Turkish Mad Max (Olume Son Adim) (1983)
Runtime: 77 minutes
Directed by: Cetin Inanc
Starring: Cuneyt Arkin, Emel Turner, Yildirim Gencer, Nazan Ayas
From: Anit Film
Here's a different sort of review from me. I explain it all below in what I wrote about it for Letterboxd, but it is a Turkish film called Death's Last Step (which is pretty awesome) and somehow it became known as Turkish Mad Max even though it has nothing in common with Mad Max. My review is below:
Here is something quite unusual from me, a review of a super-obscure foreign film which is not dubbed or subtitled yet I had to see it anyhow; in this case, it's something that's been called TURKISH MAD MAX, so how could I not watch it? I did in fact find out about this movie from Letterboxd.
The title is pretty inaccurate, BTW; I don't even know what to compare it to, so I'll say it's more a case where three random people go looking for a kidnapped professor, who is said to have found a cure for leukemia (!), but boy is there a lot of lunacy involved. It shouldn't be a surprise considering it's from the director (Cetin Inanc) and star (the alpha male known as Cuneyt Arkin) of... TURKISH STAR WARS. Yes, I've seen that and one day I will again so I can give it a proper review here but note that it's not quite as deranged as that... what is, though?
I looked at a few reviews of it to get a general idea of what it's about but otherwise I winged it, trying to figure out what's going on without knowing a word of Turkish. Note that yes this indeed is hilariously inept on a frequent basis. It also looks at least a decade older than its 1983 release date. Let me mention some of the highlights:
* Arkin forces a bad guy to eat a packet of heroin, which suspiciously looks like the power from powdered donuts.
* Arkin is such an alpha, he plays cards while waiting for a gaggle of bad guys to show up, which he dispatches by throwing knives at them. Of course he often does his version of kung fu.
* The second hero (Yildirim Gencer, sort of a Turkish Lee Van Cleef, or maybe it's a mix of Van Cleef and Robert Loggia) shows up, and boy does he ever. You see him make out with a young woman (he's a middle-aged man) in a blue bikini as a disco song plays in the background. I knew right away which one the filmmakers stole. It's Have a Cigar by Rosebud. Yes, it actually is a remake of the Pink Floyd song and it is as strange as you'd expect it to be. Arkin shows up, says a few words... and it's implied that they both “hang out” with the bikinied babe.
* The third hero is a lady (Emel Tumer) and I don't think I've ever seen a motion picture gratuitously show off the main women in its cast (her and another lady we meet later on; the two heroes come off as tremendous horndogs). Sure, the women we see are attractive ladies and all but it becomes downright absurd how often it happens and how closely they zoom in on certain bodyparts. Anyhow, her intro was a ripoff of Marion's intro from Raiders of the Lost Ark, except that she and a guy with a giant mustache downs glasses of beer. He tries to-ahem-motorboat her, and a giant brawl breaks out.
* Things happen, such as Arkin flipping a coin more often than Harvey Dent and Tumer ending up in a wet t-shirt with no bra on. Yes.
* A form of the gearing up montage happens. Arkin wears a leather jacket and a bandolero, Gencer dresses up like Han Solo, and Tumer's outfit includes wearing short-shorts where her butt is hanging out. Oh, and the heroes are the ones who do a version of waterboarding.
* Is this like a proto version of The Expendables?
* Once they start the rescue mission, the movie is full of shootings, exploding bullets (yes, exploding; also, the few times the filmmakers try to show muzzle flash, it's animated and wow does it look daffy), Turkish Kung Fu, and other goofiness.
I am not quite sure how to rate this so I'll go with 3 stars, as while it's a gas throughout the first act is stronger-or at least more hilarious to me-than the other two acts, where all the action tends to blend together. If you've ever seen any of these off-the-wall Turkish movies, it is worth seeing this one.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Thursday, November 26, 2015
The 'Burbs
The 'Burbs (1989)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Joe Dante
Starring: Tom Hanks, Bruce Dern, Rick Ducommun, Wendy Schaal, Carrie Fisher
From: Universal/Imagine Entertainment
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I watched this movie last night; I had seen it before but that was a long time ago. It'll be gone from Netflix in a few days, so that's why I saw it at that time. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
At the end of the month several films I have in my Netflix Instant queue will leave the service; I won't have the time to watch them all but I still wanted to see more than one of them. This movie is one of those that will soon be gone, maybe forever. I have watched this before but that was many years ago.
I presume many are familiar with the plot... if not, it's a dark comic look at typical suburban life. It's entirely set in a small neighborhood; the opening of the movie shows on a globe that it takes place in the American Midwest, Iowa to be more specific; it was mainly filmed on a studio lot. It appears to be an average neighborhood but you see that its denizens are all colorful characters. Ray (Tom Hanks) wishes to enjoy a week of vacation at home, but his new next door neighbors-the Klopek family-don't take care of the exterior and they are never seen. His paranoid pal Art (the late Rick Ducommun) and the ex-military Lieutenant Mark (Bruce Dern, who never not wears incredible clothing throughout; there's plenty of both camouflage and Hawaiian shirts) are convinced that something is very wrong with the Klopeks, and his friends really rile up poor Ray.
The movie is definitely uneven and I can't say it's great; yet, I still think it's fine and entertaining. Like I said it's full of colorful characters, from the leads to the strange neighbors, and there's even Corey Feldman, who plays the exact sort of character you'd expect Corey Feldman to play from about '85 to '90, meaning “a real smartass”. There are still plenty of laughs as typical suburban life is lampooned as really, who knows what your neighbors are like behind closed doors. This is like a wacky version of Rear Window, really.
There are other films from Joe Dante which I would rate higher (I just haven't watched any of them in the time I have been a member of this site), such as the Gremlins movies or The Howling but I still enjoy this entry in his filmography, as it is something different from the norm and it was nicely directed by him. There's also a great angry soliloquy from Hanks back in the day when he did these sorts of comedies rather than the “serious” movies he's done in the past 20 years plus.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Joe Dante
Starring: Tom Hanks, Bruce Dern, Rick Ducommun, Wendy Schaal, Carrie Fisher
From: Universal/Imagine Entertainment
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I watched this movie last night; I had seen it before but that was a long time ago. It'll be gone from Netflix in a few days, so that's why I saw it at that time. I talk about it in my Letterboxd review below:
At the end of the month several films I have in my Netflix Instant queue will leave the service; I won't have the time to watch them all but I still wanted to see more than one of them. This movie is one of those that will soon be gone, maybe forever. I have watched this before but that was many years ago.
