Unfortunately, no new review or anything else from me today. I'm burned out on horror films for the time being, and I was busy the past couple of days with a pair of big wrestling shows, and now some relatives from out of state are down here. So, no time for any reviews, Dr. Jones. I figured I've done enough the past few weeks.
I will at least give a podcast recommendation. If you love reading/listening to discussion about bad films, give Bad Movie Fiends a try. They talk about crappy movies, both enjoyably bad (like Robot Jox) or just plain terrible (like Battlefield Earth) The main trio are hilarious pals so it's fun to listen to.
I'll be back Friday night with a new review, this time something not in the horror genre.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Howling: New Moon Rising
The Howling: New Moon Rising (1995)
Runtime: 90 minutes
“Directed” by: Clive Turner
“Starring”: Clive Turner, John Ramsden, Jack Huff, the citizens of an actual town playing themselves (no, really)
From: New Line Cinema!
As this movie was brought up recently on a forum I look at, I figured I would talk about this; while I haven’t seen it in years, I did see it more than once so I say that’s good enough for me. I might as well review one of the all-time terrible movies I’ve seen as an adult. Plus, you can read an extensive recap of the movie here and watch a video review here which contains clips from the movie which proves that it really is as bad as many have said. I don’t even remember how I first heard about it, but I do know I’ve seen it more than once, which makes me quite the masochist.
Describing the plot is rather futile but in short, a drifter comes to town and (off-screen) killings take place. Some investigators nearby try to solve the murders, and meet up with some people from earlier Howling movies. That’s pretty much it in terms of stuff that moves from Point A to B. The rest of it…
I’ll be honest and say I haven’t seen any of The Howling movies in full. Not that it really matters for this one as none of them are related to each other in any way. Yet, director/producer/writer/actor/everything else Clive Turner tried to retcon things by having some characters from a few of the sequels appear here and he tried to tie it all together… to zero success, according to what I hear. No matter what things are just confused all around.
Besides the awful screenplay, the barely-there presence of any werewolf action, and the special effects being a joke even for ’95, the bizarre decision was to set the movie in an unincorporated community known as Pioneertown (built in the 40’s in order to provide a backdrop for western features of the time), and all the residents of that town play themselves! Do I need to say that the non-actors deliver terrible performances? It’s a crime the full movie isn’t on YouTube anymore, as that’s probably the easiest way to watch this if you want to punish yourself for an hour and a half. It’s only on DVD overseas and you know it’ll never be ported over here. I mean, much of the runtime is filled with awful country songs (no matter what you think of the genre, this material is putrid) and line dancing! This really is one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life.
How anyone thought this was a good idea, I do not know, and how it got released by New Line Cinema… that still befuddles me today. No wonder why there hasn’t been another Howling movie until just recently, The Howling Reborn, which just came out earlier this month and I’ve heard it be best compared to Twilight, so yeah I’ll avoid that at all costs.
I won't be back until Halloween night due to the rest of the month being busy for me. I'll try to find an interesting and appropriate movie to write about.
Runtime: 90 minutes
“Directed” by: Clive Turner
“Starring”: Clive Turner, John Ramsden, Jack Huff, the citizens of an actual town playing themselves (no, really)
From: New Line Cinema!
As this movie was brought up recently on a forum I look at, I figured I would talk about this; while I haven’t seen it in years, I did see it more than once so I say that’s good enough for me. I might as well review one of the all-time terrible movies I’ve seen as an adult. Plus, you can read an extensive recap of the movie here and watch a video review here which contains clips from the movie which proves that it really is as bad as many have said. I don’t even remember how I first heard about it, but I do know I’ve seen it more than once, which makes me quite the masochist.
Describing the plot is rather futile but in short, a drifter comes to town and (off-screen) killings take place. Some investigators nearby try to solve the murders, and meet up with some people from earlier Howling movies. That’s pretty much it in terms of stuff that moves from Point A to B. The rest of it…
I’ll be honest and say I haven’t seen any of The Howling movies in full. Not that it really matters for this one as none of them are related to each other in any way. Yet, director/producer/writer/actor/everything else Clive Turner tried to retcon things by having some characters from a few of the sequels appear here and he tried to tie it all together… to zero success, according to what I hear. No matter what things are just confused all around.
Besides the awful screenplay, the barely-there presence of any werewolf action, and the special effects being a joke even for ’95, the bizarre decision was to set the movie in an unincorporated community known as Pioneertown (built in the 40’s in order to provide a backdrop for western features of the time), and all the residents of that town play themselves! Do I need to say that the non-actors deliver terrible performances? It’s a crime the full movie isn’t on YouTube anymore, as that’s probably the easiest way to watch this if you want to punish yourself for an hour and a half. It’s only on DVD overseas and you know it’ll never be ported over here. I mean, much of the runtime is filled with awful country songs (no matter what you think of the genre, this material is putrid) and line dancing! This really is one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life.
How anyone thought this was a good idea, I do not know, and how it got released by New Line Cinema… that still befuddles me today. No wonder why there hasn’t been another Howling movie until just recently, The Howling Reborn, which just came out earlier this month and I’ve heard it be best compared to Twilight, so yeah I’ll avoid that at all costs.
