Change Your Image
Orcini
Reviews
Death Proof (2007)
Avoid, and save your brain the agony.
The idea is that a psychotic stunt driver uses his "deathproof" stunt car to slaughter young women.
Part I: Some scantily clad chicks sit around and talk for an hour about absolutely nothing. Seriously. Nothing. Imagine some hens clucking, frogs croaking, or crickets rubbing their legs together for about an hour. Now somehow, imagine something about half as interesting. This sums up the dialogue in this film. It does not further the non-existent plot or reveal exposition, nor does it reveal character. It's just God-awful quacking.
End of Part I: Thirty seconds of really gushy murder by car, and the one decent line in the entire movie.
Part II: Some other chicks repeat the mind-numbing formula described in Part I, except this time, it's revealed that for some reason, one of them has a gun. (If you don't know what "foreshadowing" means, look it up.)
End of Part II: About five minutes of predictable and unbelievable car chases, shooting, stomping, and Grrrl Power.
To sum up: This movie has one good thing going for it: an awesome soundtrack. Otherwise, avoid this one at all cost. It would be kinder to rub your eyes with Clorox rather than submit them to this.
Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers: To Live and Die in Starlight (2002)
Please, Mr. S.- let B5 rest in peace!
Let me start off by saying I love Babylon 5- the first four seasons anyway.
What appealed to me was its long-story format, the epic taking years to unfold, full of lore, myth, and detailed characters that evolved and changed over time.
I would suggest to J.M. Straczynski that he create some new sort of epic. Babylon 5 was a great story. But one of the things that make stories great is that they have a beginning, a middle, and an end. It ended. Let it be. Perhaps the book trilogies that continue the Babylon 5 canon would make good miniseries- such as "Legions of Fire" or the Psy-Cop trilogy. What is NOT needed is another "adventure of the week" series in the B5 universe. It obviously did not work with "Crusade." Why should it work here? The format is so similar to Crusade (a ship of people zipping around the galaxy having adventures) that one wonders if they were simply planning on using unaired "Crusade" scripts to cut writing costs.
The tele-movie's biggest flaw is that it has no plot whatsoever. A ship full of very young Rangers is sent on a mission to protect some diplomats. For some reason, bad guys attack them. Our heroes spend the movie outwitting the baddies. However, these bad guys are merely working for THE bad guys- who are described as bigger and badder and older than the Shadows.
No imagination there.
The next flaw is the concept itself. The Rangers on B5 were spiritual, dedicated, fighters, sort of like Jedi Knights. A few were sent here and there to protect the peace, to run covert operations and gather intelligence, to be a revered force working mostly behind the scenes. Keep in mind that Sinclair created them based on the Rangers of Tolkien lore. Instead, these Rangers- who seem as if they came out of your typical "space-marine" movie- now serve on crews of their own ships, going out on adventures of the week- I mean assignments.
The characters are dull cardboard cutouts. We have a captain that looks like he just finished playing high-school football, a hot-but-tough weapons officer, a cheeky second in command (who sees the ghosts that the ship is- for some reason- haunted with.) One crew member is so dimwitted that one can't possibly imagine him being a Ranger (One of his twelve lines is, "I lift big things.") G'Kar is in this movie as the guest star to link us to B5. He really serves no purpose to the story. Sadly, he is the only interesting person in the entire show.
Last, but not least, are the virtual space fights. This is so terrible. How could anyone seriously have gone along with this concept? The weapons officer enters the VR fighting unit, where she is blue-screened against a star field. When the bad ships come, she literally kung-fu fights them. Fireballs shoot from her virtual hands and feet, which is actually the ship firing at it's enemies. Were there any viewers who were not on the floor, curled in a ball, laughing hysterically? I really don't think this was the creators' intention.
Again. I love B5, and the B5 Universe. But it's over. Please let it rest in peace, Mr. Straczynski, and concentrate your efforts elsewhere. Please.
Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002)
Finaly a decent sequel
Ah, franchises. By a rule, horror movies usually have hacked sequels only intended to squeeze a few bucks out of cash udders. This chapter in the Hellraiser series. well, it's defiantly a squeeze of the Franchise Teat. It suffers from `who cares, it's direct-to-video-itis:' it needs re-writes, it is low-budget, and has too many cheap thrills. Sometimes I felt like I was watching video linking clips from a computer game.
Having said that, Hellseeker breathes a long, fresh breath into the series. While 1 & 2 were fascinating explorations of horror and imagination, 3 & 4 were `Pinhead comes to life/kills/is destroyed/will be back' slasher clichés. Thankfully, Hellseeker takes a quite different `mess-with-your-mind' path. A man (Trevor) who lost his wife in a car accident (Kirsty Cotton, from 1 & 2) is assaulted by conflicting memories, perverse nightmares, and amnesia. To top it all, Kirsty's body was never found, and when it's revealed that she was due a large inheritance, the police suspect foul play. Slowly, Trevor pieces his shattered memories together. But his mistresses are dying horribly around him, and though all fingers point to Trevor, he can't quite remember killing them. And who are those pale, mutilated, leather clad people who pop in and out of his memories- especially the tall eloquent one with the pins in his head?
