tcdarkness Reviews

Slices (2008)

Really not worth the watch

[2/10 · 14 August 2009]

Since Slices is a movie done by 5 directors each shooting one of the five segments of the movie, I'll break this review down for each part. By and large most of the segments are horribly flawed beyond just the fact that the film makers mostly shot on video with no lighting or decent sound; most of the segments have horrible acting, no coherent plot, and lack direction--amazing considering each director was only responsible for supplying about 25 minutes of the runtime.

The first segment, The Exterminator, runs on too long for how little actually occurs on screen. The camera setups are sub-film school level (I kept paying attention to the desk drawer holding a plant in the opening scene since it took up most of the frame). A close-up or two wouldn't have hurt. Shots in general are horribly framed for this, cutting off people's heads for some of the shot a lot of the time. The dialogue is plodding and adds nothing to the story--which should have just been a bad boss gets his comeuppance or a commentary on the absurdity of bureaucracy in modern business) but isn't. The story is instead about some conspiracy to keep the US population at 300 million and the conspiracy's latest victim. This segment seemed to actually have the best acting in it, but wasn't enough to save it from being a snoozefest. Score: 1/10

The second segment, Dead Letters, seems like it would have worked well as a short story about revenge. As a film, the segment falls short. First of all, the crew must not have heard of a wind screen for a mic (or chose not to ADR the dialogue in later), since all the outdoors scenes sound like they were recorded standing next to the afterburners in a jet. The "plot twist" isn't scary if you've ever seen a horror movie in your life (especially a certain one done by Mr Hitchcock), and the prop used for a carcass will literally make you laugh out loud. There's some claymation that is cool to see on screen since you don't get to see it that often nowadays. Also, this segment was the sharpest-looking out of the 5 segments, and it looks like film was used instead of video for some of the flashbacks, which worked. Score: 2/10

Night Scream is a vampire movie about a group of young adults who go out for a party in a remote location, only to come across an injured girl who is bleeding and scratched up. Short story short: nothing in the plot makes sense: the group is going to a sex party but only one of them even seems flirtatious, and the "twist" makes no sense whatsoever. And as if it had to be said, the acting is awful (I kept wondering why the hot girl only makes faces and barely says anything, then when she opened her mouth to speak I discovered why). Score: 1/10

The Range is a zombie western. That on its face sounds good, but when you take into account the bad acting/accents, lack of horses (in a western no less! the scenes for each group open with them explaining they lost their horses), and general lack of plot this is arguably the worst of the 5 segments. And then the story doesn't even keep up with zombie lore since some transvestite Indian is shot in the head in the beginning of the segment and yet comes back later as a zombie. The use of a screen wipe and still frames to depict gunfire at the end make no sense given the shots used. It looks like the director had no idea what he was doing with this and then ran out of time to shoot a full ending. Score: 1/10 (because 0 isn't an option)

Last but not least, The Turnout is actually a fairly well-made short. While the voice-over work is on par with the acting in most of the feature, it seemed like the director actually had an idea in this one. Unfortunately the story seems a bit truncated. In the behind the scenes featurette on the DVD, the actor who plays the antagonist explains the character's back story as to why he acts the way he does, and it seems like that would have been good to have in the actual screenplay somehow--especially since the ending falls a bit flat vs where it seemed to be heading as a horror short. If they could have expanded this segment and cut down some of the others it would have helped. Score: 4/10

The wraparound segments with the host introducing the segments are actually the best part of the movie. Sure it's been stolen from a billion horror movies, but it was fairly funny and served as a good introduction. However, the end sequence these wraparounds led to were not scary at all, and the post-credits sequence adding some much-needed nudity to the movie was far too little too late, especially considering most viewers wouldn't touch the stripper involved with a 10-foot-pole. Overall, I'd give this movie a 2 out of 10, and that may be generous.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

Resident Evil: Atrocious

[1/10 · 2 January 2005]

I've seen and laughed at a lot of bad zombie movies. This one isn't technically the worst, but it comes pretty close. The "plot" is like any other Paul WS Anderson movie, with action sequences followed by characters telling you exactly what you already know and have seen. It even includes the trademark time frame that characters have to escape in in order to survive. You know exactly which characters will die in the movie because they are either not top billed or act dumb or rudely from the moment they step on screen. People and zombies appear out of nowhere as the only basis of moving the "plot" forward.

Direction is actually worse than the original. The slow-motion blur shot of zombies isn't even remotely scary. The film is so fast-paced in action and edit that it is hard to even make out how the characters killed zombies and Umbrella Corp. guards. The acting is stunted by the fact that everyone in the movie has a different accent.

