During the first twenty minutes or so of this film one is overwhelmed with the notion that writer director Jim Jarmusch is a genius: a pair of young Japanese rock and roll lovers travel to Memphis, Tennessee to visit the formative sights of legendary star Elvis Presley. The concept of exploring southern America's cultural history through the eyes of foreigners (and in their native language no less) is incredibly absorbing. Unfortunately, the film's narrative soon breaks into three separate overlapping stories and your first impression of brilliance is dropped at the wayside. Some strength is restored in the final act, but fails to match the beginning. Overall, another enjoyable Jarmusch piece with an excellent eclectic cast.
Reviews
28 Reviews
A History of Violence
(2005)
America The Beautiful
15 April 2006
Cronenberg returns to his thematic trappings of violent organics with this subtle pick of American masculinity.
The script itself appears to be short and weak, but the film grows wonderfully with Cronenberg's thematic style - notably his Canadian perspective of small town America and the inherit destinies of its progeny. The film's ultimate strength lies here with Cronenberg's exploration of sex, violence, love, and family. His contribution is much more dynamic than the script ever could have been.
Cronenberg portrays violence as a sort of hidden plague among the lands and people of America. The recurring career theme of sinister genetics is presented here as heritage in the protagonist's struggle with his past and the future that lies with his son's first handling of a shotgun. There's also an intriguing aspect of duality when Tom Stall says whole-heartedly that he killed Joey Cusak in the desert. The concept is also mirrored in the two sex scenes and rather effectively in the subsequent moment of looks exchanged between husband and wife.
Mr. Cronenberg appears to have met the perfect vessel for his work with actor Viggo Mortensen. The two are so well suited for one another with this project that it is much like the child of a passionate love affair. All of the actors deliver, but Mortensen carries the film himself - it feels as much his as it is Cronenberg's.
Although engaging and definitely cathartic, the presentation of two key action moments (the diner and front yard scenes) fall a bit short due to Cronenberg's lack of proper pace editing in tight moments. There is also a scene where Mortensen is accosted at home by a television news reporter that falls very flat due simply to lack of proper lighting. However, these are both easily overlooked in comparison to the oddly humor-laced third act. The light comedy is appreciated, but feels rather awkward given the preceding mood of ominous foreboding. This is in part personified with the performance of William Hurt who oddly enough received an Academy Award nomination.
The film concludes with a superbly poetic scene at the dinner table where all American tales end which reconnects the story securely into place. The final shot further reflects this with Mortensen's eyes an image that captures the thematic bondage of the tale.
A welcome return by Cronenberg.
The script itself appears to be short and weak, but the film grows wonderfully with Cronenberg's thematic style - notably his Canadian perspective of small town America and the inherit destinies of its progeny. The film's ultimate strength lies here with Cronenberg's exploration of sex, violence, love, and family. His contribution is much more dynamic than the script ever could have been.
Cronenberg portrays violence as a sort of hidden plague among the lands and people of America. The recurring career theme of sinister genetics is presented here as heritage in the protagonist's struggle with his past and the future that lies with his son's first handling of a shotgun. There's also an intriguing aspect of duality when Tom Stall says whole-heartedly that he killed Joey Cusak in the desert. The concept is also mirrored in the two sex scenes and rather effectively in the subsequent moment of looks exchanged between husband and wife.
Mr. Cronenberg appears to have met the perfect vessel for his work with actor Viggo Mortensen. The two are so well suited for one another with this project that it is much like the child of a passionate love affair. All of the actors deliver, but Mortensen carries the film himself - it feels as much his as it is Cronenberg's.
Although engaging and definitely cathartic, the presentation of two key action moments (the diner and front yard scenes) fall a bit short due to Cronenberg's lack of proper pace editing in tight moments. There is also a scene where Mortensen is accosted at home by a television news reporter that falls very flat due simply to lack of proper lighting. However, these are both easily overlooked in comparison to the oddly humor-laced third act. The light comedy is appreciated, but feels rather awkward given the preceding mood of ominous foreboding. This is in part personified with the performance of William Hurt who oddly enough received an Academy Award nomination.
The film concludes with a superbly poetic scene at the dinner table where all American tales end which reconnects the story securely into place. The final shot further reflects this with Mortensen's eyes an image that captures the thematic bondage of the tale.
A welcome return by Cronenberg.
Wolf Creek
(2005)
Definitely a must for genre fans
1 January 2006
I really enjoyed this. The film is definitely a worthy entry into the genre and it's always great to see a horror movie free of Hollywood influence - particularly in a time when it's so watered-down and profitable. I'd go as far as to say this is one of the few films to follow in the footsteps of THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974). This isn't nearly as good, but it definitely made me feel the way Texas did so many years ago.
The amount of actual on screen violence shown here should be closely observed for much like Texas, this is one of the rare films where that technique pays off in a wonderfully disturbing fashion.
WOLF CREEK is pretty much everything a good horror film should be: unsettling mood, building tension, and a near nauseating sense of revolt that rises through your body. This is literally one of three films where I couldn't shake the images or mood it left in me for the rest of the night. For lack of a better word : haunting.
Naturally, there are a handful of things I didn't like about the film. However, much of my personal criticisms slip away (except for the poor concluding shot which for me weakened the entire film) in light of the nature of this beast.
And a final word of warning here folks, take this film for what it is. This isn't a statement on humanity, violence, sex/gender, or even the world we live in. This is horror. It is meant to get under your skin and bother you. Plain and simple.
The amount of actual on screen violence shown here should be closely observed for much like Texas, this is one of the rare films where that technique pays off in a wonderfully disturbing fashion.
WOLF CREEK is pretty much everything a good horror film should be: unsettling mood, building tension, and a near nauseating sense of revolt that rises through your body. This is literally one of three films where I couldn't shake the images or mood it left in me for the rest of the night. For lack of a better word : haunting.
Naturally, there are a handful of things I didn't like about the film. However, much of my personal criticisms slip away (except for the poor concluding shot which for me weakened the entire film) in light of the nature of this beast.
And a final word of warning here folks, take this film for what it is. This isn't a statement on humanity, violence, sex/gender, or even the world we live in. This is horror. It is meant to get under your skin and bother you. Plain and simple.
The Devil's Rejects
(2005)
"I am the devil and I am here to do the devil's work."