I presume many are familiar with the plot... if not, it's a dark comic look at typical suburban life. It's entirely set in a small neighborhood; the opening of the movie shows on a globe that it takes place in the American Midwest, Iowa to be more specific; it was mainly filmed on a studio lot. It appears to be an average neighborhood but you see that its denizens are all colorful characters. Ray (Tom Hanks) wishes to enjoy a week of vacation at home, but his new next door neighbors-the Klopek family-don't take care of the exterior and they are never seen. His paranoid pal Art (the late Rick Ducommun) and the ex-military Lieutenant Mark (Bruce Dern, who never not wears incredible clothing throughout; there's plenty of both camouflage and Hawaiian shirts) are convinced that something is very wrong with the Klopeks, and his friends really rile up poor Ray.
The movie is definitely uneven and I can't say it's great; yet, I still think it's fine and entertaining. Like I said it's full of colorful characters, from the leads to the strange neighbors, and there's even Corey Feldman, who plays the exact sort of character you'd expect Corey Feldman to play from about '85 to '90, meaning “a real smartass”. There are still plenty of laughs as typical suburban life is lampooned as really, who knows what your neighbors are like behind closed doors. This is like a wacky version of Rear Window, really.
There are other films from Joe Dante which I would rate higher (I just haven't watched any of them in the time I have been a member of this site), such as the Gremlins movies or The Howling but I still enjoy this entry in his filmography, as it is something different from the norm and it was nicely directed by him. There's also a great angry soliloquy from Hanks back in the day when he did these sorts of comedies rather than the “serious” movies he's done in the past 20 years plus.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
The Internship
The Internship (2013)
34% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 158 reviews)
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Shawn Levy
Starring: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Josh Brenner, Dylan O'Brien, Max Minghella
From: 20th Century Fox/Regency Enterprises
I apologize for being gone for so long with no word; I was preoccupied with other things, including going to a gaming event in Orlando on both Friday and Saturday. I'll try to get back in the swing of things but I may be sporadic for the rest of the year. As for this movie, it was not my choice to see this, and I'll leave it at that. The Letterboxd review is below:
The past few days I have been preoccupied with other things so I have not had the time to watch any films. Those things aren't anything bad, and I'll leave it at that. I was not expecting this movie to be the one I saw last night for a review, but without going into details on why, I was somewhere else and I had no voice in the matter so I had to see this, despite not having any desire to ever do so. I saw the PG-13 version and not the unrated version, although I highly doubt that would change my rating at all. Turns out, this was pretty bad, and the common complaint of “This is just a 2 hour commercial for a company that does not need such a plug” isn't even my biggest gripe with it.
I presume most are familiar with the plot so I won't spend much time describing how two dopey man-children in Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson lose their crappy jobs so they decide to apply for a Google internship and of course they act like dopes at first so there's a clash with the “youths” they have to work with but of course things change and they get along and yawn...
What constitutes modern humor just doesn't interest me. As the lack of modern superhero movie reviews I've done reflects how much I care about such things, me not watching most of the comedies that have come out in recent years speaks volumes. Considering that much of the “humor” was “a bunch of incessant babbling that sometimes included 80's references”, it doesn't cut the mustard for me. I only chuckled a few times and that includes a lewd gag. Then, there's the fact that this is a commercial for Google to show off how cool their headquarters is, yet the place doesn't look appealing to work at, as not only is it filled with D-bag interns, but the guy who leads that internship is a gigantic A-hole; what a great plug for Google!
The movie tries to have some poignant moments and I guess that was OK but overall this was just not good; it's filled with eye-rolling cliches, gross characters and like I said, I did not get many laughs at all out of this. The fact that there aren't too many films that I've seen in my life (whether or not I have them listed here) that have had either Mr. Vaughn or Mr. Wilson, that again speaks volumes.
34% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 158 reviews)
Runtime: 119 minutes
Directed by: Shawn Levy
Starring: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Josh Brenner, Dylan O'Brien, Max Minghella
From: 20th Century Fox/Regency Enterprises
I apologize for being gone for so long with no word; I was preoccupied with other things, including going to a gaming event in Orlando on both Friday and Saturday. I'll try to get back in the swing of things but I may be sporadic for the rest of the year. As for this movie, it was not my choice to see this, and I'll leave it at that. The Letterboxd review is below:
The past few days I have been preoccupied with other things so I have not had the time to watch any films. Those things aren't anything bad, and I'll leave it at that. I was not expecting this movie to be the one I saw last night for a review, but without going into details on why, I was somewhere else and I had no voice in the matter so I had to see this, despite not having any desire to ever do so. I saw the PG-13 version and not the unrated version, although I highly doubt that would change my rating at all. Turns out, this was pretty bad, and the common complaint of “This is just a 2 hour commercial for a company that does not need such a plug” isn't even my biggest gripe with it.
I presume most are familiar with the plot so I won't spend much time describing how two dopey man-children in Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson lose their crappy jobs so they decide to apply for a Google internship and of course they act like dopes at first so there's a clash with the “youths” they have to work with but of course things change and they get along and yawn...
What constitutes modern humor just doesn't interest me. As the lack of modern superhero movie reviews I've done reflects how much I care about such things, me not watching most of the comedies that have come out in recent years speaks volumes. Considering that much of the “humor” was “a bunch of incessant babbling that sometimes included 80's references”, it doesn't cut the mustard for me. I only chuckled a few times and that includes a lewd gag. Then, there's the fact that this is a commercial for Google to show off how cool their headquarters is, yet the place doesn't look appealing to work at, as not only is it filled with D-bag interns, but the guy who leads that internship is a gigantic A-hole; what a great plug for Google!
The movie tries to have some poignant moments and I guess that was OK but overall this was just not good; it's filled with eye-rolling cliches, gross characters and like I said, I did not get many laughs at all out of this. The fact that there aren't too many films that I've seen in my life (whether or not I have them listed here) that have had either Mr. Vaughn or Mr. Wilson, that again speaks volumes.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
E.T.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
We all know the details, so I won't bother typing them out; just know that I saw the original version and not “the walkie-talkie” version.
This is a movie that I saw as a kid (as almost everyone else did in America who's around my age) but the last viewing was when I was a kid. So I was happy to finally see it again. Read my glowing take in my Letterboxd review below:
I am in my mid 30's, so it likely should be no surprise that I have seen this movie a few times before in my life. Yet, I have not seen it as an adult so my last viewing was many years ago. I figured it was about time I saw this beloved movie again and thankfully, I can still rate it highly and it's not due to nostalgia.