I won't be back until Halloween night due to the rest of the month being busy for me. I'll try to find an interesting and appropriate movie to write about.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Paranormal Activity 3
Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman
Starring: Christopher Nicholas Smith, Lauren Bittner, Jessica Tyler Brown, Chloe Csengery
From: Paramount
Oh, this series… I’ve reviewed the first movie and the second one when they were released but in short, I first heard about the original Paranormal Activity way back in ’07. For two long years I waited to see it, and when I finally did I wasn’t disappointed. Due to some clever marketing it became a shockingly huge hit, guaranteeing a sequel. That proved to be better than I expected. Can they do it once again?
This movie was helmed by the guys who gave us Catfish, a controversial movie due to question of how much of it was actually real. Funny then that they were given a fake documentary to direct.
You’ve probably already seen too much from all the damn commercials (more on that later) but I’ll try not to reveal anything here. Basically, you see sisters Katie and Kristi as kids and you get to find how what they alluded to in the first two movies concerning the strange stuff that happened to them as kids. Their mom’s boyfriend films weddings so thus that is why he has the ability to film stuff at night in 1988. And what references to the late 80’s you see, from the fashion to the big VHS camcorders to best of all, a Teddy Ruxpin doll! I’m old enough to remember them back when they were a huge fad.
As for the movie, it’s not bad at all; I’d just rank it below the first two. It’s a shame as the performances are all fine and like the first two, there’s the feeling of dread for most of it and what does scare you, it works. Some of it is obvious special effects, more so than the first two, but the audience went “oh darn” (or rather, cuss words; I just cleaned it up there) a few times. The problem is, where the story went… I heard some people complain about how in the second movie the expansion on the mythology sort of ruined things as they didn’t like what the story was really about. Well, I’m sure they’ll especially dislike the additions made in this movie to the overall story. Even I was unsure about some of it. I mean, I just thought it was goofy.
Then, there was something I can’t really blame the movie for but particularly put a bee in my bonnet. The ads you saw for this movie seemed to give away a lot. That alone doesn’t make me happy; even worse, one major shot you see in the ads, I was expecting to see in the movie. So of course that clip doesn’t appear in the movie at all! I don’t want to give it away as it’d be a spoiler but I even watched all of the end credits to see if there was a surprise after those; no dice. I was-and still am-pretty peeved about that. As is, the ending you saw was certainly creepy… if open-ended. Despite those quibbles, if you enjoyed the first two, you need to check this out.
I'll be back Tuesday night.
Runtime: 84 minutes
Directed by: Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman
Starring: Christopher Nicholas Smith, Lauren Bittner, Jessica Tyler Brown, Chloe Csengery
From: Paramount
Oh, this series… I’ve reviewed the first movie and the second one when they were released but in short, I first heard about the original Paranormal Activity way back in ’07. For two long years I waited to see it, and when I finally did I wasn’t disappointed. Due to some clever marketing it became a shockingly huge hit, guaranteeing a sequel. That proved to be better than I expected. Can they do it once again?
This movie was helmed by the guys who gave us Catfish, a controversial movie due to question of how much of it was actually real. Funny then that they were given a fake documentary to direct.
You’ve probably already seen too much from all the damn commercials (more on that later) but I’ll try not to reveal anything here. Basically, you see sisters Katie and Kristi as kids and you get to find how what they alluded to in the first two movies concerning the strange stuff that happened to them as kids. Their mom’s boyfriend films weddings so thus that is why he has the ability to film stuff at night in 1988. And what references to the late 80’s you see, from the fashion to the big VHS camcorders to best of all, a Teddy Ruxpin doll! I’m old enough to remember them back when they were a huge fad.
As for the movie, it’s not bad at all; I’d just rank it below the first two. It’s a shame as the performances are all fine and like the first two, there’s the feeling of dread for most of it and what does scare you, it works. Some of it is obvious special effects, more so than the first two, but the audience went “oh darn” (or rather, cuss words; I just cleaned it up there) a few times. The problem is, where the story went… I heard some people complain about how in the second movie the expansion on the mythology sort of ruined things as they didn’t like what the story was really about. Well, I’m sure they’ll especially dislike the additions made in this movie to the overall story. Even I was unsure about some of it. I mean, I just thought it was goofy.
Then, there was something I can’t really blame the movie for but particularly put a bee in my bonnet. The ads you saw for this movie seemed to give away a lot. That alone doesn’t make me happy; even worse, one major shot you see in the ads, I was expecting to see in the movie. So of course that clip doesn’t appear in the movie at all! I don’t want to give it away as it’d be a spoiler but I even watched all of the end credits to see if there was a surprise after those; no dice. I was-and still am-pretty peeved about that. As is, the ending you saw was certainly creepy… if open-ended. Despite those quibbles, if you enjoyed the first two, you need to check this out.
I'll be back Tuesday night.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Screams 3 & 4
Scream 3
Runtime: 116 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Scott Foley
From: Dimension
Scream 4
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, David Arquette
From: Dimension
I actually saw these two movies last week, but waited until this time to talk about the two. Scream 3 actually was an interesting viewing experience, as I only saw about the first half of it before the scratched-up disc from Blockbuster finally stopped working properly. Thus, I had to go on YouTube to finish watching it! I know, but I had to. Hell, there were a few different copies of it on there.
