly, shilling Jell-O pops and wearing garish sweaters. He’s not vulgar here or anything, but you do get to see him find a woman’s drug stash, bribe a police officer, and even prank a convent full of nuns, so it’s different than what you’d expect to see him do.
It is also a drama so it’s not all laughs and at times it does drag. But, if you’re in the mood for it you’ll probably enjoy it. I mean, you get to see Larry Hagman play a lecherous employee, and a great scene where they have to try and get a heavyset injured woman from her second floor apartment to the wagon. You may be surprised at how far they went there. Oh, and it's rated PG... or rather it was back then before the days of PG-13, which this would get in present times.
I'll be back by this weekend with at least one new review.
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Peter Yates
Starring: Bill Cosby, Raquel Welch, Harvey Keitel, Dick Butkis, Larry Hagman
From: 20th Century Fox
A black comedy concerning an ambulance business starring the bizarre trio of Cosby, Welch, and Keitel, and directed by the guy who helmed Bullitt sounds like something that just wouldn’t work, but hey it does, for the most part.
The trio are members of a misfit ambulance service in Los Angeles who fight with other companies over who gets to reach a person needing a ride to a hospital first, as whoever gets there first is the one who gets to transport them there and of course they get more money the more people they help. With that kind of plot description, you know that you’ll get some dark, sarcastic humor, and that’s indeed the case.
Cosby is the veteran driver, Welch the dispatcher of the company, and Keitel is the ex-cop who’s just starting off there. It’s not the type of role that you’d expect out of Cosby, especially if you’re used to him being family friendly, shilling Jell-O pops and wearing garish sweaters. He’s not vulgar here or anything, but you do get to see him find a woman’s drug stash, bribe a police officer, and even prank a convent full of nuns, so it’s different than what you’d expect to see him do.
It is also a drama so it’s not all laughs and at times it does drag. But, if you’re in the mood for it you’ll probably enjoy it. I mean, you get to see Larry Hagman play a lecherous employee, and a great scene where they have to try and get a heavyset injured woman from her second floor apartment to the wagon. You may be surprised at how far they went there. Oh, and it's rated PG... or rather it was back then before the days of PG-13, which this would get in present times.
I'll be back by this weekend with at least one new review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)