25 December 2005
This is one of the most satisfying horror films I have ever seen. Writer/director Rob Zombie truly scored with this flick. Compared to its predecessor, REJECTS is above and beyond. HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES pales in comparison as merely an enjoyable fanfare work for horror nuts. THE DEVIL'S REJECTS shines as a revenge pick born of Zombie's love of horror, westerns, and 70s pop culture.
Rob Zombie is no longer the fan boy here, he's finally the real deal.
I feel that what makes REJECTS stand out is the cinematography - the look is amazing and adds so much. The camera movement too is key - I believe I only saw one or two still shots. The casting is insane! So many lovable horror icons : Ken Foree (DAWN OF THE DEAD), PJ Soles (HALLOWEEN), Michael Berryman (THE HILLS HAVE EYES), Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees unmasked), and gems including William Forsythe and Danny Trejo. The production design too is worth noting. The wardrobe, soundtrack, dialogue - everything is flawless in this film! Given the story and genre, this film is top notch. It doesn't get any better than this. As far as I'm concerned Rob Zombie has fulfilled his place in the world of cinema. This is the best thing he has ever done in his career. As far as I'm concerned, he can retire with his wife in California and disappear forever.
The best film of the year and my second personal favorite of 2005.
Rob Zombie is no longer the fan boy here, he's finally the real deal.
I feel that what makes REJECTS stand out is the cinematography - the look is amazing and adds so much. The camera movement too is key - I believe I only saw one or two still shots. The casting is insane! So many lovable horror icons : Ken Foree (DAWN OF THE DEAD), PJ Soles (HALLOWEEN), Michael Berryman (THE HILLS HAVE EYES), Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees unmasked), and gems including William Forsythe and Danny Trejo. The production design too is worth noting. The wardrobe, soundtrack, dialogue - everything is flawless in this film! Given the story and genre, this film is top notch. It doesn't get any better than this. As far as I'm concerned Rob Zombie has fulfilled his place in the world of cinema. This is the best thing he has ever done in his career. As far as I'm concerned, he can retire with his wife in California and disappear forever.
The best film of the year and my second personal favorite of 2005.
Comic Book: The Movie
(2004 Video)
Robots Vs Zombies
25 December 2005
Silly little film shot very cheaply by Mark Hamill and crew about the never-ending battle between Hollywood and the average geek. Skywalker stars as a comic book fan/store owner who is recruited by a group of film producers to talk up positive press for an upcoming big screen adaptation of his favorite character : Commander Courage.
There's definitely something left to be desired with this film (shot on DV) given the mockumentary genre, however the humor is pretty much dead on given the comic book/fantasy/sci-fi audience.
Many cameo appearances including Bruce Campbell, Greg Nicotero, Ron Perlman, and many more really provide a good level of enjoyment for us geeks. Having been shot mostly at a California Comic Book convention it's a wonder that more passersby didn't recognize Hamill. Maybe many did, however this isn't shown in the film nor in any special features I could find on the DVD edition.
Watch for a great Joker and Harley Quinn look-a-like couple at the convention and after party.
There's definitely something left to be desired with this film (shot on DV) given the mockumentary genre, however the humor is pretty much dead on given the comic book/fantasy/sci-fi audience.
Many cameo appearances including Bruce Campbell, Greg Nicotero, Ron Perlman, and many more really provide a good level of enjoyment for us geeks. Having been shot mostly at a California Comic Book convention it's a wonder that more passersby didn't recognize Hamill. Maybe many did, however this isn't shown in the film nor in any special features I could find on the DVD edition.
Watch for a great Joker and Harley Quinn look-a-like couple at the convention and after party.
Land of the Dead
(2005)
and the band played on
13 July 2005
Well, this film is probably the most anticipated horror flick I've ever had the chance to experience. It's been twenty years since Romero's last DEAD picture and quite the buzz has grown for his fourth venture. Furthermore, there's some sort of quasi-zombie renaissance happening nowadays that's probably helping the film...or hurting it. In the very least it has helped Romero secure producers/distributors and that's all a fan can really hope for.
As for the film, honestly, I really liked it. Of course, I've been a fan since the 1990 NIGHT remake. However, I've heard some grumbling and criticisms circulating. I ponder if the horror community is divided on the flick or whether its a generational conflict. I assume it's probably the latter. Few viewers ever really understand that Romero's films are not about the walking dead, but rather the living. This is a point completely lost to today's youth who'd rather see action sequences and running zombies. Heresy. Romero's DEAD films are about humanity and, more importantly, the societal breakdown of failed cooperation.
Compared to its three predecessors, LAND is a bit weak. Even the lack luster DAY OF THE DEAD (1985) had more substance. LAND is much more enjoyable, but lacks the depth and (for lack of a better word) seriousness of its forerunners. It's far from Romero's "masterpiece," but it did leave me satisfied. I have a few minor complaints here and there, but overall I dug it. It's really suited for the fan mentality, so in that sense, the film is just plain fun. There're many little novel aspects that are so Romero (the fireworks for instance) that really make the film special. The social commentary of post 9/11 may be deemed a bit too heavy-handed, but I feel it works.
The film begins with some little abstract montage of dark images and quick edits which sets the stage and explains the back story. This is so unnecessary and most likely just an attempt to appeal to today's clueless audience. The title is LAND OF THE DEAD - it's pretty obvious what kind of state the world is in. If anything, this is the worst aspect of the film. There's no need for it and its horribly not Romero's style. I only pray that it was some sort of gimmick demanded by the producers for their R rated theatrical cut. Hopefully it'll disappear with the unrated director's cut for the DVD release.
The film soon gets better with the first images of the dead walking about. There's a real sense of normalcy to it which is new for Romero. From this first shot, one can instantly recognize that this is a different world from the earlier films. The presence of the walking dead conjures no danger or even fear. Everything's dead and has been dead for quite sometime. This really sets the stage for the Romero fan as to what kind of a world has come about in the wake of the mysterious epidemic.
Next we're quickly treated to a classic Romero image (fantastic in its simplicity) as the backdrop for his writer/director credit. This was my personal favorite moment in the film. This moment assured me that Romero's back in the game. His classic dialogue and characters are back too.
Leguizamo surprisingly brings a little something extra to his character (along with star Simon Baker) whereas Asia Argento seems a bit dull. However, the worst performance has to be the lead "stench" - Big Daddy. I'm not quite sure how this guy got the part, (other than looking quite ghoulish in person) but it really weakens the entire zombie aspect to the film. Then again, maybe I'm a bit harsh because of my favoritism to Bub from DAY. Nevertheless, Big Daddy bothered me every time.