This was the first time I saw the movie since I watched it on the big screen back in 2000 and I got pretty mad at it for a rather stupid plot device (and I’m being literal there with the usage of the word device) which was not only such a cheat for the plot, it was what I would call “impossible technology”, and I say that’s true in 2011, let alone 2000. That and some brief shots were really all that I remembered about the movie.
After watching the movie, there was a good amount of dialogue that I found was entertaining and I chuckled or even laughed at. Maybe it was me, but I laughed at the references to 60 Minutes II, due to how dated it is now. The problem is, the movie didn’t really seem like a Scream flick. It really clashes with the others. It was more about comedy here than blood and guts stuff. I don’t really remember too many of the kills one week later, which isn’t a good sign. It’s obvious that the change of settings to LA (due to the whole Columbine thing scaring the crap out of movie studios at the time) and the constant script changes (including on the set; why it changed so often, I’m not quite sure) really affected things, and not in a good way. Heck, Neve Campbell only being able to work on the movie for a short amount of time-she pretty much plays a supporting role for the majority of the movie-also threw a monkey wrench into things. No wonder why they didn’t release another one of these for 11 years.
And yeah, the plot device thing still made me mad. Now, onto Scream 4.
I watched this movie and I heard some mixed reviews on how good it was. I watched it, and the opening was goofy yet entertaining; it also presented how ham-fisted it was going to be talking about torture porn and the rise of horror remakes. It’s the opposite of clever how the movie discusses those things.
Overall, it had a collection of good/fine moments, but overall as a movie it doesn’t come together all that well. While it was interesting seeing Sidney Prescott as a successful author now and seeing her niece and her pals as the youths of the series (not to mention how the universe is now that there are such things as YouTube and iPhones), there are some stupid moments too which brings things down. It’s a shame as a good amount of the movie is rather entertaining, and it’s much bloodier than the rest of the movies in the series. Both Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere were better than I expected.
Who the killer(s) were… also interesting and that led to some great bits. It’s just that the ending really brings things down. It’s not that great. The way it should have logically ended… I hear that’s how it ended in the script. But the studio changed it and for the worse. If not for that changed ending, Scream 5 could have been a gigantic breath of fresh air. Alas… who knows if there will be a Scream 5 given that worldwide it did fine but in the U.S. it was a disappointment.
I'll be back tomorrow night with a review of Paranormal Activity 3, a movie I'm really looking forward to.
Runtime: 116 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Scott Foley
From: Dimension
Scream 4
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, David Arquette
From: Dimension
I actually saw these two movies last week, but waited until this time to talk about the two. Scream 3 actually was an interesting viewing experience, as I only saw about the first half of it before the scratched-up disc from Blockbuster finally stopped working properly. Thus, I had to go on YouTube to finish watching it! I know, but I had to. Hell, there were a few different copies of it on there.
This was the first time I saw the movie since I watched it on the big screen back in 2000 and I got pretty mad at it for a rather stupid plot device (and I’m being literal there with the usage of the word device) which was not only such a cheat for the plot, it was what I would call “impossible technology”, and I say that’s true in 2011, let alone 2000. That and some brief shots were really all that I remembered about the movie.
After watching the movie, there was a good amount of dialogue that I found was entertaining and I chuckled or even laughed at. Maybe it was me, but I laughed at the references to 60 Minutes II, due to how dated it is now. The problem is, the movie didn’t really seem like a Scream flick. It really clashes with the others. It was more about comedy here than blood and guts stuff. I don’t really remember too many of the kills one week later, which isn’t a good sign. It’s obvious that the change of settings to LA (due to the whole Columbine thing scaring the crap out of movie studios at the time) and the constant script changes (including on the set; why it changed so often, I’m not quite sure) really affected things, and not in a good way. Heck, Neve Campbell only being able to work on the movie for a short amount of time-she pretty much plays a supporting role for the majority of the movie-also threw a monkey wrench into things. No wonder why they didn’t release another one of these for 11 years.
And yeah, the plot device thing still made me mad. Now, onto Scream 4.
I watched this movie and I heard some mixed reviews on how good it was. I watched it, and the opening was goofy yet entertaining; it also presented how ham-fisted it was going to be talking about torture porn and the rise of horror remakes. It’s the opposite of clever how the movie discusses those things.
Overall, it had a collection of good/fine moments, but overall as a movie it doesn’t come together all that well. While it was interesting seeing Sidney Prescott as a successful author now and seeing her niece and her pals as the youths of the series (not to mention how the universe is now that there are such things as YouTube and iPhones), there are some stupid moments too which brings things down. It’s a shame as a good amount of the movie is rather entertaining, and it’s much bloodier than the rest of the movies in the series. Both Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere were better than I expected.
Who the killer(s) were… also interesting and that led to some great bits. It’s just that the ending really brings things down. It’s not that great. The way it should have logically ended… I hear that’s how it ended in the script. But the studio changed it and for the worse. If not for that changed ending, Scream 5 could have been a gigantic breath of fresh air. Alas… who knows if there will be a Scream 5 given that worldwide it did fine but in the U.S. it was a disappointment.