Everyone knows the story of that interesting-looking alien (which is a tremendous puppet effect and you believe it's real; if this was in modern times and it was a CGI creation, there's a good chance you wouldn't buy the effect) who gets left behind and you see it hang out with three young siblings, so I'll just say that I am glad the performances were effective all around-especially from the kids-as the viewer spends a lot of time around them. It's all charming and so entertaining. As others have said, it embodies the wonderment of childhood.
Another nice aspect is that the characters aren't flat or two dimensional. Even “the government” aren't that bad and the guy only known as Keys (Peter Coyote) has wanted to see an alien for years. Elliott as the lead is a typical 10 year old boy who wishes he could hang out with his older brother Michael and Michael's friends and wishes for pals and is affected by the recent separation of his parents; an alien friend is perfect for him and you really like Elliott. All three siblings are normal kids and thankfully aren't painted as annoying or dumb. They are typical suburbanites in a northern California neighborhood. It's a great script from Melissa Mathison, someone who recently passed away. It also reminds me what a great composer John Williams is, as the score from this film is note-perfect.
I was amused by some of the content in this family film and how you wouldn't see such material in a family film of today. You likely wouldn't see an alien get drunk after drinking a few cans of Coors and you definitely wouldn't hear a 10 year old boy refer to someone else as PENIS BREATH. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to you. Also, I saw this via Amazon Instant Video and it was the original cut and not the “20th Anniversary Edition”, which of course I've never seen as I mentioned at the beginning this was the first time watching this movie as an adult. I do know that 2002 version is the one where “the guns that government agents carry in one scene were replaced by walkie-talkies” and everyone got upset by that change. At least unlike one of Spielberg's contemporaries, the original version of a classic film is still THE cut that can easily be viewed...
Anyway, this is great family entertainment made by an all-time-great director firing on all cylinders and I am sure can still captivate young children (such as the twin nephews I have, who will turn 3 in a month's time) today and I hope that one day they can watch the film and love it.
We all know the details, so I won't bother typing them out; just know that I saw the original version and not “the walkie-talkie” version.
This is a movie that I saw as a kid (as almost everyone else did in America who's around my age) but the last viewing was when I was a kid. So I was happy to finally see it again. Read my glowing take in my Letterboxd review below:
I am in my mid 30's, so it likely should be no surprise that I have seen this movie a few times before in my life. Yet, I have not seen it as an adult so my last viewing was many years ago. I figured it was about time I saw this beloved movie again and thankfully, I can still rate it highly and it's not due to nostalgia.
Everyone knows the story of that interesting-looking alien (which is a tremendous puppet effect and you believe it's real; if this was in modern times and it was a CGI creation, there's a good chance you wouldn't buy the effect) who gets left behind and you see it hang out with three young siblings, so I'll just say that I am glad the performances were effective all around-especially from the kids-as the viewer spends a lot of time around them. It's all charming and so entertaining. As others have said, it embodies the wonderment of childhood.
Another nice aspect is that the characters aren't flat or two dimensional. Even “the government” aren't that bad and the guy only known as Keys (Peter Coyote) has wanted to see an alien for years. Elliott as the lead is a typical 10 year old boy who wishes he could hang out with his older brother Michael and Michael's friends and wishes for pals and is affected by the recent separation of his parents; an alien friend is perfect for him and you really like Elliott. All three siblings are normal kids and thankfully aren't painted as annoying or dumb. They are typical suburbanites in a northern California neighborhood. It's a great script from Melissa Mathison, someone who recently passed away. It also reminds me what a great composer John Williams is, as the score from this film is note-perfect.
I was amused by some of the content in this family film and how you wouldn't see such material in a family film of today. You likely wouldn't see an alien get drunk after drinking a few cans of Coors and you definitely wouldn't hear a 10 year old boy refer to someone else as PENIS BREATH. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to you. Also, I saw this via Amazon Instant Video and it was the original cut and not the “20th Anniversary Edition”, which of course I've never seen as I mentioned at the beginning this was the first time watching this movie as an adult. I do know that 2002 version is the one where “the guns that government agents carry in one scene were replaced by walkie-talkies” and everyone got upset by that change. At least unlike one of Spielberg's contemporaries, the original version of a classic film is still THE cut that can easily be viewed...
Anyway, this is great family entertainment made by an all-time-great director firing on all cylinders and I am sure can still captivate young children (such as the twin nephews I have, who will turn 3 in a month's time) today and I hope that one day they can watch the film and love it.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Kiss Of Death
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Henry Hathaway
Starring: Victor Mature, Richard Widmark, Coleen Gray, Brian Donlevy, Taylor Holmes
From: 20th Century Fox
Here is a film noir I watched at almost the literal last minute last night, and that was a wise decision. Read why below in my Letterboxd review:
It had been a few months since a noir has been watched by me. Someone on a messageboard reminding me that this film was on TCM last night and as I had never seen it before... it was the most appropriate thing for me to see. One day I'll watch the 1995 remake where you see someone bench press a girl but I will presume that is not as good as this motion picture.
I don't want to give away too much about the plot but it's centered around Nick Bianco (Victor Mature), a crook who gets caught during a failed robbery and gets sent to the slammer because he won't rat out his friends. Things change and he changes his mind. Things end up complicated for him and he ends up dealing with a psychopath with the great name of Tommy Udo (Richard Widmark). An innocent dame (Coleen Gray, who just passed away a few months ago) is involved, as are the typical trappings of a film noir.
I now know why many people rate this highly. It's a quality noir for sure. You end up liking Bianco even though at first he acts like a punk. You find out that he has a family-including two young daughters-and he clearly loves them very much. There are entertaining tough guys throughout and the plot was always interesting to me. However, to be the true highlight was Widmark. This was actually his film debut and he hit a home run with his performance. Udo is quite crazed and he does a tremendous job bringing that to life with such thing as his maniacal laughter. I know that people have drawn parallels between that performance and Heath Ledger as The Joker and it is an understandable comparison. Widmark was actually a fan of The Joker in the Batman comics of the 40's. Anyway, Udo does a thing or two that made me go WOW as I was not expecting to see such things in a film of the time. I'll just say there are some incredibly harsh moments.