The ending is a first for the genre and may be difficult for some to swallow. I'll admit that it is a bit outrageous to accept, but I feel it works narratively in this DEAD world. It really brings the film into a deep realm of analysis - which is good for those of us who like to dissect Romero's work.
As for the film, honestly, I really liked it. Of course, I've been a fan since the 1990 NIGHT remake. However, I've heard some grumbling and criticisms circulating. I ponder if the horror community is divided on the flick or whether its a generational conflict. I assume it's probably the latter. Few viewers ever really understand that Romero's films are not about the walking dead, but rather the living. This is a point completely lost to today's youth who'd rather see action sequences and running zombies. Heresy. Romero's DEAD films are about humanity and, more importantly, the societal breakdown of failed cooperation.
Compared to its three predecessors, LAND is a bit weak. Even the lack luster DAY OF THE DEAD (1985) had more substance. LAND is much more enjoyable, but lacks the depth and (for lack of a better word) seriousness of its forerunners. It's far from Romero's "masterpiece," but it did leave me satisfied. I have a few minor complaints here and there, but overall I dug it. It's really suited for the fan mentality, so in that sense, the film is just plain fun. There're many little novel aspects that are so Romero (the fireworks for instance) that really make the film special. The social commentary of post 9/11 may be deemed a bit too heavy-handed, but I feel it works.
The film begins with some little abstract montage of dark images and quick edits which sets the stage and explains the back story. This is so unnecessary and most likely just an attempt to appeal to today's clueless audience. The title is LAND OF THE DEAD - it's pretty obvious what kind of state the world is in. If anything, this is the worst aspect of the film. There's no need for it and its horribly not Romero's style. I only pray that it was some sort of gimmick demanded by the producers for their R rated theatrical cut. Hopefully it'll disappear with the unrated director's cut for the DVD release.
The film soon gets better with the first images of the dead walking about. There's a real sense of normalcy to it which is new for Romero. From this first shot, one can instantly recognize that this is a different world from the earlier films. The presence of the walking dead conjures no danger or even fear. Everything's dead and has been dead for quite sometime. This really sets the stage for the Romero fan as to what kind of a world has come about in the wake of the mysterious epidemic.
Next we're quickly treated to a classic Romero image (fantastic in its simplicity) as the backdrop for his writer/director credit. This was my personal favorite moment in the film. This moment assured me that Romero's back in the game. His classic dialogue and characters are back too.
Leguizamo surprisingly brings a little something extra to his character (along with star Simon Baker) whereas Asia Argento seems a bit dull. However, the worst performance has to be the lead "stench" - Big Daddy. I'm not quite sure how this guy got the part, (other than looking quite ghoulish in person) but it really weakens the entire zombie aspect to the film. Then again, maybe I'm a bit harsh because of my favoritism to Bub from DAY. Nevertheless, Big Daddy bothered me every time.
The ending is a first for the genre and may be difficult for some to swallow. I'll admit that it is a bit outrageous to accept, but I feel it works narratively in this DEAD world. It really brings the film into a deep realm of analysis - which is good for those of us who like to dissect Romero's work.
Predator
(1987)
"If it bleeds, we can kill."
29 August 2004
This is one of those pictures where Schwarzenegger actually got lucky. The film's strength is that it can stand on its own without him. Of course, he gives a good performance in all but how demanding could the role really be?
This film is great on so many levels. First, director John McTiernan does a phenomenal job here. As far as I'm concerned, this is his best work. Next, you've got an amazing score by Alan Silvestri - a musician who needs no introduction. Lastly, there's the creature itself. However, the thanks for that is a somewhat vague mixture of the Thomas screenwriters and the horde of special effects designers brought into the project. Apparently, there was some trouble with the "look" of the creature once production started. Nevertheless, the result was the true star of the film - a real marvel of science fiction and horror.
Although this film may solely be for action fans (there's a number of one-liners), I argue that it achieves much more in credibility. This is actually a well-crafted suspenseful adrenaline rush of horror. Easily, one of the best films of all time.
This film is great on so many levels. First, director John McTiernan does a phenomenal job here. As far as I'm concerned, this is his best work. Next, you've got an amazing score by Alan Silvestri - a musician who needs no introduction. Lastly, there's the creature itself. However, the thanks for that is a somewhat vague mixture of the Thomas screenwriters and the horde of special effects designers brought into the project. Apparently, there was some trouble with the "look" of the creature once production started. Nevertheless, the result was the true star of the film - a real marvel of science fiction and horror.
Although this film may solely be for action fans (there's a number of one-liners), I argue that it achieves much more in credibility. This is actually a well-crafted suspenseful adrenaline rush of horror. Easily, one of the best films of all time.
Alien vs. Predator
(2004)
"We're in the middle of a war."
24 August 2004
The ultimate question here is whether this film was a good idea or not. It all began in 1990 with the Dark Horse Comics publication of a five issue series called Aliens Vs. Predator. Additional series followed over the years including novels, video games, trading cards, and even a toy line. In a sense, the AVP concept had already crossed every medium years before the film was made. Various pitches and scripts were discussed since 1990, but nothing really resulted for the project. The closest the movie came was a script called THE HUNT (based on the original AVP comic book) written by Peter Briggs in 1991 which never came to fruition.
Some argue the project was never pursued because producers felt both franchises were already dead. PREDATOR 2 (1990) and ALIEN 3 (1992) both met with mixed results from the public, despite the fact the latter grossed more than ALIENS (1987) worldwide. Nevertheless, a fourth ALIEN film was released in 1997 around the same time that writer/director Robert Rodriguez was writing a script for a third PREDATOR installment.
The success of New Line Cinema's FREDDY VS JASON (2003) no doubt gave 20th Century Fox the idea to finally push AVP into production. Is it just coincidence that Fox announced AVP a mere month after the widely successful opening weekend of FREDDY VS. JASON? Fox's new found enthusiasm for the project raises some concern. Shooting started in October of 2003, a mere ten months before its scheduled release date. Isn't that rushing it a bit? This must be a cash-in.
After watching the film myself, I don't dismiss it as such. I feel it's a somewhat genuine effort and pretty fan-pleasing. I don't know where or how Paul W.S. Anderson (and his own script) came into the project, but he didn't destroy the picture too badly. His involvement was heavily debated in fan circles from the get-go. My only hope with Anderson directing was a return to his style in the largely neglected EVENT HORIZON (1997). Furthermore, Anderson spoke quite enthusiastically (to say the least) about the project. Read any Fangoria Magazine interview to see how much of a fan he is and how well-suited his intentions were while writing the script. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate exactly into the finished product.