I'll be back tomorrow night with a review of Paranormal Activity 3, a movie I'm really looking forward to.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Maniac
Maniac (1980)
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: William Lustig
Starring: Joe Spinell, Caroline Munro, Abigail Clayton, Kelly Piper
From: Magnum Motion Pictures
For awhile now I’ve heard of this controversial movie, which was release unrated and even now in some countries is still banned. Yet I haven’t felt like seeing it. Well, because it’s coming out on Blu-Ray soon, Grindhouse Releasing and Blue Underground decided to release this to any sort of art-house and indy joint that wanted to show it. Well, the hipster hangout known as the Enzian decided to do just that, so just this past Saturday I watched it for the very first time, and in front of a small but appreciative audience.
The plot… I’ll yank it right from the IMDb. “A schizoid serial killer randomly stalks and kills various young women in New York, which he sees as revenge for the mistreatment he got while being raised by his own abusive mother.” That sums things up pretty well. That man, Frank Zito (Spinell; he also came up with this story; I’m not sure what that says about him) otherwise is a normal person. But in private you see that he’s a crazy person who is still haunted by the memories of his late mother so he randomly kills people, and when they’re women he scalps them and uses their hair to dress up the various mannequins he has in his apartment.
Between that, the grainy and naturalistic look the movie has, and how tense things are, that makes the movie rather uncomfortable to watch at times. Oh, and all the violence you see contributes to that too. Tom Savini (who also plays a disco guy who almost has sex with a woman in the backseat of his car) does a great job with the special effects and the best one is where you get to see Tom’s head explode in graphic detail via shotgun blast to the head.
What I thought of this… I was skeeved out more than anything else. It isn’t a bad movie by any means, but it does leave you feeling creeped out due to how it’s presented. I’ll say that as a compliment, as I presume that was their goal. It’s not all gore and kills. There are some really suspenseful scenes which work very well, and there’s also some things which made me laugh and helped liven up the mood.
First off, there’s the idea that an average schlub like Frank Zito could successfully get more than one date with a fine-looking British babe like Caroline Munro. But even better was this upbeat disco song you heard during one scene. It definitely is the opposite of the rest of the movie, which usually has a groovy synth score.
So, if you’re brave enough you should give this a go. Just be warned this isn’t the easiest movie in the world to watch. I’ll be back Thursday afternoon with two reviews in one.
Runtime: 87 minutes
Directed by: William Lustig
Starring: Joe Spinell, Caroline Munro, Abigail Clayton, Kelly Piper
From: Magnum Motion Pictures
For awhile now I’ve heard of this controversial movie, which was release unrated and even now in some countries is still banned. Yet I haven’t felt like seeing it. Well, because it’s coming out on Blu-Ray soon, Grindhouse Releasing and Blue Underground decided to release this to any sort of art-house and indy joint that wanted to show it. Well, the hipster hangout known as the Enzian decided to do just that, so just this past Saturday I watched it for the very first time, and in front of a small but appreciative audience.
The plot… I’ll yank it right from the IMDb. “A schizoid serial killer randomly stalks and kills various young women in New York, which he sees as revenge for the mistreatment he got while being raised by his own abusive mother.” That sums things up pretty well. That man, Frank Zito (Spinell; he also came up with this story; I’m not sure what that says about him) otherwise is a normal person. But in private you see that he’s a crazy person who is still haunted by the memories of his late mother so he randomly kills people, and when they’re women he scalps them and uses their hair to dress up the various mannequins he has in his apartment.
Between that, the grainy and naturalistic look the movie has, and how tense things are, that makes the movie rather uncomfortable to watch at times. Oh, and all the violence you see contributes to that too. Tom Savini (who also plays a disco guy who almost has sex with a woman in the backseat of his car) does a great job with the special effects and the best one is where you get to see Tom’s head explode in graphic detail via shotgun blast to the head.
What I thought of this… I was skeeved out more than anything else. It isn’t a bad movie by any means, but it does leave you feeling creeped out due to how it’s presented. I’ll say that as a compliment, as I presume that was their goal. It’s not all gore and kills. There are some really suspenseful scenes which work very well, and there’s also some things which made me laugh and helped liven up the mood.
First off, there’s the idea that an average schlub like Frank Zito could successfully get more than one date with a fine-looking British babe like Caroline Munro. But even better was this upbeat disco song you heard during one scene. It definitely is the opposite of the rest of the movie, which usually has a groovy synth score.
So, if you’re brave enough you should give this a go. Just be warned this isn’t the easiest movie in the world to watch. I’ll be back Thursday afternoon with two reviews in one.
Monday, October 17, 2011
So...
Due to my weekend being busier than expected, I'll be back in about 24 hours time with a new review.
I can promise you, though, that the rest of the month will include reviews of such things as Ghostbusters, Paranormal Activity 3, Screams 3 and 4, and some other things.
I can promise you, though, that the rest of the month will include reviews of such things as Ghostbusters, Paranormal Activity 3, Screams 3 and 4, and some other things.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Aliens
Aliens (1986)
Runtime: 154 minutes (The Director’s Cut, anyhow)
Directed by: James Cameron
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, Carrie Henn
From: 20th Century Fox
Now, if you want to know which films I rank highest among my favorites, I don’t have a particular list of which ones are the best but this one is up there somewhere in the discussion. As much as I enjoy Alien and its claustrophobic and intense setting (one of these days I’ll review that), I more enjoyed this pumped-up macho adrenaline rush where the action and horror genres are melded together perfectly, along with a great story and such themes as being a mother and trust issues.