Speaking of Pinhead, the movie uses him judiciously as the fine spice he is, rather than trying to saturate the screen with him as 3 & 4 did. (Or just for franchise cameo value, as in 5.) My only complaint is his makeup. I had the honor of meeting Doug Bradley recently, and he is quite slim. So why does he look so terribly bloated in this? Also, Hellraiser 2: Hellbound had the perfect exit for his character and (as much as he is my favorite monster) he never should have been brought back. But a franchise needs a monster, I suppose. Too bad Hollywood never figured out that the monster of the original film was Desire.
As much as I like this film, it's sad because it has so much potential. `What's going on' stories are fun, but they lose their edge if they leave you hanging clueless for too long. Perhaps if there were only three murders instead of five, more coherent plot could have been written between the onslaughts of reality/nightmare twists. (and is Trevor really such a catch that all these hot sluts keep throwing themselves at him?) Since Kirsty is essential to the plot, there should have been more flashbacks with her in them, especially to explain just who the hell she is to Hellraiser first-timers. The ending is a very pleasant surprise- I never saw it coming, and I usually do- but it is in dire need of editing. What Trevor's says and does after the truth is revealed to him is quite unnecessary & deadens the impact.
The directing is competent, but artless. While the story is good, there's no sense of tone. There are glimpses of a central theme- the contrast between who we want to be as opposed to who we think we are- but it is sadly underdeveloped. As Pinhead says at the end, `Welcome to the worst nightmare of all- reality.' If you think I'm pretentious for speaking of directing a horror movie as an art film, go rent 1 & 2 (the unrated version) to see why so many fell in love with the series before it turned into a Cheap Horror Franchise, and why we keep hoping that another movie like them could be made. But sadly, Franchise-wood thinks we're few and far between amongst those who just want boobs & blood.
All in all, I was pleasantly surprised. Hellseeker has flaws, but it is much, much better than a direct-to-video 6th episode of an exploited franchise should be. I rate it 7 out of 10.
The Mad Magician (1954)
Price's Best
Even though it has one of the standard "Revenge Price Plots," this film is my favorite of Vincent Price's work. Gallico has that quality that is missing in so many horror film characters- likeability. When you watch it, you feel for him, you feel his frustration, the injustices against him, and you cheer him on when he goes for vengeance, even though he frightens you a little with his original fury. As the film goes on, his character becomes tragic. He's committed his murder, but now he must kill to cover that up. And again to cover that one up. And again... your stomach sinks with his soul as it goes down its spiral- like watching a beloved brother turn into a hood. Even if the revenge story is of old, the plot devices themselves are original- Gallico uses his tricks to kill in more and more inventive ways. A shame this one isn't available for home veiwing.
I Married a Strange Person! (1997)
Like watching a preschooler who thinks the word "Dookey" is hysterical
I am a big fan of Plympton, and I was excited when this film was released. Perhaps that's why I felt so let down. I can only imagine that B.P. was sick of critics saying his `The Tune' was too corny. But while that film was creative and interesting, this movie is full of dirty jokes that just aren't funny. A soldier performs oral sex on another man's shoe, two tanks get it on, a woman's body is used to make balloon animals. the list goes on and on. The dialogue is patchy at best: `Have YOU ever tried to stop two tanks from having sex?' And the songs are annoying and completely unnecessary. The film pretends to be shocking but is really very boring. The timing is horrible- there is a long pause before every incident, then `screaming' cells are cycled for a few seconds. Afterwards, the story can continue. The film isn't even an hour and a half long, but I checked my watch many times throughout. It isn't downright horrible- there are a few genuine rib ticklers in here. But mostly, based on what B.P. has done before, it was a major disappointment.
Doctor Who (1996)
How to ruin a science fiction legacy, American style.
Being one of the biggest Doctor Who geeks alive, I wanted this "return" of the Doctor to be the Second Coming. Unfortunately, it is more like the apocalypse. This TV movie was to be the pilot episode for an American version of the 28-year run series. The result is that it desperately tries to make the Doctor appeal to the lowest common denominator of American viewers, not caring that it alienates the existing fans. The Doctor is suddenly half human, as opposed to the full alien he had been in the original show. Obviously the producers felt that as no Star Trek series is complete without a halfling, American viewers would not be able to watch a sci-fi show otherwise. It is basically plotless- the Master (the classic evil nemesis) returns, chases the Doctor around L.A., then dies (till the next TV movie.) Meanwhile, we're treated to car chases, Eric Robert's vamping, and the Doctor's first kiss. There are a few good points- it has a decent budget as opposed to the original series' shoestring, and its look is a far cry from the show's 1980's pastel tones. Paul McGann makes a fine Doctor once he gets into the role. It's a shame he wasn't given a better chance to play one of science fictions greatest legends. It's even more of a shame that the folks at Fox had no respect for the legend at all.