In terms of the fan's desire and a sequel's purpose, AVP does moderately well. Anderson brings the xenomorphs to modern day earth and the deadly hunters to Antarctica. The two twists deliver quiet well for fans. It was such an incredible thrill to see the heat-driven predators in the arctic snow.
Anderson was also sure to add a few details to prove he had done his homework. The dark and claustrophobic tunnels from the ALIEN movies are here (triangular this time - which is amusingly fresh) and so is the predators' hunting code (one throws a human back for being too weak).
What AVP lacks is a solid narrative. There's a good story here, but Anderson seems to rush into things way to easily. His need for speed tragically diminishes the film's potential. He also seems to play to the twelve year old boys in the audience, or at least their mental equivalent. What he fails to notice is that you don't have to dumb things down for kids.
The overall pace of the film was horrible. The film's final running time is around the 84 minute mark. As I said, Anderson made it very fast. There's literally less than five minutes of screen time that passes between a face-hugger impregnation and the alien's birth. I understand that you have to have aliens in the picture for the predators to hunt, but that's ridiculous. And where did all the aliens come from? We only see six to ten humans get impregnated yet there seems to be an endless number of aliens running around. And why do we only get to see one predator fight one alien at a time? It would be so much more exciting to see a predator take on a swarm of aliens or at least two predators fighting together as a team. We finally got both creatures in the same movie, so let's make the best of it!
Another oddity of AVP is its PG-13 rating. This was a major shock to the fanbase considering that the aliens are born through violent chest-bursts and the predators skin their prey. Fortunately, AVP doesn't feel too PG-13 but there are a few moments where the film obviously cuts away from the violence.
I'd be able to deal with the ultra-fast pacing, bad dialogue, and lack of proper character development only if AVP hadn't made the predators so hokey looking. This was the biggest disappoint for me. Special effects technology has advanced since the original PREDATOR films, but apparently not for this one. I don't really understand what went wrong considering the effects were handled by Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff Jr. Fans know their reputation, so what happened?
Another disappoint is the general neglect of the aliens. They are hardly in this movie. Furthermore, the humans in this film do little but flee from both deadly species. We the audience may already know everything about the two creatures, but these characters don't yet. That should have been explored more.
Of course, I am a life-long fan of both franchises so I doubt any AVP film could live up to my expectations. Naturally, I felt let down by Paul W.S. Anderson's picture but it could have been a lot worse. Loyalists can damn me all to hell but I'll honestly admit that I enjoyed watching AVP. There weren't enough problems to make me truly hate it.
It might have been a mere `cash-in' for the producers, but I feel Paul W.S. Anderson gave an honest effort here. My criticisms of the film are just from a creative standpoint, really. I recommend AVP to fans, but the average movie-goer won't be able to appreciate it or even understand it.
Some argue the project was never pursued because producers felt both franchises were already dead. PREDATOR 2 (1990) and ALIEN 3 (1992) both met with mixed results from the public, despite the fact the latter grossed more than ALIENS (1987) worldwide. Nevertheless, a fourth ALIEN film was released in 1997 around the same time that writer/director Robert Rodriguez was writing a script for a third PREDATOR installment.
The success of New Line Cinema's FREDDY VS JASON (2003) no doubt gave 20th Century Fox the idea to finally push AVP into production. Is it just coincidence that Fox announced AVP a mere month after the widely successful opening weekend of FREDDY VS. JASON? Fox's new found enthusiasm for the project raises some concern. Shooting started in October of 2003, a mere ten months before its scheduled release date. Isn't that rushing it a bit? This must be a cash-in.
After watching the film myself, I don't dismiss it as such. I feel it's a somewhat genuine effort and pretty fan-pleasing. I don't know where or how Paul W.S. Anderson (and his own script) came into the project, but he didn't destroy the picture too badly. His involvement was heavily debated in fan circles from the get-go. My only hope with Anderson directing was a return to his style in the largely neglected EVENT HORIZON (1997). Furthermore, Anderson spoke quite enthusiastically (to say the least) about the project. Read any Fangoria Magazine interview to see how much of a fan he is and how well-suited his intentions were while writing the script. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate exactly into the finished product.
In terms of the fan's desire and a sequel's purpose, AVP does moderately well. Anderson brings the xenomorphs to modern day earth and the deadly hunters to Antarctica. The two twists deliver quiet well for fans. It was such an incredible thrill to see the heat-driven predators in the arctic snow.
Anderson was also sure to add a few details to prove he had done his homework. The dark and claustrophobic tunnels from the ALIEN movies are here (triangular this time - which is amusingly fresh) and so is the predators' hunting code (one throws a human back for being too weak).
What AVP lacks is a solid narrative. There's a good story here, but Anderson seems to rush into things way to easily. His need for speed tragically diminishes the film's potential. He also seems to play to the twelve year old boys in the audience, or at least their mental equivalent. What he fails to notice is that you don't have to dumb things down for kids.
The overall pace of the film was horrible. The film's final running time is around the 84 minute mark. As I said, Anderson made it very fast. There's literally less than five minutes of screen time that passes between a face-hugger impregnation and the alien's birth. I understand that you have to have aliens in the picture for the predators to hunt, but that's ridiculous. And where did all the aliens come from? We only see six to ten humans get impregnated yet there seems to be an endless number of aliens running around. And why do we only get to see one predator fight one alien at a time? It would be so much more exciting to see a predator take on a swarm of aliens or at least two predators fighting together as a team. We finally got both creatures in the same movie, so let's make the best of it!
Another oddity of AVP is its PG-13 rating. This was a major shock to the fanbase considering that the aliens are born through violent chest-bursts and the predators skin their prey. Fortunately, AVP doesn't feel too PG-13 but there are a few moments where the film obviously cuts away from the violence.
I'd be able to deal with the ultra-fast pacing, bad dialogue, and lack of proper character development only if AVP hadn't made the predators so hokey looking. This was the biggest disappoint for me. Special effects technology has advanced since the original PREDATOR films, but apparently not for this one. I don't really understand what went wrong considering the effects were handled by Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff Jr. Fans know their reputation, so what happened?