This movie is well-done and to list but an example of that, at times there are long stretches of silence (such as during the opening robbery, and it's used during other tension-filled scenes) and it's quite effective. I know that it won't be so long before I see another film noir.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
A Sound Of Thunder
A Sound of Thunder (2005)
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Edward Burns, Catherine McCormack, Ben Kingsley, Jemima Rooper, David Oyelowo
From: Franchise Pictures
I have actually seen this terrible movie before, a long while ago. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below why I did so on Friday night:
Due to all the chaos that happened on Friday, I figured that evening I shouldn't watch anything serious and instead my viewing should be of something that I know will provide laughs, as I had seen it before. Of course with this film it's unintentional humor but it still did the job. Although, the movie is still agonizing to watch so maybe I should have seen a traditional comedy instead.
This is based on the short story by Ray Bradbury; a free version of it can easily be found via a Google search. It's an entertaining story and all, but due to its length it had to be greatly expanded upon for a feature length film and somehow this lunacy is what we got. It shows that stepping on just one butterfly 65 million years ago can drastically change things... I am not sure how it works considering that the area immediately gets wiped out by a volcano but what do I know? The tale is set in the future of 2055 and time travel allows for people to hunt dinosaurs in an area right before it would have died anyhow. Things go wrong, a butterfly (actually a giant moth; yes, they couldn't get that right) gets stepped on, and the concept of “time waves” are brought in; I am sure that concept is poppycock... there's more glaring scientific problems than that with this story, believe me.
The story has plenty of unintentional humor. The biggest force that this group of asstagonists (sad to say, the people we're supposed to root for are all unlikable A-holes, who act incredibly rude for no real good reason; the villain-played by Ben Kingsley wearing a goofy white wig that makes him look like Malcolm McDowell-comes off as more enjoyable because he's such a sleazy SOB) have to face is monkey-dinosaurs! Then, there's such things as the dinosaur being hunted not having lived in that time period by “only” 80 million years, all the time travel logic problems (some of which were in the short story but they didn't even try to fix those), the hilariously wrong statement that “humans were the last to evolve” or the mistaken belief that no organism is still evolving today, not understanding what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is, etc. It's incredible.
The most incredible thing, though, is the CGI. You can't even really blame the filmmakers. It's unfortunate for them that their production company (Franchise Pictures) went bankrupt during filming so their budget got slashed by more than half and thus they had to use computer graphics that are even worse than what you see in SyFy Channel original movies. I mean, they look so terrible and that's an issue when the movie is full of CGI. At least it brought me much mirth and merriment.
Yet, I only recommend this movie to the masochists despite all the ha ha moments, as like I said the characters are so loathsome. What a mess this movie is; because of the bankruptcy this took a few years to come off, and maybe it should have stayed on the shelf. He wasn't the first choice for director but this has to be Peter Hyams' worst movie, and he's done things like End of Days and that terrible wire-fu version of the Three Musketeers.
Runtime: 101 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Edward Burns, Catherine McCormack, Ben Kingsley, Jemima Rooper, David Oyelowo
From: Franchise Pictures
I have actually seen this terrible movie before, a long while ago. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below why I did so on Friday night:
Due to all the chaos that happened on Friday, I figured that evening I shouldn't watch anything serious and instead my viewing should be of something that I know will provide laughs, as I had seen it before. Of course with this film it's unintentional humor but it still did the job. Although, the movie is still agonizing to watch so maybe I should have seen a traditional comedy instead.
This is based on the short story by Ray Bradbury; a free version of it can easily be found via a Google search. It's an entertaining story and all, but due to its length it had to be greatly expanded upon for a feature length film and somehow this lunacy is what we got. It shows that stepping on just one butterfly 65 million years ago can drastically change things... I am not sure how it works considering that the area immediately gets wiped out by a volcano but what do I know? The tale is set in the future of 2055 and time travel allows for people to hunt dinosaurs in an area right before it would have died anyhow. Things go wrong, a butterfly (actually a giant moth; yes, they couldn't get that right) gets stepped on, and the concept of “time waves” are brought in; I am sure that concept is poppycock... there's more glaring scientific problems than that with this story, believe me.
The story has plenty of unintentional humor. The biggest force that this group of asstagonists (sad to say, the people we're supposed to root for are all unlikable A-holes, who act incredibly rude for no real good reason; the villain-played by Ben Kingsley wearing a goofy white wig that makes him look like Malcolm McDowell-comes off as more enjoyable because he's such a sleazy SOB) have to face is monkey-dinosaurs! Then, there's such things as the dinosaur being hunted not having lived in that time period by “only” 80 million years, all the time travel logic problems (some of which were in the short story but they didn't even try to fix those), the hilariously wrong statement that “humans were the last to evolve” or the mistaken belief that no organism is still evolving today, not understanding what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is, etc. It's incredible.
The most incredible thing, though, is the CGI. You can't even really blame the filmmakers. It's unfortunate for them that their production company (Franchise Pictures) went bankrupt during filming so their budget got slashed by more than half and thus they had to use computer graphics that are even worse than what you see in SyFy Channel original movies. I mean, they look so terrible and that's an issue when the movie is full of CGI. At least it brought me much mirth and merriment.
Yet, I only recommend this movie to the masochists despite all the ha ha moments, as like I said the characters are so loathsome. What a mess this movie is; because of the bankruptcy this took a few years to come off, and maybe it should have stayed on the shelf. He wasn't the first choice for director but this has to be Peter Hyams' worst movie, and he's done things like End of Days and that terrible wire-fu version of the Three Musketeers.
Friday, November 13, 2015
The Relic
The Relic (1997)
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Penelope Ann Miller, Tom Sizemore, Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, Clayton Rohner
From: Paramount, Universal, and several other companies
Here's a film I saw on the big screen w/ a parent back in January of '97. I may not have seen it in full again until I checked it out Wednesday night on Instant. It's based on the book Relic and needless to say, the literary version is preferable to this. Read why below in my Letterboxd review:
The book was better.
I know that is a common refrain when talking about movies based on books, but it's almost always true and this is a rare film where I did read the novel beforehand. I first read it in like '96, shortly before a parent took me to see this on the big screen in January 1997. I may not have watched it in full again until last night on Instant. Those that saw the movie without reading the book from Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child will likely think that this is fine; me, I'll always compare it to the book and yeah, it was better.
The plot (the novel was set in New York City, the movie is in Chicago, perhaps because that's where they could film) revolves around the Field Museum of Natural History-I grew up in Illinois and yes I have been there before-and how a series of gruesome murders take place there; I mean, brains being ripped out and the hypothalamus being gone. The book had plenty of characters but as they needed the story to be told in a little less than 2 hours, things were pared-down. The two we focus on are superstitious cop-something the movie reminds us of often-D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore) and museum employee Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller), who is an evolutionary biologist and needless to say that does come into play with the big bad monster, which is related to an old Brazilian tribe and the science is preposterous but at least the plot tried to explain it. An exhibit about-of course-superstitions is about to open with a red carpet gala, which is when the creature designs to raise the most hell.