It’s difficult to try and figure out what to say about this that will come off as intelligent and well-written given that many people have done so before. So, that’s why I’ll be brief here. I will say that I watched the movie via the Alien Anthology Blu-Ray collection and while the print there isn’t crystal clear it still looks better than it did on DVD, for sure. This long review of the set includes thoughts on all four movies and I agree with a lot of what is said about Aliens.
What I’ll say I enjoy about the movie the most-besides it turning out to be an almost non-stop thrill ride for the second half-is that the first half takes its time building up the story and introducing the characters and how they interact with each other. They’re all very entertaining, especially Hudson (Bill Paxton). The movie often throws funny lines out there, lightening all the tension that’s going on. I don’t mind at all that the movie is 2 ½ hours long as it doesn’t seem that length when you’re watching it. The action also more than delivers and even in 2011 it’s a great rollercoaster of excitement and just plain emotion.
If I could see it on the big screen one of these days it’d be the cat’s pajamas. I got to see Alien that way a few years ago; while it was likely a DVD projection (it turned out to be the Director’s Cut that Ridley Scott did which he didn’t even want to do but had to do just so there’d be a different version of the movie out there) I still thought it was great watching a classic in that format. Watching Aliens that way would make me quite excited. I mean, if more movies were like that (in terms of action, story, and not being insulting to the audience's intelligence) I'd be a happy camper.
I’ll be back on Sunday night, where I plan on discussing a more obscure film than Aliens but I will be watching that for the first time and it happens to be on the big screen and I’ve heard some good things about.
Runtime: 154 minutes (The Director’s Cut, anyhow)
Directed by: James Cameron
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, Carrie Henn
From: 20th Century Fox
Now, if you want to know which films I rank highest among my favorites, I don’t have a particular list of which ones are the best but this one is up there somewhere in the discussion. As much as I enjoy Alien and its claustrophobic and intense setting (one of these days I’ll review that), I more enjoyed this pumped-up macho adrenaline rush where the action and horror genres are melded together perfectly, along with a great story and such themes as being a mother and trust issues.
It’s difficult to try and figure out what to say about this that will come off as intelligent and well-written given that many people have done so before. So, that’s why I’ll be brief here. I will say that I watched the movie via the Alien Anthology Blu-Ray collection and while the print there isn’t crystal clear it still looks better than it did on DVD, for sure. This long review of the set includes thoughts on all four movies and I agree with a lot of what is said about Aliens.
What I’ll say I enjoy about the movie the most-besides it turning out to be an almost non-stop thrill ride for the second half-is that the first half takes its time building up the story and introducing the characters and how they interact with each other. They’re all very entertaining, especially Hudson (Bill Paxton). The movie often throws funny lines out there, lightening all the tension that’s going on. I don’t mind at all that the movie is 2 ½ hours long as it doesn’t seem that length when you’re watching it. The action also more than delivers and even in 2011 it’s a great rollercoaster of excitement and just plain emotion.
If I could see it on the big screen one of these days it’d be the cat’s pajamas. I got to see Alien that way a few years ago; while it was likely a DVD projection (it turned out to be the Director’s Cut that Ridley Scott did which he didn’t even want to do but had to do just so there’d be a different version of the movie out there) I still thought it was great watching a classic in that format. Watching Aliens that way would make me quite excited. I mean, if more movies were like that (in terms of action, story, and not being insulting to the audience's intelligence) I'd be a happy camper.
I’ll be back on Sunday night, where I plan on discussing a more obscure film than Aliens but I will be watching that for the first time and it happens to be on the big screen and I’ve heard some good things about.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Screams 1 and 2
Scream (1996)
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, Skeet Ulrich, Rose McGowan, Matthew Lilliard
From: Dimension
Scream 2 (1997)
Runtime: 120 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, Jerry O’Connell, Liev Schreiber, David Arquette
From: Dimension
Here’s a two-fer, which I’ll say counts as two reviews. As I’ve heard some real mixed reviews on Scream 4 and never saw it on the big screen, I figured that eventually I’d watch it, but I should re-watch the first three as I hadn’t seen them in years, and the third one I never saw after I saw it on the big screen and got pretty ticked off with it, but I’ll talk more about the reason why once I watch and review that movie.
The first movie certainly saved the ass of the horror industry when it came out in ’96, as for awhile there it seemed to be on life support. It truly was something unique at the time. Now… but let me review the movies in order.
I don’t need to explain the two plots as I’m sure everyone’s familiar with them by now. Instead, let me talk about what I thought of the films viewing them in 2011. The first movie, it was SUCH a 90’s movie. I mean, it could have only been made in that decade. It was so 90’s, you expected to hear Hootie & The Blowfish and the Gin Blossoms. I mean, the characters were in your face, yelling at you (especially the guys played by Jamie Kennedy and Matthew Lilliard… not that anyone should be surprised those two guys would ham it up to a tremendous degree), and there’s a lot of dialogue which tries to make it look like the movie is oh so smart with its horror references. In the age of the Internet and all that, I don’t know how impressive that looks now. There’s also the general goofiness with the series, such as the whole relationship with the characters played by later married then divorced couple David Arquette and Courteney Cox.