Another disappoint is the general neglect of the aliens. They are hardly in this movie. Furthermore, the humans in this film do little but flee from both deadly species. We the audience may already know everything about the two creatures, but these characters don't yet. That should have been explored more.
Of course, I am a life-long fan of both franchises so I doubt any AVP film could live up to my expectations. Naturally, I felt let down by Paul W.S. Anderson's picture but it could have been a lot worse. Loyalists can damn me all to hell but I'll honestly admit that I enjoyed watching AVP. There weren't enough problems to make me truly hate it.
It might have been a mere `cash-in' for the producers, but I feel Paul W.S. Anderson gave an honest effort here. My criticisms of the film are just from a creative standpoint, really. I recommend AVP to fans, but the average movie-goer won't be able to appreciate it or even understand it.
Alien 3
(1992)
"You're all going to die."
4 August 2004
Ah yes, the notorious ALIEN 3. It pains me that even after so many years people are still complaining about this movie. Now, I can understand fans being a bit disappointed back in 1992. I mean hell, James Cameron's ALIENS was an utter triumph. It basically broke the curse dooming sequels into being nothing more than inferior insults.
Nevertheless, it is wholly unfair to judge ALIEN 3 against its successful predecessor. So many viewers walked away saying "No guns? Blah! You can't have an ALIEN film without guns." Now please, that is just ridiculous. Cameron's sequel introduced guns into the equation. The original (and widely popular) ALIEN was a science fiction fright flick with no guns.
The problem that Cameron created with making a great sequel is that now how is another film going to top it? Perhaps it can be done, just look at the challenges Cameron himself faced when he first announced he wanted to make a sequel to ALIEN. Everyone told him 'no' and that it would end his career. Hmm.
Nonetheless, Cameron made it remarkably difficult for a new film and director to step up to the plate. On top of that, the studio (FOX) made the equation damn-near impossible. There were literally hundreds of scripts and treatments for a third ALIEN film. Ideas and plots eventually snow-balled into a conglomerate mess as production started. There were even teaser trailers released indicating the aliens reaching earth (an early version of the script) which ultimately contradicts the film that was made.
Enter a talented young man named David Fincher, perhaps best known for his background in music videos. Fincher takes the job as his feature film debut, most likely with high hopes. Production starts as no "official" script is completed and later filming begins even as new rewrites are being added. Fincher eventually abandons the film (before completion) citing studio interference and officially disowns it. What's left of the disaster is edited together (complete with even more reshooting) and released to an already skeptical fanbase.
I only learned of the production debacle years later and began to understand why Fincher would ignore the film completely. It must be a bizarre fluke that the film turned out as well as it did. I can only assume the film's integrity stems from Fincher's involvement. ALIEN 3 made me take notice of this director's name and sure enough he soon did receive the success he deserved with his next film SEVEN (1995).
Now, with all of this in mind one might dismiss ALIEN 3 as utter sh**. I disagree. I saw the film opening weekend in the summer of 1992 and loved it. And it still today is my favorite entry in the series.
ALIEN 3 departs from the previous two films by creating a dark, violent, philosophical drama of mythological proportions. This film introduces a new aesthetic, beautiful in all its stygian richness. Gone are the grim air ducts and technological trappings of the first two films. Instead, Ripley awakens in an inescapable hell deep in the nothingness of space - a labyrinth world of golden light, thick escaping steam, and lost souls. She's crash landed (with the xenomorph onboard) into an abandoned prison planet inhabited by an all-male population of murderers and rapists.
The plot is incredibly rich with drama in that Ripley finds herself with no hope. She is inescapably attached to this alien and it will forever destroy her life. And it is here, in this purgatory of sorts, where she finds the courage to finish it once and for all. Of course, Elliot Goldenthal's magnificent score helps as does Fincher's visual metaphors (most notably the funeral scene) and overall style. The film results in a provocative tale of faith and human emotion set against the absolution of death. A theme that, I feel, far outweighs the significance of any other ALIEN film.
Nevertheless, it is wholly unfair to judge ALIEN 3 against its successful predecessor. So many viewers walked away saying "No guns? Blah! You can't have an ALIEN film without guns." Now please, that is just ridiculous. Cameron's sequel introduced guns into the equation. The original (and widely popular) ALIEN was a science fiction fright flick with no guns.
The problem that Cameron created with making a great sequel is that now how is another film going to top it? Perhaps it can be done, just look at the challenges Cameron himself faced when he first announced he wanted to make a sequel to ALIEN. Everyone told him 'no' and that it would end his career. Hmm.
Nonetheless, Cameron made it remarkably difficult for a new film and director to step up to the plate. On top of that, the studio (FOX) made the equation damn-near impossible. There were literally hundreds of scripts and treatments for a third ALIEN film. Ideas and plots eventually snow-balled into a conglomerate mess as production started. There were even teaser trailers released indicating the aliens reaching earth (an early version of the script) which ultimately contradicts the film that was made.
Enter a talented young man named David Fincher, perhaps best known for his background in music videos. Fincher takes the job as his feature film debut, most likely with high hopes. Production starts as no "official" script is completed and later filming begins even as new rewrites are being added. Fincher eventually abandons the film (before completion) citing studio interference and officially disowns it. What's left of the disaster is edited together (complete with even more reshooting) and released to an already skeptical fanbase.
I only learned of the production debacle years later and began to understand why Fincher would ignore the film completely. It must be a bizarre fluke that the film turned out as well as it did. I can only assume the film's integrity stems from Fincher's involvement. ALIEN 3 made me take notice of this director's name and sure enough he soon did receive the success he deserved with his next film SEVEN (1995).
Now, with all of this in mind one might dismiss ALIEN 3 as utter sh**. I disagree. I saw the film opening weekend in the summer of 1992 and loved it. And it still today is my favorite entry in the series.
ALIEN 3 departs from the previous two films by creating a dark, violent, philosophical drama of mythological proportions. This film introduces a new aesthetic, beautiful in all its stygian richness. Gone are the grim air ducts and technological trappings of the first two films. Instead, Ripley awakens in an inescapable hell deep in the nothingness of space - a labyrinth world of golden light, thick escaping steam, and lost souls. She's crash landed (with the xenomorph onboard) into an abandoned prison planet inhabited by an all-male population of murderers and rapists.