At least I can rate the movie as average. I can't complain with the main cast (Linda Hunt also has a key role), it at least is a hard R movie with a lot of gore and violence, and the direction from Peter Hyams is good; I'll review more of his movies in the future. I have seen some of work and while there are stinkers like A Sound of Thunder, there are a good number of films I've enjoyed from him... from Sudden Death to 2010. A lot of the movie is shot in the dark so it's not the most aesthetically pleasing, though.
I re-read the book in '04 (and also read its sequel, Reliquary, which I did not really care for, as too many stupid and unbelievable things happened) so my remembrance of the whole plot isn't exact but the movie seems to dumb things down and fill it with cliché. Also, the biggest character missing is one that happened to appear in a number of novels after this one, FBI agent Pendergast. The character is kind of ridiculous in someone that you could believe actually exist in this world, but he was still memorable and I know he has many fans and I wish he could have been in the movie also.
Like I said, this may work better for those that haven't read the original novel Relic; if you like reading such books that have plots like this one, I definitely recommend checking it out.
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Peter Hyams
Starring: Penelope Ann Miller, Tom Sizemore, Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, Clayton Rohner
From: Paramount, Universal, and several other companies
Here's a film I saw on the big screen w/ a parent back in January of '97. I may not have seen it in full again until I checked it out Wednesday night on Instant. It's based on the book Relic and needless to say, the literary version is preferable to this. Read why below in my Letterboxd review:
The book was better.
I know that is a common refrain when talking about movies based on books, but it's almost always true and this is a rare film where I did read the novel beforehand. I first read it in like '96, shortly before a parent took me to see this on the big screen in January 1997. I may not have watched it in full again until last night on Instant. Those that saw the movie without reading the book from Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child will likely think that this is fine; me, I'll always compare it to the book and yeah, it was better.
The plot (the novel was set in New York City, the movie is in Chicago, perhaps because that's where they could film) revolves around the Field Museum of Natural History-I grew up in Illinois and yes I have been there before-and how a series of gruesome murders take place there; I mean, brains being ripped out and the hypothalamus being gone. The book had plenty of characters but as they needed the story to be told in a little less than 2 hours, things were pared-down. The two we focus on are superstitious cop-something the movie reminds us of often-D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore) and museum employee Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller), who is an evolutionary biologist and needless to say that does come into play with the big bad monster, which is related to an old Brazilian tribe and the science is preposterous but at least the plot tried to explain it. An exhibit about-of course-superstitions is about to open with a red carpet gala, which is when the creature designs to raise the most hell.
At least I can rate the movie as average. I can't complain with the main cast (Linda Hunt also has a key role), it at least is a hard R movie with a lot of gore and violence, and the direction from Peter Hyams is good; I'll review more of his movies in the future. I have seen some of work and while there are stinkers like A Sound of Thunder, there are a good number of films I've enjoyed from him... from Sudden Death to 2010. A lot of the movie is shot in the dark so it's not the most aesthetically pleasing, though.
I re-read the book in '04 (and also read its sequel, Reliquary, which I did not really care for, as too many stupid and unbelievable things happened) so my remembrance of the whole plot isn't exact but the movie seems to dumb things down and fill it with cliché. Also, the biggest character missing is one that happened to appear in a number of novels after this one, FBI agent Pendergast. The character is kind of ridiculous in someone that you could believe actually exist in this world, but he was still memorable and I know he has many fans and I wish he could have been in the movie also.
Like I said, this may work better for those that haven't read the original novel Relic; if you like reading such books that have plots like this one, I definitely recommend checking it out.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Grabbers
Grabbers (2012)
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Jon Wright
Starring: Richard Coyle, Ruth Bradley, Russell Tovey, Lalor Roddy, David Pearse
From: Many different Irish companies
Here's me talking about a movie which in like an hour will be gone from Netflix Instant. That's how I saw this and that's why I watched it last night. It's not great but it's still a fine, fine watch. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
This is another one of those films where I watch it at a particular time because Netflix Instant will soon get rid of it; in this case, today is the last day that people can watch this film there... and maybe all other streaming services. It's a horror/comedy I've known of for awhile now but I put off watching it until almost literally the last minute. It was appropriate that I had a drink or two of alcohol before I started watching. It's not really a spoiler as every bit of advertising and plot description you will find for the movie states that the key plot point in this giant monster feature is said monster not eating anyone who is intoxicated, so everyone has to get hammered wasted to avoid dying.
I don't really know a lot about the Irish film industry but at least I can say that I know this film; it was made by many different companies from that country and is set in a rural area; the two leads are a male alcoholic cop and an attractive lady cop who is temporarily working there. That giant critter is discovered and after it kills some people, they find out that it doesn't like the taste of anyone who is real drunk; Irish is part of my heritage so I can say this: people from that country are quite good at drinking massive quantities of alcohol and that is what you see in the film.
An obvious comparison is Tremors; many have done so. I say that this is not as great by that as any means, although it's tough to raise to those high standards. There are various story things which could be carped about. Yet I was still entertained by this, which is definitely more comedy than horror. It has a gruesome moment or two but it's not gory at all. Really, the strongest thing is the language used; I am not from the UK so words like “FECK” I rarely if ever hear spoken by anyone in the United States.
The movie is not a must-see and yet it is still an amusing watch, with fun and charming characters, performances that are at least fine, and the special effects don't look overtly fake. I already stated that my Irish film watching is rather limited-to say the least-so I was fine watching these characters, which I hear are rather stereotypical. As long as you don't expect too much from this movie, you probably will enjoy it.
Runtime: 94 minutes
Directed by: Jon Wright
Starring: Richard Coyle, Ruth Bradley, Russell Tovey, Lalor Roddy, David Pearse
From: Many different Irish companies
Here's me talking about a movie which in like an hour will be gone from Netflix Instant. That's how I saw this and that's why I watched it last night. It's not great but it's still a fine, fine watch. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
This is another one of those films where I watch it at a particular time because Netflix Instant will soon get rid of it; in this case, today is the last day that people can watch this film there... and maybe all other streaming services. It's a horror/comedy I've known of for awhile now but I put off watching it until almost literally the last minute. It was appropriate that I had a drink or two of alcohol before I started watching. It's not really a spoiler as every bit of advertising and plot description you will find for the movie states that the key plot point in this giant monster feature is said monster not eating anyone who is intoxicated, so everyone has to get hammered wasted to avoid dying.