The movie is a funny film to watch, but only for Ed Woodian reasons. 1/10

Saved! (2004)

Fundamentally funny

[9/10 · 24 November 2004]

It is, in a word, funny that many former religious school attendees end up mocking the very institution that served as a tool in shaping their lives. Many comedians--most notably, George Carlin--have used the misinterpretations of the Bible and the hypocricies in the church in their acts. Director/co-writer Brian Dannelly does the same in Saved!, a modern look at born-again Christian methods at a time when the U.S. has a born-again Christian in the White House.

The film's comedy doesn't do the the usual comic extreme of downright denigration of faith and religion, however. The writers make the smart move of only taking a hard look at holier-than-thou Christians like Hilary Faye (the always-impressive Mandy Moore), who show one side of faith but act--and, in one scene, think--in a completely different way.

The casting is excellent. Getting a girl with a squeaky-clean, All-American girl image like Moore to play a squeaky-clean All-American girl was a coup for the producers. Jena Malone shines in her lead (if somewhat typical for her) role of the troubled high school teen. Eva Amurri breaks out as a Jewish girl who is practically in a foreign land after getting kicked out of so many public schools. Macaulay Culkin finds his niche as the paraplegic brother of Moore's character that catches Amurri's affections as another fish out of water.

The film's greatest asset is in the script. There is a perfect balance of comedy and--this is hard for a male to say--sweetness that combine for a biting commentary while keeping almost all of the characters sympathetic to the viewer.

9/10

Il Maestro: Ennio Morricone and 'the Good, the Bad and the Ugly' (2004 Video)

Has some good info, but thought it would be better

[5/10 · 17 August 2004]

The title of the supplement to the new GBU disk is titled in part, "Il Maestro: Ennio Morricone", but Morricone is never interviewed and never even shown in a motion clip, only in some still photos.

Where did the background sounds come from for the Morricone style? Who provided the voices in his scores? How long did it take him to work on a score? It isn't really discussed. The running time itself is kind of short, a sign that this is mostly just a rushed extra to put on the new DVD.

The background info on his classical training and avant garde style that he adopted when he started scoring films is good, but nothing would have beaten an interview with a living legend. 5/10 for a docu.

Battle Royale (2000)

"Bloody" good, but...

[7/10 · 22 July 2004]

After reading most of the manga adaptation before viewing this, the pacing of the movie left something to be desired. Two hours is long for some movies, but not this one. I think it easily should have run at least another half an hour. There are 42 (more or less) characters to kill off and most o their backstories are not even touched. But for those that do, they did a good job.

Besides that somewhat irking flaw, the acting, direction, etc. were all good in this, even if you need subtitles to understand Japanese. Most of the differences between the film and written formats of the film are fine except for the humanization of the teacher. It didn't seem like that kept it true to the theme of the original story.

The blood and guts flying, well, that is superb. 7/10

Band of Brothers (2001)

Best mini-series ever

[10/10 · 6 March 2004]

I finally saw this mini-series 2 1/2 years after its debut and I should be ashamed for waiting so long. There are no weak points to this show. The acting, directing, writing, stunts, effects, etc. all deserve A's.

The mini is basically 10 character-driven episodes in chronological order as told by different members of Easy Company. Episodes 4 and 9 are especially touching, about the liberation of Holland and the finding of concentration camps, respectively. During parts of some episodes, the actual surviving 101st airborne members talk about their memories that are depicted in each episode. The very ending quote of episode 10 is the greatest, where one member reflects on his grandson asking him if he was a hero during the war. He told his grandson he wasn't, but fought in the company of heroes.

That is what Band of Brothers is all about. 10/10

Cabin Fever (2002)

This movie is ridiculously bad

[2/10 · 19 February 2004]

It is almost bad in an Ed Wood sort of way, except that the day and night shots actually do look like day and night. No surprise that the writer/director is a Troma vet, as the film's best assets are two brief sex scenes and gross-out violence. Terribly bad dialogue is rampant, yet somehow with as much as is included in the film it seems to fit. The film does seem to want to be taken seriously sometimes though so the message is very mixed. Direction is bad. Except for American Wedding I have never seen more overuse of a wide-angle lens. Plotholes/questions galore as well, but if you like Troma or B-cinema you should like this. Some scenes are kind of laugh out loud bad, so the movie isn't a total waste even to the casual viewer. PANCAKES!!!! 2/10

The Perfect Husband: The Laci Peterson Story (2004 TV Movie)

Average TV-movie on a notorious case

[5/10 · 15 February 2004]

The Perfect Husband: The Laci Peterson Story is a TV-movie starring Dean Cain as Scott Peterson, the man accused of killing his 8-month-pregnant wife Laci (Meredith Lieber) and who'd had an affair with Amber Frey (Tracy Middendorf) in 2002.