The plot is incredibly rich with drama in that Ripley finds herself with no hope. She is inescapably attached to this alien and it will forever destroy her life. And it is here, in this purgatory of sorts, where she finds the courage to finish it once and for all. Of course, Elliot Goldenthal's magnificent score helps as does Fincher's visual metaphors (most notably the funeral scene) and overall style. The film results in a provocative tale of faith and human emotion set against the absolution of death. A theme that, I feel, far outweighs the significance of any other ALIEN film.
The Boondock Saints
(1999)
total testosterone
2 August 2004
A guy movie made by guys about guys for guys. Naturally I dislike such a genre, but this film was enjoyable. It's nothing like the hordes of no-brainer sausage party pictures that we have flooding video store shelves in recent years (just visit Van Diesel's filmography page). This is more in the new wave gangster tradition Tarantino started in the 90s. It isn't as well-crafted as a Tarantino picture, but it's far superior to Guy Ritchie's crap - no hideously annoying dialogue/attitudes here.
Despite the distinct "maleness" to the film, it has quite an unusual 'queerness' to it as well. The two brother protagonists are, quite frankly, rough-trade pretty boys with their cute short haircuts and matching tattoos.
Furthermore, just look at Willem Dafoe's character and how indigenous he is in the film's environment. It seems unusual that such a masculine film praises a gay character so well. However, queer theorists might argue that he was not feminized (being that the character's personality was quite masculine) and therefore cannot truly be classified as a positive gay image.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed it and thought his character was a brilliant prodigy for the genre.
Furthermore, I personally feel this is Dafoe's best performance to date. Not as outrageous as Bobby Peru in David Lynch's WILD AT HEART (1990), but far more enjoyable. Despite being quite comical in the film, Dafoe does pull-off an exceptional moment where his performance perfectly matches the director's visual lead. The scene pits Dafoe investigating a crime scene and trying to understand what happened. He grows so emotionally engrossed into the investigation that he is soon visually transported back into the midst of the carnage. The idea is fine in all, but the director and Dafoe pull off an incredible moment of surreal beauty. Definitely the film's highlight.
Quite the distinction also here is that the filmmakers seem at times unsure of what kind of picture they are making. There's really an eclectic mix of comedy, violence, drama, religiosity, and even attempts at social/cultural commentary. Ultimately, it's of little consequence whether this film works or doesn't because it seems as though they all had great fun making it and that enthusiasm bleeds over for the viewer. Really fun movie.
Despite the distinct "maleness" to the film, it has quite an unusual 'queerness' to it as well. The two brother protagonists are, quite frankly, rough-trade pretty boys with their cute short haircuts and matching tattoos.
Furthermore, just look at Willem Dafoe's character and how indigenous he is in the film's environment. It seems unusual that such a masculine film praises a gay character so well. However, queer theorists might argue that he was not feminized (being that the character's personality was quite masculine) and therefore cannot truly be classified as a positive gay image.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed it and thought his character was a brilliant prodigy for the genre.
Furthermore, I personally feel this is Dafoe's best performance to date. Not as outrageous as Bobby Peru in David Lynch's WILD AT HEART (1990), but far more enjoyable. Despite being quite comical in the film, Dafoe does pull-off an exceptional moment where his performance perfectly matches the director's visual lead. The scene pits Dafoe investigating a crime scene and trying to understand what happened. He grows so emotionally engrossed into the investigation that he is soon visually transported back into the midst of the carnage. The idea is fine in all, but the director and Dafoe pull off an incredible moment of surreal beauty. Definitely the film's highlight.
Quite the distinction also here is that the filmmakers seem at times unsure of what kind of picture they are making. There's really an eclectic mix of comedy, violence, drama, religiosity, and even attempts at social/cultural commentary. Ultimately, it's of little consequence whether this film works or doesn't because it seems as though they all had great fun making it and that enthusiasm bleeds over for the viewer. Really fun movie.
Spider-Man 2
(2004)
EVIL DEAD forever
7 July 2004
Surprisingly satisfying for the Raimi fan. The sequence where Doc Oc wakes up in the operating room is straight out of EVIL DEAD. The sound, cuts, and pacing are pure Raimi. Good to see it again after so long. One doctor even pulls out a chainsaw to defend himself! Bruce Campbell should've been cast for that part, though he did do quite well as the theater usher.
As for the film itself, I enjoyed it. Much more so than its predecessor. Sure, it can be criticized as mindless or poorly acted. However, it's a comic book movie and vastly superior to the large array of comic book adaptation pieces of sh** being put out these days (is anyone really going to waste their time with CATWOMAN?). So, it was utterly satisfying to me as a childhood fan of spidey. Made me feel like a kid again.
As for the film itself, I enjoyed it. Much more so than its predecessor. Sure, it can be criticized as mindless or poorly acted. However, it's a comic book movie and vastly superior to the large array of comic book adaptation pieces of sh** being put out these days (is anyone really going to waste their time with CATWOMAN?). So, it was utterly satisfying to me as a childhood fan of spidey. Made me feel like a kid again.
Dawn of the Dead
(2004)
F***ing Nursery School
10 April 2004
When there's no more room in hell, Hollywood will remake a classic...completely void of any intelligence and hardly capable of any creativity. This film relies solely on chase scenes and...well...chase scenes. This "re-imagining" of the superior 1978 classic DAWN OF THE DEAD is nothing but cheap in its mindless pursuit of thrills and chills.
The ultimate flaw of this film is that it does not even care to treat the zombie plague as anything more than a device to have characters flee in fear. The film completely ignores the zombie genre tradition and instead goes the route of obviously ripping-off the successful 28 DAYS LATER by making the infected run and scream. That film at least took the zombie genre and completely reinvented it - creating an all new experience. This film makes no such advancements.
I'm sorry for the harsh review. If you do not want analytical criticisms of your picture, then do not take the title of the ultimate zombie film. That picture is after all best known for its strides in atmosphere, character developments, and political/social satire - none of which appear in this remake. In all fairness, hardly any similarities exist between these two pictures. That's a good thing because I actually feel that I would hate this film more if it tried to emulate the original masterpiece (much like 2003's TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake).
If this is a different film, then why work from the original 1978 George Romero screenplay and retain that title? The only reason would be name recognition to make some cash (and of course to wound longtime horror loyalists). Why did they have to tarnish the original's name?
Another serious problem with this film is its total lack of coherency. The whole film was littered with moments of inconsistency. It is almost as if the filmmakers pondered : how can we have this group escape a barricaded shop with their only exit (one door) completely swarmed by zombies? Hmm, I've got it! Let's just use a cutaway and then when we come back to the survivors they are already outside and running. Perfect! Let's just edit their way out of trouble!