I don't really know a lot about the Irish film industry but at least I can say that I know this film; it was made by many different companies from that country and is set in a rural area; the two leads are a male alcoholic cop and an attractive lady cop who is temporarily working there. That giant critter is discovered and after it kills some people, they find out that it doesn't like the taste of anyone who is real drunk; Irish is part of my heritage so I can say this: people from that country are quite good at drinking massive quantities of alcohol and that is what you see in the film.
An obvious comparison is Tremors; many have done so. I say that this is not as great by that as any means, although it's tough to raise to those high standards. There are various story things which could be carped about. Yet I was still entertained by this, which is definitely more comedy than horror. It has a gruesome moment or two but it's not gory at all. Really, the strongest thing is the language used; I am not from the UK so words like “FECK” I rarely if ever hear spoken by anyone in the United States.
The movie is not a must-see and yet it is still an amusing watch, with fun and charming characters, performances that are at least fine, and the special effects don't look overtly fake. I already stated that my Irish film watching is rather limited-to say the least-so I was fine watching these characters, which I hear are rather stereotypical. As long as you don't expect too much from this movie, you probably will enjoy it.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
The Gunman
The Gunman (2015)
16% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 146 reviews)
Runtime: 115 minutes
Directed by: Pierre Morel
Starring: Sean Penn, Jasmine Trinca, Mark Rylance, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba
From: Many different companies, including... Amazon Prime Instant Video?
Despite what I heard, I still watched this on Instant (Netflix, not Amazon) Sunday night; well, the general consensus is true: the movie is bad. Read why below in my Letterboxd review:
Even though I heard plenty of trustworthy people bag this movie and say it was a huge disappointment, curiosity got the best of me and when I saw I could watch it for free on Netflix Instant. Turns out, what I heard was correct; I can't say this was God-awful or unwatchable, but in no way was it any good.
Really, the biggest thing about the movie is that Sean Penn finally decided to get into the “Old Man Action” genre, in an attempt to help his box office appeal as he's in his mid 50's. I don't really have an opinion about him either way... unless those horrific rumors of what he allegedly did to then-wife Madonna are true. His humanitarian work is nice and all and his long-standard hatred of the Hollywood press, I don't blame him for despising them .
The plot isn't too complex; mercenary Jim Terrier (Sean Penn, who I am sure only lifted weights to achieve such a massive physique and wasn't aided in any way by “chemical enhancements”... anyhow, the movie wastes no opportunity to show off his figure) does a hit on a major person in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so he has to vanish for 8 years. He comes back into sight after someone is targeting him. I knew beforehand this wasn't action-packed and only had a few setpieces, which is fine by me... as long as the story was interesting, which it unfortunately wasn't. Maybe the novel version of it (it was based on an old French book from the author Jean-Patrick Manchette. I have no idea what the differences are between the two are) was better.
Here, Terrier is a conflicted guy who happens to get involved in a love triangle with an old flame. That is not handled well. Neither is the fact that he has post-concussion syndrome; they make it a plot device and little more. The cast has some famous faces but none of the performances are great. Penn looked uncomfortable in something outside of his wheelhouse, Idris Elba has an incredibly thankless role which is short and he mainly speaks an extended metaphor about... tree houses. I hope he was paid well. As for Javier Bardem, I have no idea what he was doing here, except that his performance as a usually drunk and somehow successful businessman despite his obvious alcohol issues... “over the top” doesn't even begin to describe it.
The action we do get is fine but when it's surrounded by a story that comes off as boring and offers little in the way of surprises or interest, it doesn't really matter. While there are some wacky moments that made me chortle (what a death for the main villain), most of it is rather rote. This dog ends up having little bite... director Pierre Morel also did Taken, which started the Old Man Action subgenre; honestly, it's better to watch that for the first time or see it again rather than watch this motion picture.
16% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 146 reviews)
Runtime: 115 minutes
Directed by: Pierre Morel
Starring: Sean Penn, Jasmine Trinca, Mark Rylance, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba
From: Many different companies, including... Amazon Prime Instant Video?
Despite what I heard, I still watched this on Instant (Netflix, not Amazon) Sunday night; well, the general consensus is true: the movie is bad. Read why below in my Letterboxd review:
Even though I heard plenty of trustworthy people bag this movie and say it was a huge disappointment, curiosity got the best of me and when I saw I could watch it for free on Netflix Instant. Turns out, what I heard was correct; I can't say this was God-awful or unwatchable, but in no way was it any good.
Really, the biggest thing about the movie is that Sean Penn finally decided to get into the “Old Man Action” genre, in an attempt to help his box office appeal as he's in his mid 50's. I don't really have an opinion about him either way... unless those horrific rumors of what he allegedly did to then-wife Madonna are true. His humanitarian work is nice and all and his long-standard hatred of the Hollywood press, I don't blame him for despising them .
The plot isn't too complex; mercenary Jim Terrier (Sean Penn, who I am sure only lifted weights to achieve such a massive physique and wasn't aided in any way by “chemical enhancements”... anyhow, the movie wastes no opportunity to show off his figure) does a hit on a major person in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so he has to vanish for 8 years. He comes back into sight after someone is targeting him. I knew beforehand this wasn't action-packed and only had a few setpieces, which is fine by me... as long as the story was interesting, which it unfortunately wasn't. Maybe the novel version of it (it was based on an old French book from the author Jean-Patrick Manchette. I have no idea what the differences are between the two are) was better.
Here, Terrier is a conflicted guy who happens to get involved in a love triangle with an old flame. That is not handled well. Neither is the fact that he has post-concussion syndrome; they make it a plot device and little more. The cast has some famous faces but none of the performances are great. Penn looked uncomfortable in something outside of his wheelhouse, Idris Elba has an incredibly thankless role which is short and he mainly speaks an extended metaphor about... tree houses. I hope he was paid well. As for Javier Bardem, I have no idea what he was doing here, except that his performance as a usually drunk and somehow successful businessman despite his obvious alcohol issues... “over the top” doesn't even begin to describe it.