Despite those gripes, it was still an entertaining movie. There was a nice amount of gore and blood. There were many funny moments to go with the scares. Henry Winkler’s character of the school principal was more entertaining than I remembered. Who the killers were and their motivations were still fun. Skeet Ulrich looked like a bootleg version of Johnny Depp in the 80’s and early 90’s. It was still interesting how they bended genre clichés. So, despite some annoyances while viewing it with modern eyes, I’m glad I decided to revisit what ended up being an important movie in the genre.
Soon after I saw the first, I watched the sequel on a Showtime channel, as that is the only movie in the series that my local Blockbuster doesn’t have. My opinions on that… it was both better and worse than the first, so it’s tough to judge. It was a more entertaining movie and the hip references didn’t seem so shoehorned in. The stakes were indeed raised as stated by the Jamie Kennedy character. There were more deaths and they were bloodier. Yet, it was overlong, you could tell that things were changed due to what had to be a really early example of a script leaking out via the Internet, and the ending wasn’t quite as good as the first; also, with that there was an overload of characters appearing, I say. Still, it was an acceptable way to spend two hours.
One thing that I was instantly reminded of while watching the two movies was how Scary Movie (the original title for Scream) ended up doing a nice job of spoofing the series. If only Scary Movie 2 would have been any good, and in my world I can pretend that Scary Movies 3 and 4 weren’t made. I never saw them and I understand that’s for the best.
I don’t know when but eventually I’ll watch 3 and 4. It may be soon and it may be not so soon. It depends on what I find on TV or pull out of the giant pile of “to watch” movies. I will be back on Wednesday, no matter what.
Runtime: 111 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, Skeet Ulrich, Rose McGowan, Matthew Lilliard
From: Dimension
Scream 2 (1997)
Runtime: 120 minutes
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, Jerry O’Connell, Liev Schreiber, David Arquette
From: Dimension
Here’s a two-fer, which I’ll say counts as two reviews. As I’ve heard some real mixed reviews on Scream 4 and never saw it on the big screen, I figured that eventually I’d watch it, but I should re-watch the first three as I hadn’t seen them in years, and the third one I never saw after I saw it on the big screen and got pretty ticked off with it, but I’ll talk more about the reason why once I watch and review that movie.
The first movie certainly saved the ass of the horror industry when it came out in ’96, as for awhile there it seemed to be on life support. It truly was something unique at the time. Now… but let me review the movies in order.
I don’t need to explain the two plots as I’m sure everyone’s familiar with them by now. Instead, let me talk about what I thought of the films viewing them in 2011. The first movie, it was SUCH a 90’s movie. I mean, it could have only been made in that decade. It was so 90’s, you expected to hear Hootie & The Blowfish and the Gin Blossoms. I mean, the characters were in your face, yelling at you (especially the guys played by Jamie Kennedy and Matthew Lilliard… not that anyone should be surprised those two guys would ham it up to a tremendous degree), and there’s a lot of dialogue which tries to make it look like the movie is oh so smart with its horror references. In the age of the Internet and all that, I don’t know how impressive that looks now. There’s also the general goofiness with the series, such as the whole relationship with the characters played by later married then divorced couple David Arquette and Courteney Cox.
Despite those gripes, it was still an entertaining movie. There was a nice amount of gore and blood. There were many funny moments to go with the scares. Henry Winkler’s character of the school principal was more entertaining than I remembered. Who the killers were and their motivations were still fun. Skeet Ulrich looked like a bootleg version of Johnny Depp in the 80’s and early 90’s. It was still interesting how they bended genre clichés. So, despite some annoyances while viewing it with modern eyes, I’m glad I decided to revisit what ended up being an important movie in the genre.
Soon after I saw the first, I watched the sequel on a Showtime channel, as that is the only movie in the series that my local Blockbuster doesn’t have. My opinions on that… it was both better and worse than the first, so it’s tough to judge. It was a more entertaining movie and the hip references didn’t seem so shoehorned in. The stakes were indeed raised as stated by the Jamie Kennedy character. There were more deaths and they were bloodier. Yet, it was overlong, you could tell that things were changed due to what had to be a really early example of a script leaking out via the Internet, and the ending wasn’t quite as good as the first; also, with that there was an overload of characters appearing, I say. Still, it was an acceptable way to spend two hours.
One thing that I was instantly reminded of while watching the two movies was how Scary Movie (the original title for Scream) ended up doing a nice job of spoofing the series. If only Scary Movie 2 would have been any good, and in my world I can pretend that Scary Movies 3 and 4 weren’t made. I never saw them and I understand that’s for the best.
I don’t know when but eventually I’ll watch 3 and 4. It may be soon and it may be not so soon. It depends on what I find on TV or pull out of the giant pile of “to watch” movies. I will be back on Wednesday, no matter what.
Friday, October 7, 2011
RIP Charles Napier
So, due to my schedule, I didn't have the time to do a review. Instead, I'll say RIP to Charles Napier, who passed away on Wednesday. I've only seen a few of his films but he was great as Murdock in the second Rambo, where he played a great bad guy who also happened to be extremely sweaty. I also enjoyed him in Silence of the Lambs and even the Austin Powers movies. I was sad when I heard he passed away.
I'll be back Monday afternoon. The rest of the month I'll try to be a little more active; I also think I'll mainly be doing horror films, but don't quote me on that.