How do they gain entrance into the mall when its completely sealed and `shatterproof?' Let's just cutaway to an interior department store window shattering and have the characters just stroll on in. Brilliant! No explanation of how they got in or how zombies aren't entering the same way. Who cares about logic? Let's just show people running and swing the camera around a lot.
Seriously though, the filmmakers did fail at nearly every aspect of this picture but there are two notable exceptions: the pregnancy/birth scene and the armored vans/chainsaw escape.
First, the pregnancy/birth scene. All right, this was very provocative on a number of levels. Not only was it original, but also very compelling from a dramatic/analytical standpoint. It was not done for a mere weird/disturbing scare. The scene was a great moment for the characters involved (it really built Mekhi Phifer's role) but it was also a statement on human nature given the abysmal events of this particular apocalypse. Really moving. Without a doubt - this was the highlight of the script. Furthermore, this will most likely go into zombie movie history along with Lucio Fulci's zombie vs shark moment (1979's ZOMBIE) and Peter Jackson's zombie sex scene (1992's DEAD ALIVE) - which also spawned an offspring. This moment is the film's only contribution to the genre.
Second, the armored vans escape plan (and the subsequent use of chainsaws) was a logical and brilliant move by the screenwriter. An absolute pleasure for those horror fans more suited toward the PHANTASM and EVIL DEAD sequels.
Not a highlight of the film, but definitely a pleasure all its own was the brief appearance of Matt Frewer. I almost expected his last words to be a digital stutter - for those of us who remember his MAX HEADROOM days.
There are also a few cameos (from the cast of the original) scattered throughout the film, but it provides only a second or two of satisfaction for fans. A Tom Savini cameo cannot save a picture (case in point - 2001's CHILDREN OF THE LIVING DEAD) no matter how cool it might be.
Bottom line : the picture is a brainless blockbuster/michael bay venture that will undoubtedly be eaten up by the mindless masses of America. Some may be happy that the zombie genre is back, but its back in the worst way. Grade D-.
The ultimate flaw of this film is that it does not even care to treat the zombie plague as anything more than a device to have characters flee in fear. The film completely ignores the zombie genre tradition and instead goes the route of obviously ripping-off the successful 28 DAYS LATER by making the infected run and scream. That film at least took the zombie genre and completely reinvented it - creating an all new experience. This film makes no such advancements.
I'm sorry for the harsh review. If you do not want analytical criticisms of your picture, then do not take the title of the ultimate zombie film. That picture is after all best known for its strides in atmosphere, character developments, and political/social satire - none of which appear in this remake. In all fairness, hardly any similarities exist between these two pictures. That's a good thing because I actually feel that I would hate this film more if it tried to emulate the original masterpiece (much like 2003's TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake).
If this is a different film, then why work from the original 1978 George Romero screenplay and retain that title? The only reason would be name recognition to make some cash (and of course to wound longtime horror loyalists). Why did they have to tarnish the original's name?
Another serious problem with this film is its total lack of coherency. The whole film was littered with moments of inconsistency. It is almost as if the filmmakers pondered : how can we have this group escape a barricaded shop with their only exit (one door) completely swarmed by zombies? Hmm, I've got it! Let's just use a cutaway and then when we come back to the survivors they are already outside and running. Perfect! Let's just edit their way out of trouble!
How do they gain entrance into the mall when its completely sealed and `shatterproof?' Let's just cutaway to an interior department store window shattering and have the characters just stroll on in. Brilliant! No explanation of how they got in or how zombies aren't entering the same way. Who cares about logic? Let's just show people running and swing the camera around a lot.
Seriously though, the filmmakers did fail at nearly every aspect of this picture but there are two notable exceptions: the pregnancy/birth scene and the armored vans/chainsaw escape.
First, the pregnancy/birth scene. All right, this was very provocative on a number of levels. Not only was it original, but also very compelling from a dramatic/analytical standpoint. It was not done for a mere weird/disturbing scare. The scene was a great moment for the characters involved (it really built Mekhi Phifer's role) but it was also a statement on human nature given the abysmal events of this particular apocalypse. Really moving. Without a doubt - this was the highlight of the script. Furthermore, this will most likely go into zombie movie history along with Lucio Fulci's zombie vs shark moment (1979's ZOMBIE) and Peter Jackson's zombie sex scene (1992's DEAD ALIVE) - which also spawned an offspring. This moment is the film's only contribution to the genre.
Second, the armored vans escape plan (and the subsequent use of chainsaws) was a logical and brilliant move by the screenwriter. An absolute pleasure for those horror fans more suited toward the PHANTASM and EVIL DEAD sequels.
Not a highlight of the film, but definitely a pleasure all its own was the brief appearance of Matt Frewer. I almost expected his last words to be a digital stutter - for those of us who remember his MAX HEADROOM days.
There are also a few cameos (from the cast of the original) scattered throughout the film, but it provides only a second or two of satisfaction for fans. A Tom Savini cameo cannot save a picture (case in point - 2001's CHILDREN OF THE LIVING DEAD) no matter how cool it might be.
Bottom line : the picture is a brainless blockbuster/michael bay venture that will undoubtedly be eaten up by the mindless masses of America. Some may be happy that the zombie genre is back, but its back in the worst way. Grade D-.
Carnivàle
(2003–2005)
Season One
21 December 2003
The best programming on HBO since their TALES FROM THE CRYPT series. Of course, some may argue that isn't saying much for CARNIVÀLE but it truly is a gem. This twelve episode first season (which debuted on September 14th) tells the tales of a traveling carnival amidst 1930s depression-era America. The show primarily follows two main characters; a chain-gang escapee named Hawkins (Nik Stahl of BULLY) and a Californian Preacher man (Clancy Brown of HIGHLANDER) by the name of Brother Justin. Both men contain mysterious powers and an unknown connection not only to each other, but also to a man from the Carnival's past named Scudder (the incomparable John Savage).
Young Hawkins is picked up by the carnival and hired as an extra hand. While traveling with the crew cross-country, he picks up subtle clues as to the significance of his dreams and learns more about his peculiar powers. Meanwhile, on the west coast, Brother Justin is tested time and again with his contemporaries' lack of faith and grows increasingly dangerous in his religiosity.