The action we do get is fine but when it's surrounded by a story that comes off as boring and offers little in the way of surprises or interest, it doesn't really matter. While there are some wacky moments that made me chortle (what a death for the main villain), most of it is rather rote. This dog ends up having little bite... director Pierre Morel also did Taken, which started the Old Man Action subgenre; honestly, it's better to watch that for the first time or see it again rather than watch this motion picture.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
SPECTRE
SPECTRE (2015)
62% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 207 reviews)
Runtime: 148 minutes
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Dave Bautista
From: MGM/Columbia
I saw this movie late yesterday afternoon and I understand the mixed reviews. It's no Skyfall or Casino Royale but I still enjoyed it, although it does have various script and story issues, which I only allude to in my Letterboxd review below but I still recommend reading what will at least be another financially successful Bond picture:
I do not know if it's true that this is the last Bond film Daniel Craig is going to do. I know he made angry comments about being 007 but I never read that interview in full and knowing the media, I do not know if he was taken out of context or not. For all I know, he was playing things up as an aspect of this movie is whether Bond should still keep on being Bond or not. In any case, it may be time for a change anyhow and I won't even get into the speculating of who should be 007 next; just bringing up the name “Idris Elba” causes a lot of yelling and shouting no matter if you think he should have the role or not. But for now I'll just talk about this movie, without revealing any spoilers as at least in the United States it's brand new.
In fact I'll just state the basic plot and that's that SPECTRE returns; due to legal reasons that lasted a few decades and were not resolved until about 2 years ago, that is why they haven't been in a Bond picture since '71's Diamonds Are Forever. Christoph Waltz is the leader of that organization, and they have a techno-based scheme to control the world. There are various references to older movies here, some more recent than others.
Even before seeing this I had heard that it was the most old-school of the Craig films and that is definitely true. For the most part it does manage to use those elements and have it work in a modern style. The movie surprised me-usually in a good way-and I am glad it cleared up what I thought were some loose ends. The music score is pretty cool and there are some great scenes, especially the opening one. I did not know what countries would be visited aside from Mexico; I won't reveal what the others are except that they were countries visited before... which I was fine with. I am a pro wrestling fan-even though I haven't regularly watched it for a long while-so I was amused by Dave Bautista being in the cast; he actually did well in his role and he was as memorable as the other “big tough guys” the franchise has had.
Regrettably, there are some story issues I had; of course I can't get into it without giving big spoilers but at times I wish it would have been different or would have played out better, or at least would have followed the “less is more” idea. That is a shame as while this is the longest movie in the franchise at 148 minutes, it did not seem that long... which is usually a good sign. This is not something that affected my grade but while the opening credits were fine, that Sam Smith song... I don't listen to modern music so I had only heard of that chap and did not care to listen to his tunes. When that song was first realized, I heard quite the backlash about it. I was surprised. I then listened to the song and I agreed with those people by thinking his singing voice was atrocious. I tend to think that plenty of singers in this modern time have grating singing voices but at least this time I have plenty of people who would agree with me. The song itself sounds like a Bond tune, and I suppose it's better than having someone truly God-awful like Lana Del Rey or-shudder-Katy Perry do it-and yet I still think it's bad.
Anyway, if you generally enjoy the Craig films or the franchise in general, this is still worth seeing. The last film in the run for a particular Bond tend not to be so good; thankfully that wasn't the case here at least. I do understand those who disagree and the wide variety of ratings for this are not a surprise to me. Who knows where they go from here; all I hope is that the franchise continues for many more entries to come, as this era shows that the series can continue to exist without being antiquated or old hat.
62% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 207 reviews)
Runtime: 148 minutes
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Dave Bautista
From: MGM/Columbia
I saw this movie late yesterday afternoon and I understand the mixed reviews. It's no Skyfall or Casino Royale but I still enjoyed it, although it does have various script and story issues, which I only allude to in my Letterboxd review below but I still recommend reading what will at least be another financially successful Bond picture:
I do not know if it's true that this is the last Bond film Daniel Craig is going to do. I know he made angry comments about being 007 but I never read that interview in full and knowing the media, I do not know if he was taken out of context or not. For all I know, he was playing things up as an aspect of this movie is whether Bond should still keep on being Bond or not. In any case, it may be time for a change anyhow and I won't even get into the speculating of who should be 007 next; just bringing up the name “Idris Elba” causes a lot of yelling and shouting no matter if you think he should have the role or not. But for now I'll just talk about this movie, without revealing any spoilers as at least in the United States it's brand new.
In fact I'll just state the basic plot and that's that SPECTRE returns; due to legal reasons that lasted a few decades and were not resolved until about 2 years ago, that is why they haven't been in a Bond picture since '71's Diamonds Are Forever. Christoph Waltz is the leader of that organization, and they have a techno-based scheme to control the world. There are various references to older movies here, some more recent than others.
Even before seeing this I had heard that it was the most old-school of the Craig films and that is definitely true. For the most part it does manage to use those elements and have it work in a modern style. The movie surprised me-usually in a good way-and I am glad it cleared up what I thought were some loose ends. The music score is pretty cool and there are some great scenes, especially the opening one. I did not know what countries would be visited aside from Mexico; I won't reveal what the others are except that they were countries visited before... which I was fine with. I am a pro wrestling fan-even though I haven't regularly watched it for a long while-so I was amused by Dave Bautista being in the cast; he actually did well in his role and he was as memorable as the other “big tough guys” the franchise has had.
Regrettably, there are some story issues I had; of course I can't get into it without giving big spoilers but at times I wish it would have been different or would have played out better, or at least would have followed the “less is more” idea. That is a shame as while this is the longest movie in the franchise at 148 minutes, it did not seem that long... which is usually a good sign. This is not something that affected my grade but while the opening credits were fine, that Sam Smith song... I don't listen to modern music so I had only heard of that chap and did not care to listen to his tunes. When that song was first realized, I heard quite the backlash about it. I was surprised. I then listened to the song and I agreed with those people by thinking his singing voice was atrocious. I tend to think that plenty of singers in this modern time have grating singing voices but at least this time I have plenty of people who would agree with me. The song itself sounds like a Bond tune, and I suppose it's better than having someone truly God-awful like Lana Del Rey or-shudder-Katy Perry do it-and yet I still think it's bad.
Anyway, if you generally enjoy the Craig films or the franchise in general, this is still worth seeing. The last film in the run for a particular Bond tend not to be so good; thankfully that wasn't the case here at least. I do understand those who disagree and the wide variety of ratings for this are not a surprise to me. Who knows where they go from here; all I hope is that the franchise continues for many more entries to come, as this era shows that the series can continue to exist without being antiquated or old hat.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
I'll Return Saturday Afternoon
This week I have been finishing watching the Bond movies again by going through the Daniel Craig era. Turns out, Quantum of Solace is even worse than I had remembered; who knows if I'll see it again. Tonight is Skyfall, which I am sure I'll still rate highly and tomorrow afternoon is seeing SPECTRE on a giant screen; Saturday I'll return to talk about that.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension
Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension (2015)
11% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 53 reviews)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Gregory Plotkin
Starring: Chris J. Murray, Brit Shaw, Ivy George, Dan Gill, Olivia Taylor Dudley
From: Paramount
I finally saw this movie and while most hate it, I think it's because it's so goofy and preposterous, I ended up enjoying it. I explain why in the Letterboxd review below:
I close out this season of watching Halloween movies by giving a review to what is said to be the final Paranormal Activity movie... but then again they said the same thing about Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger so maybe Toby will make a return. Personally, I think it's time for this to end for good; they certainly stretched the series out (the 4th film is still rather pointless after this story was fully wrapped up).