The movie was filmed before the murder case against Scott had even began, so of course the movie has to be rather ambivalent in its treatment of him. That is one of the major flaws of the movie. Without a settled case, the movie really beats around the bush as to whether or not Scott did the murder or if he was just a man with a bad secret who was wrongfully accused.

For his part, Dean Cain plays the role well with hints of guilt, but the part was scripted as such it seems and he is not an endearing character. He could have been more convincing early in the script, before the revelation that he was a suspect, then shown as more conniving. From the get-go, his character just shows too many guilt signs and ever action of his says "look at me, this is a warning sign" instead of being more subliminal early.

In all, there is a complete lack of a true central character. Laci is non-existent as a character in the movie, mostly just referred to in the past tense. The parents, rightfully so, share a large portion of the screen time and most of the sympathy of the viewer. But there are a lot of useless actors with bit roles (investigators, for instance) in the script to keep it true to the real-life people instead of amalgamated into a few more meaningful, dramatized characters.

Overall, a lackluster effort and a movie made too soon with no real connection to the murdered individual. It just seems like the TV movie that it is instead of something more. 5/10

Dahmer (2002)

Decent acting doesn't make up for weak plot

[3/10 · 17 January 2004]

Dahmer is the type of film that shows flashes of possibility but amounts to nothing. It is a film about one of the most notorious serial killers in American history and shows no real violence, and doesn't even delve into the cannibalism that made his story so shocking. It tries to be a character study but only scratches the surface.

The biggest flaw in the movie are the numerous (and I do mean numerous) flashbacks. Most of the movie jumps back and forth between a series of different, timeless flashbacks. He rapes some guys in a club after giving them drugs, hides a head from his parents who don't understand him, etc. It's more of a watered-down version of the actual shocking case. Even though they get some screen time, none of the few victims shown make you care about their victim status.

3/10

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

Typical teen slasher horror

[3/10 · 18 August 2003]

I went to see this in the theater simply because I heard it had some good nudity. Unfortunately, that comprises approximately two shots and about 8 seconds. The rest of the film (as if the aforementioned wasn't already) is typical teenie bopper slasher crap. so much so that you would have sworn that Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven were working together again to make this. Horrible one-liners ("Welcome to my world, b*tch!"), the token black friend of the main character, the virgin, the loser, the virgin's-ex-who-still-loves-her, the rookie cop trying to help. It's all there. There's even a stoner guy who can be nothing more than a complete homage to Jay of Jay and Silent Bob (who just so happened to be in one of the Scream movies).

The dialogue, as if it needed to be said, is mostly pointless and when it isn't, simply hammers in something that has already been said or known.

With far too little nudity, the film's saving grace is the amount of blood and violence on screen. When not trying to add in a dramatic plot--which was a complete joke--there were some fine slasher moments when the two main baddies go killing. Alas, being a teenie slasher film, they turned the rock soundtrack up for these parts. 3/10

28 Days Later (2002)

Atmosphericly heart-pounding, but had flaws

[7/10 · 4 July 2003]

As a big fan of zombie movies, I knew I had to go see this film in theaters. Sure, the infected are not zombies in the dead sense, but they are close enough. Like most good zombie movies, the film relied on the characters' response to the zombies for a look at how people react than just making it a shoot-em-up movie. We do care for the good characters and since they are always in harms way, it is tense to see them in danger. One good guy dies early on in the film, so we know that there is not a guarantee that the people in the movie will live.

The film starts out with a bang, then suddenly goes limp for about 10 minutes. As the zombies pour in, the film finally advances in entertainment. Danny Boyle's direction is very claustrophobic in this film. We cannot tell in a lot of shots of the zombies exactly how far away they are from the protagonists. There is a scene in a tunnel where four people have to change a tire as we see the shadows and silhouettes of zombies closing in. Then the film goes limp again with too much dream sequencing. Then it builds to a climax with some troops, the best part of the movie.

While the film can terrify, there are some flaws that keep it from being a great work.

First and foremost, DIGITAL VIDEO. Why did Boyle decide to shoot the picture in this format? This film looks horrible projected. Anything in the background, even when it is the focus, is blurred. The film would have been much better off shot on High Definition, which can easily achieve the same color saturation as DV, is still easier to setup than a film camera, costs a little more but gives a clear, naturally 16x9 picture.

The music, while I like the fact that it slowly builds, is annoying. The creators let it build up too high so that it is deafening and you just want the damn music to end. And then there are scenes without music (or where it builds too slowly) and it really needs it to keep it from being too slow.

The MTV-style video editing during action scenes is atrocious.

I won't give away the ending, but the film did seem to drone on at times where I thought "THIS was the ending" (or we were near it)... and then the movie kept going. This is especially true about 3 minutes away from the REAL ending when a still frame is used and it goes to black at just the right moment that we think "this is the end."