I'll be back Monday afternoon. The rest of the month I'll try to be a little more active; I also think I'll mainly be doing horror films, but don't quote me on that.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
My 200th Review: Tucker & Dale vs. Evil
Yes, this is the 200th review I've done. It doesn't seem like I've been doing this for that long, but I started a little more than 2 years ago and for the most part I've enjoyed doing this, and I hope to be doing this for years to come.
Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)
87% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 79 reviews)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Eli Craig
Starring: Tyler Labine, Alan Tudyk, Katrina Bowden, Jesse Moss
From: Magnet Releasing
For awhile now I’ve heard about this horror comedy spoof and finally it was a few days ago that it started playing for a two night run at the artsy-fartsy Enzian Theatre. It turns out it was a good idea to listen to the strong praise I’ve heard from this and go out and see it in front of a crowd.
To copy and paste the plot from IMDb: Two lovable West Virginian hillbillies, are headed to their "fixer-upper" vacation cabin to drink some beer, do some fishin', and have a good time. But when they run into a group of preppy college kids who assume from their looks that they must be in-bred, chainsaw wielding killers, Tucker & Dale's vacation takes a bloody & hilarious turn for the worse.
That pretty much sums things up rather well. It’s a spoof where a pair of good old boys get into a bloody case of mistaken identity where some things happen that unwittingly convince some dopey college kids that they’re crazy killers you’d expect in a Rob Zombie movie. At first I wasn’t sure about it but as I stuck with the film, I understood why it’s been so highly praised. It’s often quite funny. The title guys are loveable hicks who are simple country folk and love drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and fishing on the local lake. The college kids prove to be obnoxious and annoying, so you don’t feel bad that “accidents” began happening to them, further convincing them in error the rednecks are evil folks.
While the movie is not perfect and the last part wasn’t as great as the others, it’s just a fun and entertaining movie to watch; also, for you gorehounds, it does deliver on that front. There’s a lot of blood and guts to see. However, it’s also a nice movie as it actually has a heart and a nice relationship between two of the characters. No, Tucker & Dale don’t fall in love with each other!
I understand the movie is also out on demand in various locations. No matter how you see it, this is a good old time where you see various horror tropes get poked at. It actually does live up to the hype.
As an aside, this is the director's first feature-length film... and his mom is Sally Field! No joke.
I'll be back Friday night with a new review.
Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)
87% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 79 reviews)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Eli Craig
Starring: Tyler Labine, Alan Tudyk, Katrina Bowden, Jesse Moss
From: Magnet Releasing
For awhile now I’ve heard about this horror comedy spoof and finally it was a few days ago that it started playing for a two night run at the artsy-fartsy Enzian Theatre. It turns out it was a good idea to listen to the strong praise I’ve heard from this and go out and see it in front of a crowd.
To copy and paste the plot from IMDb: Two lovable West Virginian hillbillies, are headed to their "fixer-upper" vacation cabin to drink some beer, do some fishin', and have a good time. But when they run into a group of preppy college kids who assume from their looks that they must be in-bred, chainsaw wielding killers, Tucker & Dale's vacation takes a bloody & hilarious turn for the worse.
That pretty much sums things up rather well. It’s a spoof where a pair of good old boys get into a bloody case of mistaken identity where some things happen that unwittingly convince some dopey college kids that they’re crazy killers you’d expect in a Rob Zombie movie. At first I wasn’t sure about it but as I stuck with the film, I understood why it’s been so highly praised. It’s often quite funny. The title guys are loveable hicks who are simple country folk and love drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and fishing on the local lake. The college kids prove to be obnoxious and annoying, so you don’t feel bad that “accidents” began happening to them, further convincing them in error the rednecks are evil folks.
While the movie is not perfect and the last part wasn’t as great as the others, it’s just a fun and entertaining movie to watch; also, for you gorehounds, it does deliver on that front. There’s a lot of blood and guts to see. However, it’s also a nice movie as it actually has a heart and a nice relationship between two of the characters. No, Tucker & Dale don’t fall in love with each other!
I understand the movie is also out on demand in various locations. No matter how you see it, this is a good old time where you see various horror tropes get poked at. It actually does live up to the hype.
As an aside, this is the director's first feature-length film... and his mom is Sally Field! No joke.
I'll be back Friday night with a new review.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Fast Five
Fast Five (2011)
78% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 175 reviews)
Runtime: 130 minutes
Directed by: Justin Lin
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, The Rock, Joaquim de Almeida
From: Universal
Here is something I wasn’t actually expecting to see, at least not for awhile. After all, I’ve only watched the first two movies in this franchise, the first one being entertaining and the second one less so. I’m not a fan of the idea of “boy racers” goofily modifying their Honda Civics or Mitsubishis with nitrous or whatever to race each other; I’ll never understand it and that’s why for a long time now when I’ve seen a vehicle like that I say that the car was “The Fast & The Furious’ed”. Yet, when this film came out it got really strong reviews not just from critics (shockingly enough) but from action fans on various messageboards who usually don’t care for this kind of movie.
But, as AMC is doing a deal until Thursday the 6th at its IMAX joints where for only 7 bucks you can watch this, Star Trek, and Inception. Not a bad deal at all. I decided to take the plunge and watch it that way. This proved to be a wise decision.