I have mentioned this in other parts of the Internet but I'll mention it here: way back in 2007 via a horror podcast I heard about a little film called Paranormal Activity; while they gave little details about it I was interested. I and those other listeners patiently waited as Paramount figured out what to do with it; finally, they slowly rolled it out and I went to a screening in Orlando, which ended up selling out. I may have been the only person in the crowd that had any knowledge of it whatsoever. At first, people were snickering and acting like “What in the hell is this crap?” as they set the story up. When the filmed night scenes happened... the mood quickly changed and I wouldn't have been surprised if several of the auditorium seats had been soiled.
I certainly enjoyed it and while one day I should give proper reviews to all those movies on this site, I can say that I rated the first one at 4 stars, the second at 3 stars, the third at 3 ½ stars, the fourth one at 1 star (I've only seen it once but that experience made me mad because it was so nonsensical), and The Marked Ones at 3 ½. Well, even I am surprised that I also rate this goofy piece of crap at 3 ½ stars when most of the public seem to think it's bad. I mean, almost all the scares being of the “loud noises” variety, the sheer silliness of the story now that I know how it ended and the fact that we can see those evil spirits by a wacky GHOST CAMERA is just preposterous... but maybe it's the fatuity of it all that gave me such enjoyment on what was before then a blah day for reasons I won't get into.
I managed to avoid pretty much all publicity on the movie so I knew nothing about the plot except that this was supposed to be the finale. What I'll say is that it involves a young family at a California house and the dad's brother and a random young blonde woman pal are also involved. If you've seen one of these movies, you can guess what ends up happening... only now there's a wacky camera they discover that can record spirits and demons and all sorts of spooky s***. I do have to mention that besides the magical filming device there are such things as:
* A version of pot brownies is consumed
* That brother... he has a pornstache!
* Pabst Blue Ribbon is consumed
* There is meta commentary as footage from a previous film is watched & two of the characters offer up their opinions
It's all so silly... and yet somehow I was able to enjoy it. The 3D stuff is plentiful and at least it looks good, although I imagine it'll look so goofy and stupid if seen in 2D. Thankfully I paid the extra cash for the added dimension. I know that many seem to not enjoy the ending or what “the big bad” ended up being after all this time and build-up. I was fine with it, but maybe it's because I realized how cockeyed and gonzo this movie was. If it wasn't for such elements I imagine I'd rate it more similar to what most people here have.
To think that when the original came out the concept of “found footage” was new and original. Now... many people grew tired of it long ago and the thought is that more often than not a film would be better if done in the more traditional style. But, as it's cheap to do for producers and studios, I am sure it'll be around in some form for a long time to come.
11% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 53 reviews)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Gregory Plotkin
Starring: Chris J. Murray, Brit Shaw, Ivy George, Dan Gill, Olivia Taylor Dudley
From: Paramount
I finally saw this movie and while most hate it, I think it's because it's so goofy and preposterous, I ended up enjoying it. I explain why in the Letterboxd review below:
I close out this season of watching Halloween movies by giving a review to what is said to be the final Paranormal Activity movie... but then again they said the same thing about Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger so maybe Toby will make a return. Personally, I think it's time for this to end for good; they certainly stretched the series out (the 4th film is still rather pointless after this story was fully wrapped up).
I have mentioned this in other parts of the Internet but I'll mention it here: way back in 2007 via a horror podcast I heard about a little film called Paranormal Activity; while they gave little details about it I was interested. I and those other listeners patiently waited as Paramount figured out what to do with it; finally, they slowly rolled it out and I went to a screening in Orlando, which ended up selling out. I may have been the only person in the crowd that had any knowledge of it whatsoever. At first, people were snickering and acting like “What in the hell is this crap?” as they set the story up. When the filmed night scenes happened... the mood quickly changed and I wouldn't have been surprised if several of the auditorium seats had been soiled.
I certainly enjoyed it and while one day I should give proper reviews to all those movies on this site, I can say that I rated the first one at 4 stars, the second at 3 stars, the third at 3 ½ stars, the fourth one at 1 star (I've only seen it once but that experience made me mad because it was so nonsensical), and The Marked Ones at 3 ½. Well, even I am surprised that I also rate this goofy piece of crap at 3 ½ stars when most of the public seem to think it's bad. I mean, almost all the scares being of the “loud noises” variety, the sheer silliness of the story now that I know how it ended and the fact that we can see those evil spirits by a wacky GHOST CAMERA is just preposterous... but maybe it's the fatuity of it all that gave me such enjoyment on what was before then a blah day for reasons I won't get into.
I managed to avoid pretty much all publicity on the movie so I knew nothing about the plot except that this was supposed to be the finale. What I'll say is that it involves a young family at a California house and the dad's brother and a random young blonde woman pal are also involved. If you've seen one of these movies, you can guess what ends up happening... only now there's a wacky camera they discover that can record spirits and demons and all sorts of spooky s***. I do have to mention that besides the magical filming device there are such things as:
* A version of pot brownies is consumed
* That brother... he has a pornstache!
* Pabst Blue Ribbon is consumed
* There is meta commentary as footage from a previous film is watched & two of the characters offer up their opinions
It's all so silly... and yet somehow I was able to enjoy it. The 3D stuff is plentiful and at least it looks good, although I imagine it'll look so goofy and stupid if seen in 2D. Thankfully I paid the extra cash for the added dimension. I know that many seem to not enjoy the ending or what “the big bad” ended up being after all this time and build-up. I was fine with it, but maybe it's because I realized how cockeyed and gonzo this movie was. If it wasn't for such elements I imagine I'd rate it more similar to what most people here have.
To think that when the original came out the concept of “found footage” was new and original. Now... many people grew tired of it long ago and the thought is that more often than not a film would be better if done in the more traditional style. But, as it's cheap to do for producers and studios, I am sure it'll be around in some form for a long time to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)