The film could have been great. This effort by Boyle isn't anywhere near Trainspotting. 5/10

Dog Soldiers (2002)

Entertaining and suspenseful, but watch the road for plot holes

[23 June 2003]

An amalgam of Night of the Living Dead, American Werewolf in London and Aliens, Dog Soldiers manages to out-do the first two films mentioned in terms of action and dread. The basic plot is that some soldiers on a training mission come across a Special Ops squad that's been recently massacred and only the injured (nudge-nudge wink-wink) superior officer remains. They take him with them but come across the werewolves as darkness falls. A woman in an Explorer arrives just in time to rescue them and they reach the only house within dozens of miles and find it empty like the M. Celeste house in Night of the Living Dead. With the creatures surrounding the house and low on ammo, they decide to board it up and wait until dawn when the moon is gone. But will they last that long?

Okay, spoiler alert for the rest of the post. Any person who has knowledge of werewolf movies will see some of the plot twists coming. Obviously the injured colonial and others will change into werewolves eventually. That can't be helped. The writer/director wisely did not try to change werewolf lore regarding that issue.

So where did the film go wrong? Well, the whole thing with the girl cooping them up in the house was not the most twisted device the plot could have used. And we always suspect something with the colonial who keeps saying "there was only supposed to be one!" The girl could have left the men there in the forest and they still would have been dog food. But instead she endangers her life (?) and is terrified of the werewolves (seeing as how she has no trouble helping the men fight them off at first).... even though they are her own family and she let the danged things in as she is about to change into one.

Also, why exactly can't the werewolves break into their own house with some measly boards guarding the windows? The colonial turns into one)= and jumps out of the window with no difficulty or need to build up speed to ram the window with. The boards just break. So they nail new boards back up. Hey, if I'm a werewolf and see that, I'm busting right in there through those boarded windows. Or maybe even trying to get into the room with the busted up window before they nail it shut. That just does not make sense.

There are a few other smaller details that raise the "huh?" factor in the movie, like how SLOW the wolves are once they get within the house vs how fast they are outside. They just seem to creep up on people and not run.

The movie is, overall, entertaining. There is some decent gore and once the werewolves are shown they are pretty creepy-looking. But the obvious plot holes make you wonder why the writer could not have just gone an alternate way to get to the ending, which is quite good.

6/10

Vampire Clan (2002)

Reminds me of an experience in fiction writing class

[3/10 · 12 June 2003]

The people producing this film fell for the same fallacy that one of the students in the class did. He insisted that a couple of the stories he wrote in the vein of, "I realized that such-and-such is a true because this happened." He insisted that the story didn't need modification simply because it was true. Problem was, he forgot about a few things like effective story telling and sticking with just the significant facts. And the need to embellish a little is always a good thing.

This film suffers from the same problems. The back of the DVD says that the plot is all the more chilling because it is real. Well, being real is not scary. Most good horror films are scary because they are real. And if based on real life, they are scary because they are well-written and directed to convey a mood where even if you know the real story, you are unsure what will happen next and fear for the characters.

The biggest problem with the story telling is that the story of the clan begins at the end of the journey--with the kids being arrested in New Orleans for the murder of a Eustis, FL couple. THEN they all sit down one-by-one and tell the tale of how they got to be in 'Nawlins. The problem is, at this point we already know what is going to happen: parents get killed and kids get arrested in New Orleans! End of plot! Somehow the actual traveling seemed to take up a big portion of the run time but we already know where they are headed before they even take the trip.

The film has some good, young talent in the supporting roles (there is no real lead except for the one daughter of the parents who are murdered who goes on the journey). For some reason, all the young actors seemed to out-shine the older ones (especially the laughably bad-acting police officers). The casting of these roles was right on cue. Most people look like they did in real life except for the Rod character, who if you look him up on the Florida Dept. of Corrections site does NOT look like a hearthrob like he was in this movie. The kid with the glasses was eerily doppleganger-like.

The very opening of the movie is very reminiscent of Scream 1's opening scene with a girl realizing she may not be alone while talking on the phone. The shot setups look alike too. The bad-acting cop who shows up and tries to be the scare-factor in the scene makes the film more of a comedy than a thriller.

There is some decent amount of blood in the film. The killing of the parents is on-camera but out of frame (not necessarily a bad thing). We do get to see some bloodied, bludgeoned bodies which is always good (I think). The music is pretty fitting as well but it is cranked up too high at parts and you can't hear parts of the dialogue. And that is not because it is diagetic music.

Like the whole arrest at the beginning of the movie, putting off the murders for as long as the creators did makes it far less dramatic. The kids actually flash back to the murder scene but skip showing it on camera until the end. Why?! There's no revelation. It's just pointless to add it at the point and not put it in chronologically.