From remembering the two movies (and reading what happened in the last one via Wikipedia) it wasn’t too difficult to follow this. This wasn’t really about cars like earlier in the series and instead this was basically a heist movie, which is fine with me. To try and not spoil too much, the familiar gang end up in Brazil and they do a job for cash. Things go awry and for revenge they go and target an evil drug dealer and his cash (de Almeida, looking like a mean Brazilian Mario Andretti); as those guys are wanted fugitives of the law, the U.S. sends some Diplomatic Security Services guys, led by Hobbs (The Rock) to get them back. All three fight with each other and its wild stuff and it’s never boring.
Overall, I have to say that while I usually don’t care for movies that go way out to be absolutely preposterous and ridiculous, in this case it’s just that this may have been the most ridiculous movie I’ve ever seen! Yet they went balls-out and due to how entertaining the cast was (I’m sure they had a blast while making this) I actually got into all the impossible things I was seeing and my brain took a vacation as I went along for the ride. At times it does feel rather long but otherwise it was a story which wasn’t boring and you ended up rooting for a bunch of people who were on the wrong side of the law.
The movie looked great in the IMAX format. To be honest, I didn’t mind looking at Gal Gadot (a very nice-looking gal, for sure) in that format either. The action was fast-paced and yet for the most part was actually easy to follow and wasn’t that shaky-cam crap. Rio (or rather, Puerto Rico standing in for Rio) looked very scenic; and of course there’s a lot of action to witness. The last 20 or 25 minutes of the movie… totally devoid of logic, but pretty amazing to watch nonetheless. I can see why a lot of action fans want to see director Lin helm big projects in the future.
I tell you, it’s obvious that there’s going to be a sixth in this franchise. Besides the outrageous amount of money it made at the box office, I did stick around to see the teaser at the end of the first part of the end credits. I understand that’s about as ridiculous as everything else, but now I’m actually looking forward to watching the sequel… and even watching all the movies in the franchise, including the third one with Sonna Chiba apparently dressing like a pimp and the oldest kid from Home Improvement.
By the way, how can I hate a movie which either as a code name or as his real name has the Korean guy named Han Seoul-Lo? Now there is a pretty awesome messageboard name for people to use.
I’ll be back probably around this time tomorrow for my next review.
78% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 175 reviews)
Runtime: 130 minutes
Directed by: Justin Lin
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, The Rock, Joaquim de Almeida
From: Universal
Here is something I wasn’t actually expecting to see, at least not for awhile. After all, I’ve only watched the first two movies in this franchise, the first one being entertaining and the second one less so. I’m not a fan of the idea of “boy racers” goofily modifying their Honda Civics or Mitsubishis with nitrous or whatever to race each other; I’ll never understand it and that’s why for a long time now when I’ve seen a vehicle like that I say that the car was “The Fast & The Furious’ed”. Yet, when this film came out it got really strong reviews not just from critics (shockingly enough) but from action fans on various messageboards who usually don’t care for this kind of movie.
But, as AMC is doing a deal until Thursday the 6th at its IMAX joints where for only 7 bucks you can watch this, Star Trek, and Inception. Not a bad deal at all. I decided to take the plunge and watch it that way. This proved to be a wise decision.
From remembering the two movies (and reading what happened in the last one via Wikipedia) it wasn’t too difficult to follow this. This wasn’t really about cars like earlier in the series and instead this was basically a heist movie, which is fine with me. To try and not spoil too much, the familiar gang end up in Brazil and they do a job for cash. Things go awry and for revenge they go and target an evil drug dealer and his cash (de Almeida, looking like a mean Brazilian Mario Andretti); as those guys are wanted fugitives of the law, the U.S. sends some Diplomatic Security Services guys, led by Hobbs (The Rock) to get them back. All three fight with each other and its wild stuff and it’s never boring.
Overall, I have to say that while I usually don’t care for movies that go way out to be absolutely preposterous and ridiculous, in this case it’s just that this may have been the most ridiculous movie I’ve ever seen! Yet they went balls-out and due to how entertaining the cast was (I’m sure they had a blast while making this) I actually got into all the impossible things I was seeing and my brain took a vacation as I went along for the ride. At times it does feel rather long but otherwise it was a story which wasn’t boring and you ended up rooting for a bunch of people who were on the wrong side of the law.
The movie looked great in the IMAX format. To be honest, I didn’t mind looking at Gal Gadot (a very nice-looking gal, for sure) in that format either. The action was fast-paced and yet for the most part was actually easy to follow and wasn’t that shaky-cam crap. Rio (or rather, Puerto Rico standing in for Rio) looked very scenic; and of course there’s a lot of action to witness. The last 20 or 25 minutes of the movie… totally devoid of logic, but pretty amazing to watch nonetheless. I can see why a lot of action fans want to see director Lin helm big projects in the future.
I tell you, it’s obvious that there’s going to be a sixth in this franchise. Besides the outrageous amount of money it made at the box office, I did stick around to see the teaser at the end of the first part of the end credits. I understand that’s about as ridiculous as everything else, but now I’m actually looking forward to watching the sequel… and even watching all the movies in the franchise, including the third one with Sonna Chiba apparently dressing like a pimp and the oldest kid from Home Improvement.
By the way, how can I hate a movie which either as a code name or as his real name has the Korean guy named Han Seoul-Lo? Now there is a pretty awesome messageboard name for people to use.
I’ll be back probably around this time tomorrow for my next review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)