In the end, the writing is the biggest thing keeping this film down. Some B-grade actors as cops and complete lack of suspense build-up in direction doesn't help either. 3/10

Gacy (2003 Video)

Tepid movie, but effective for low-budget film

[5/10 · 19 May 2003]

If you liked Henry: POASK then you will like this. If not, you won't. They are very similar. I have not seen the other serial killer movies (Dahmer, Ed Gein, Bundy) yet to make a comparison, but it is very similar to Henry. A lot of the killing happens off camera. That I don't like. It is not even that creepy. Since Gacy is the main character, you do not get a lot of feeling for the other characters and hence a sense of dread except for a few scenes. His wife finds some male adult mags in the drawer and finally seems to act with some emotion, then quickly leaves the movie. The daughters have almost no lines, but a lot of the early scenes with them as a family seem to contradict what the back of the box tells you. It says he was a normal person except for the killings. That is, he had a family and was politically active. But he does not seem like a good guy who happens to have a secret. A lot of the atmosphere is simply negative. His daughters, wife, mom never smile and neither does he. I prefer the American Psycho style of serial killer where the guy acts normal and even feigns interest in things, then goes nutso as soon as he can.

It had some good parts though. He tells one guy something like "let's get a drink" and the next scene he is plunging the dude's head in the bath tub. That's good stuff.

It just wasn't all that disturbing though. A lot of the direction was pretty basic, same with editing except for a few times with the crawlspace (where it is pretty obvious early on that this is where he keeps the bodies) where the bugs had some nifty editing to make them seem creepier.

It is obviously a low-budget movie. It is fullscreen though it looks like it was shot on film, but the depth of field indicates it may not have been. Could have been shot on an XL-1. Very few shots had any type of focal depth (ie: telephoto, wide-angle differences). I don't like fullscreen. It looks like it was probably cut on the computer, via final cut pro or adobe premiere. Looks like they also used a common DVD program like DVD Studio Pro to make the DVD.

Probably could not be improved on much on such a low budget, but I think they should have made some more of the scenes more macabre and actually made him seem nicer at times (and meaner at times). The acting isn't all that bad. It isn't great either though. The lead actor and the wife, some of the gays act okay (though acting gay isn't that hard I guess, just wink a little more at guys). The rest of the cast are so stereotypical and mullet-ridden that they are probably not even acting. There isn't a lot of depth to most of the characters.

I'd give it a 5 out of 10.

Soul Survivors (2001)

The World of the DUMB and the Living... are About to Collide.

[1/10 · 8 February 2003]

I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its "killer cut" of "more gore! more sex!" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?

It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they "cut" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.

From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.

I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!

Fight Club (1999)

A movie better than its book

[10/10 · 2 January 2003]

I first saw Fight Club about two years ago. Of course, I loved it. I own the soapbox DVD. So when the time came for me to choose some reading material last summer, I picked the book to read and see how it compared. I actually liked the movie better than the book. I think it is better than the book, something that does not happen often (see Jurassic Park, both versions of Red Dragon, many Stephen King translations to film, etc.)

The book is definitely unique. It is told like the poems the Narrator reads about Jack's organs. It is a lot of first person dialogue from a guy you are sure is a wimp. I think the movie improves on it by the gimmicks like the changeovers and frames inserted. Moreover, I feel the ending to the book was rather lacking and disapointing (maybe because of the great ending to the movie). Most importantly, I think the movie emphasizes the actual Fight Club/Project Mayhem aspect better. It is a major source of conflict in the film, while more of a backdrop in the book. The book is more of an exploration of the relationship with Marla and the narrator's state of mind. It's also very short (if you try, you can read it in a day), while the movie is over two hours long. If you read the book, you'll see a lot of the dialogue is lifted from there, but I think some of the quotes from the movie are snappier (the "I want to have your abortion" line on the alternate take found on the DVD is from the book, but the line "I haven't been f**ked like that since grade school" is just hilarious.) About the only scene I could see from the book making the movie better/funnier is Tyler cooking Marla's mom's collagen "gift."

The movie's very deep. We, the audience, see characters in the same light as the Narrator does as the movie progresses. Though Tyler seems to be the perfect buddy and collaborator, we all soon find him to be just a psycho and the liberated space monkeys as lemmings. The despised Marla (I am Jack's raging bile duct) we all come to find endearing... somehow. 10/10

Daughters of the Dust (1991)

Unwatchable

[7 November 2002]

I saw this film for a film class at UF. We have seen some slow and some fast-paced films. This is by far the slowest we have seen and is the most boring piece of cinema I have ever seen.

Now, it's not ALL bad. The movie has some cultural significance and was obviously researched before filming. The shot selection was very good, colors vibrant, and you could feel the actors' emotions.

But the story... was slow. There's a load of characters and I couldn't figure out who was related to who and what all had happened with the pregnant woman. The movie was like the opening title-card sequence to Black Hawk Down stretched out to 2 hours in length. There's parts with loads of music and no dialogue and vice versa. The movie seemed to reach an ending 5 times before it finally did. The writer-director clearly had no clue as to what pacing was.

The story was basically about some African-Americans at the turn of the century who boat down to their family on the shores of some island that is separated on one side by a river and the ocean on the other. They want a better life and are split about whether the island or the mainland is the better spot for it. It takes them two agonizing (to us) hours to decide.

Long [very long] story short: half the class walked out in the first hour. And I was jealous of those who did when I reached the end of the film. 2/10

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Good, but not great

[2/10 · 28 June 2002]

Boondock Saints is something I'd heard a lot of good things about. As with most films you hear that about, you have to check for the reviewer's taste in movies beforehand. Most people liked Pulp Fiction and said this was up there with that. I figured it would be a drop-off and upon viewing the film, still think so. The plot is good, direction good at times (music is used way past the point of necessity or style, but ok), but the script.... the script was just too hammy for me. You've got several scenes with a room full of characters and every single one of them is a wise ass. There is nothing wrong with being a wise ass of having a room full of wiseasses in their own way, but it was almost like a room full of cliches. You've got the smart-mouth FBI agent without a serious bone in his body, the Boston PD he harasses who take it no matter what like they are missing a pair, two wise-ass brothers, a pop-off sidekick who's not all there, and so on and so on. I know it is unfair to compare this to Pulp Fiction because they are about different plots but this film mimics PF in style (again, sometimes to the point of nausea), but PF has some serious overtones in it. When Jules is giving his bible speech before killing a guy in PF, you know he means it. In BS, when the brothers give a similar speech, it is almost comedic. But the film does not seem to be a real farce stylistically (except for the funny obligatory shoulder-spread-out shot when DaFoe is talking about the "big shoot-out"). I don't know if it was trying to be funny or serious. And that's the big flaw the script has in my opinion.

If you're tired of watching PF for the 1,000th time, watch this. If you have not seen PF or Resovoir Dogs, catch those first. And catch them a few more times, as repeated viewing of those is still better than BS. But if when you have seen them a few times, then read the beginning of this paragraph. 6/10

Storm of the Century (1999)

Great direction squandered by the script

[6/10 · 13 June 2002]

I watched "Storm of the Century" about a year and a half ago on

VHS. I adored the direction. The mood by the visitor/demon was

quite ominous with dark shots (see him standing before the

house of the old lady with his cane in hand) and great music. And

the script, while not bad for the most part, really falls flat as the

movie goes on.

King, as good as his novels are, just cannot write a movie script. I

don't know why, but the guy just does not seem to know what a

good movie is. His scripts are long and try to shove the point in

your face instead of letting you figure it out with the info on hand.

He hated Kubrick's Shining and had to write an inferior fluff piece

17 years later to show people his "vision." And he made Maximum

Overdrive and a bunch of other flops. It seems that unless

someone takes King's ideas and polishes them specifically for

the screen (see Shining 1980, The Shawshank Redemption,

Misery, etc.), then the script just blows. Well, in the end the script

just blows in Storm of the Century. Like no one knows who is

going to get the discolored stone at the end! Duh!!!!!! Small towns

are better at keeping secrets, yes. But they are also more close- knit. **SPOILER AND OPINION***The script would have been

much better if the town had gone and entered the sea in defiance.

And the epilogue.... ugh.***END SPOILER*** 5/10

Manhunter (1986)

A far too literal book adaption at times.

[4/10 · 7 June 2002]

Some spoilers. Often times, fans of a book-turned-movie complain of how the story vastly differs from the book on which it is based. This can certainly ruin a film just as much as it can make a film, since certain plot lines in books are too long to fit in a movie or unfit to the rest of a screenplay. Manhunter is the type of film that was just the opposite, an almost literal, verbatim copy of the book. In this case, it was not as effective as changing some storylines/quotes to better fit a film. There are just small things--like Graham looking over the pictures of the dead families on an airplane and thinking of his wife carrying a six-pack of longneck Mexican beer aboard a boat--that are in the book and just did not need to be in the film. There's a lot of small things that were directly taken from the book and could have been modified, lengthened or deleted entirely. Also bad was how Graham would say lines in the movie that he THOUGHT in the book, making him seem like a loon ("You touched her with your bare hands, didn't ya?!"). The meeting with Hannibal Lector (while one of the highlights of the film) is one of those types of things that could have used some help. Their conversations in the book and film are almost identical. However, there just seems to be something missing in the film that is in the book: backstory. Yes, we know the basics of what happens between Graham and Lector several years prior, but it needed more than just a brief summary. A flashback or opening in that scene and then fast forwarding some 4 or 5 years would have done wonders to add some tension. When Lector tells Graham to "smell yourself" and then Graham runs for about 15 seconds through the building, there is no apparent tension. I certainly didn't feel any. Graham just does not seem to be haunted by his ability to think like the killer. Some mental hauntings by the children he can picture being murdered in his head would have been much more dramatic. Overall, this is a very bad adaption for Mann. The script is weak and the direction is mediocre. I can only assume he was doing this while he was busy working on Miami Vice among other things as well and took some shortcuts. With the book-titled remake of this film being penned by "Silence of the Lambs" scriptor Ted Tally, I think that it will be a superior film to this. How--as the DVD case says--people consider Manhunter to be superior to Silence is beyond me. 4/10

Insomnia (2002)

A very good thriller

[9/10 · 6 June 2002]

If you liked Se7en, then you will probably like this film. They both

have the same noir feel to them. I liked both films, though I think

Se7en was more original in its content.

Christopher Nolan handled his direction duties admirably. I liked

the way that the insomnia was steadily built in script- and

direction-wise. When Pacino is in the police station and we see

the oscillating fan isolated and annoying, all I could think was

"been there!"

Mild spoiler: One obvious plot flaw is how Pacino never thought to use

aluminum foil to escape the light of day (or is it night?). I sleep

during the day quite often and that is well-known to block sunlight.

But then if Pacino thought of that, we would be sure whether it was

the sunlight or his conscience keeping him awake at night,

wouldn't we? 9/10

The Mangler 2 (2002 Video)

They don't make films like this anymore!

[1/10 · 1 June 2002]

Contains Spoilers Not since Ed Wood died, anyway. Much like Wood, the world may never have seen someone get so little out of a decent film cast and budget than with Hamilton-Wright's Mangler 2.

I knew the movie would suck when I rented it. But I just HAD to view it for two reasons: 1) I find Chelse Swain to be quite striking and 2) I am a sucker for bad horror. And how bad it was!

The film tries to be a horror film; it fails. It tries to be a teen movie; it fails. It tries to be a movie with a point; (guess what) it fails! The fact that they tried to make it a teen movie is almost comedically in your face. They even included all of the stereotypical teen figures in the movie: the social outcast girl, the jock, the comedic relief black guy, the guy who only thinks about getting laid, and the trampy girl. It's enough to make you laugh out loud when you see them all in a room together. I'd have sworn I was watching a bad remake of She's All That, Can't Hardly Wait, etc. And then it tries to be a horror movie. I know I am not alone when I didn't feel antsy in any one scene at all. They could have at least frozen the cook all the way. That would have been a little freaky. But no! He makes it out of the freezer and spews a horrible, HORRIBLE one-liner (one of his many).

The direction for most of the film was blatantly incompetent. Even in the opening scene, which had a wee bit of potential, the "ninja" makes you laugh because they kept Swain in the suit instead of using a body double who knows how to walk stealthily. The ninja had to have been the most ungraceful one in cinematic history. Note to director: you can you a double when the character is supposed to be shrouded by cloths! And then arrives the father. He was competing with Lance Henriksen for least interesting actor in a horror film. No one in the getting-caught scene seems to know what they are doing. It's so horribly lame. Then Hamilton-Wright tries to get a little creative near the end and uses the most cliched shots there are, especially after Swain hides the knife away and walks toward the camera in slow, mad-ass motion. And how do you hide a chef's knife (and CD-ROM) in a pair of shorts and walk? Seriously. And how did the cameras that we know (we see them on her about 10 seconds earlier) can view her not pick up the fact that she shoved a knife down her trunks?

And then the film even goes into the physically impossible with the electric fence scene. First of all, an electric fence does not shoot sparks when you throw metal at it because the metal is not grounded. And two, an electric fence will not go through your shoes! But at least the character who bites it in that scene deserves it for jumping on the fence in the traditional "I'm the moron of the movie" sense.

And apparently even the DVD is flawed because a reviewer of the "film" on Fangoria had the same problem as I did when part of a scene is missing (you have to watch the bonus features to know that a certain character that is missing in the rest of the film after that scene got crushed to death in some bleachers). It goes black because the horny guy loses his flashlight and then cuts to the jock and a couple other characters (???).

The film apparently was trying to make a point. So I hear!! I don't see it, but apparently the writer/director thinks that this film shows that parents go too far trying to control their kids. Yeah.... nothing like a horror/teen movie to make a social statement. If you want to make social commentary on a situation like parental control, don't make some magical computer virus kill people off in the school. Make em die in a fire because they couldn't escape the security doors or something.

And speaking of killer computer viruses, how did this virus exist on the internet and not even kill the servers it was housed on? Or at least have never been unleashed onto the world (as it kinda seems to do. watch the ending to know what I mean). Someone can create it, upload it, put it on a website and yet it does no harm until someone downloaded it? Pathetic. Like one reviewer said: Don't see this film if you're into computers!!!!

So now I hear on the bonus materials that Chelse Swain is going to work on their next film, Totally Board. Why, Chelse, why?! Stick to the better films like The Virgin Suicides.

Frailty (2001)

Probably a better film if you know nothing of it

[7/10 · 29 May 2002]

As with some other reviewers of the film Frailty, I agree that the less you know about it going in, the better the movie is. I don't know this for sure, since I've already seen it now, but even from the previews they tell you that there is some kind of twist ending. If you know that going in, you look for it. And a friend and I got about 90% of the twist[s] right when we were 1/3 into the movie. But I'm not sure he knew there was a twist in that, so maybe he assumed there would be. The film would have been pretty flat without it, so it is natural to assume that there had to be something in there at the end, especially in a era with twist endings in many slower-paced thrillers like The Sixth Sense and Memento. This film does not reach the level of those two, but it is a tense film regardless.

****SPOILERS**** Once you find the twist, you do see clues to it in the story. But I noticed the two situations where the truth could be revealed (regarding how they "see" demons) in present day right off the bat. Right in the beginning, 'Fenton' shrugs off the FBI agent's handshake quite coldly and then later on refuses to let the agent put the cuffs on him, opting to do it to himself. Another clue my friend pointed out halfway through the film regarded certain characters' hair colors. Fenton is a dark-haired boy in the earlier scenes and is blonde when Adam has replaced him in present day. Same goes for Adam, a blonde in the past but a darker color when his brother supposedly hears him kill himself. I'm sure there were more clues, but those certainly tipped us off early on. ****END SPOILERS****

The direction is good at making the story dark. I see a lot of classic thriller-element shots in there, like a character bending over and there is a certain person behind him wielding a blunt object toward his head. Also good is how Paxton decides not to make the film a splatter-fest. From the sound (which is superb) and the characters' reactions as they slay 'demons' we can tell that the demons have been beheaded without needing the good old fashioned rolling head or blood flying in six-foot arcs.

The acting is very good, but the two boys who played younger Fenton and Adam Meiks (the Meiks shall inherit the Earth?) didn't seem that believable at first, when talking about girls and the usual stuff for kids their age. Their believability (and seemingly their acting ability) changes as the story goes on, which makes the film better. When 'Dad' asks Fenton if he saw God while locked in the cellar, his answer was wickedly delivered.

For me, this film worked well without the twist. Because I could figure out what most of the twist was, it make the story (the present-day storyline) fall flat. I gave it a 7 out of 10.

Heat (1995)

"Heat" isn't a film; it's an event!

[10/10 · 21 May 2002]

Few films are this length (almost 3 hours) and not boring. And it doesn't take what could be one of the best film action sequences in film halfway through it to be so. There's always the threat of something bad going to happen in every scene. And most scenes have the threat realized. At every turn the film could end but it keeps on going, building the tension for the shoot-out to end the film. Of course, that is not even the best shoot-out in the film. The 10-minute exchange between the robbers and the cops is simply *awesome*. Only great films like Heat or Terminator 1 and 2, etc. can have great action, bang-up, shoot-out sequences but not rely on them to sell the movie.

The dialogue's got the mix of snappy remarks, emotional releases, and expositions that make for great film. It's equal only to the performances of the actors who deliver the lines. And what actors there are! Few films combine such a slate of name talent. Besides the two headliners in the film, most of the actors who play minor characters are now leading actors and actresses in Hollywood (Judd, Portman, Voight, Brenneman, etc.).

I wish they would put out a definitive edition for this film with the added scenes for the NBC broadcast. The DVD out right now has only the basic goods you would get.

Training Day (2001)

Training Day takes you to hell

[8/10 · 20 May 2002]

The script, direction, and acting go from superb to almost over the top at times to make the characters too good, too evil, and too dark. Denzel Washington's performance is much like that. At times, he is a believable bad guy, at others, he's just the type of guy who makes you think if even Hitler had kinder elements to him. It's difficult to tell if that makes the film better or worse. Personally, I don't think it made it better. It made it just a tad bit less believable. But in a way, that is necessary to show the badness of the streets and the ghetto/barrio neighborhoods that Ethan Hawke is left in to fend for himself.

There is a deleted scene on the DVD that would have, in my opinion, made Denzel seem more human. I would have liked it in the film and cut some of that "King Kong" monologue near the end to make him a more tragic figure at the end. > 8/10