CARNIVÀLE has quite the cast of familiars, some known and others known only to cult fans. Most notably is 3'7" Michael J Anderson who plays Samson, the carnival boss. You'll most likely recognize him from David Lynch's TWIN PEAKS (1990) as the strange little fellow who spoke backwards. Andrienne Barbeau (ex wife to John Carpenter) plays a tattooed snake charmer by the name of Ruthie, Clea DuVall (BUT I'M A CHEERLEADER) plays young fortune teller Sophie, Glenn Shadix (Otho from BEETLEJUICE) appears regularly as a Californian politician, the 7'6" Mathew McGrory (Rob Zombie's HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and Tim Burton's BIG FISH) appears in the pilot episode, and the absolutely lovable horror favorite Bill Moseley (remembered best as Chop Top from TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2) plays Possum, the carnival's head cook.
The show's ultimate strength is the presentation of its visual tones, the lighting in particular is eerily beautiful. Most scenes are lit in reminiscence of the Italian Renaissance painting technique "chiaroscure," in which figures stand with an almost goldenish glow in stark contrast to the dark surroundings and or backgrounds. This is most obvious in scenes of Brother Justin at home with his sister Iris (Amy Madigan). These golden tones give the overall series a cohesive thematic. This is one of the strongest atmospheric shows I've ever seen on television. Furthermore, the grittiness and downright dirtiness of a poor traveling carnival through the dustbowls of America's Midwest is developed by the show's creators as yet another layer of ambiance. The characters appear dirtier and sweatier each progressing episode as they travel further south.
Being carried by HBO and not a mere network station allows CARNIVÀLE greater freedom for its tales. This is not just for mere nudity with the carnies' dancing girls or extra blood with any scenes of violence. Episodes five and six (titled "Babylon" and "Pick A Number") for example are tragically heart-breaking and downright scary on a number of levels. The direction, acting, imagery, and overall tone is brutally tear-jerking. This flexibility from conservative censorship only aides the story tellers in their craft.
By the final episode of the first season many elements of the story are brought together, yet just as many new questions arise for the viewer. Therefore much excitement and drama unfolds, but not enough to satisfy. Naturally, they want you to come back next time and plenty of story line still does lay over the horizon. Overall, this is a fantastic television series and I for one am eagerly awaiting the second season in the fall of 2004.
Young Hawkins is picked up by the carnival and hired as an extra hand. While traveling with the crew cross-country, he picks up subtle clues as to the significance of his dreams and learns more about his peculiar powers. Meanwhile, on the west coast, Brother Justin is tested time and again with his contemporaries' lack of faith and grows increasingly dangerous in his religiosity.
CARNIVÀLE has quite the cast of familiars, some known and others known only to cult fans. Most notably is 3'7" Michael J Anderson who plays Samson, the carnival boss. You'll most likely recognize him from David Lynch's TWIN PEAKS (1990) as the strange little fellow who spoke backwards. Andrienne Barbeau (ex wife to John Carpenter) plays a tattooed snake charmer by the name of Ruthie, Clea DuVall (BUT I'M A CHEERLEADER) plays young fortune teller Sophie, Glenn Shadix (Otho from BEETLEJUICE) appears regularly as a Californian politician, the 7'6" Mathew McGrory (Rob Zombie's HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and Tim Burton's BIG FISH) appears in the pilot episode, and the absolutely lovable horror favorite Bill Moseley (remembered best as Chop Top from TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2) plays Possum, the carnival's head cook.
The show's ultimate strength is the presentation of its visual tones, the lighting in particular is eerily beautiful. Most scenes are lit in reminiscence of the Italian Renaissance painting technique "chiaroscure," in which figures stand with an almost goldenish glow in stark contrast to the dark surroundings and or backgrounds. This is most obvious in scenes of Brother Justin at home with his sister Iris (Amy Madigan). These golden tones give the overall series a cohesive thematic. This is one of the strongest atmospheric shows I've ever seen on television. Furthermore, the grittiness and downright dirtiness of a poor traveling carnival through the dustbowls of America's Midwest is developed by the show's creators as yet another layer of ambiance. The characters appear dirtier and sweatier each progressing episode as they travel further south.
Being carried by HBO and not a mere network station allows CARNIVÀLE greater freedom for its tales. This is not just for mere nudity with the carnies' dancing girls or extra blood with any scenes of violence. Episodes five and six (titled "Babylon" and "Pick A Number") for example are tragically heart-breaking and downright scary on a number of levels. The direction, acting, imagery, and overall tone is brutally tear-jerking. This flexibility from conservative censorship only aides the story tellers in their craft.
By the final episode of the first season many elements of the story are brought together, yet just as many new questions arise for the viewer. Therefore much excitement and drama unfolds, but not enough to satisfy. Naturally, they want you to come back next time and plenty of story line still does lay over the horizon. Overall, this is a fantastic television series and I for one am eagerly awaiting the second season in the fall of 2004.
Cemetery Man
(1994)
"i'm not an engineer"
3 October 2003
An Italian zombie-art film that defies genres by creating its own. Rupert Everette stars as a round-the-clock caretaker at the local cemetery where residents won't stay dead. He doesn't notify authorities because he fears the amount of paper work involved. So, he naturally kills the "returners" with the old bullet to the head trick and then patiently buries them again.
What starts off as a hilarious zombie flick slowly morphs into a David Lynch piece. Michele Soavi directs the film with excellent skill and creates a beautiful world of...well, I'm not quite sure. It's just spellbinding really. An absolutely beautiful film unlike any other.
What starts off as a hilarious zombie flick slowly morphs into a David Lynch piece. Michele Soavi directs the film with excellent skill and creates a beautiful world of...well, I'm not quite sure. It's just spellbinding really. An absolutely beautiful film unlike any other.
The Animatrix
(2003)
what HEAVY METAL 2000 should've been
7 July 2003
Fantastic visuals. This series of animated shorts are amazingly executed with immense creative talent. Each segment tells a new story in the Wachowski brothers' MATRIX world. Four of the stories were themselves written by Larry and Andy and two narratives serve as background information directly related to THE MATRIX RELOADED.
What is truly amazing about these shorts is the animation. Each segment was created by a different team of animators and hence has a completely unique aesthetic. Each story's individuality was achieved through a blend of visual mediums; some were pure animation, others CG, and some a seamless mixture of both.
This is the best overall animation direction I have ever seen since Hiroyuki Kitakubo's BLOOD (2000). The opening sequence to the KID'S STORY short is breath-taking. It is without a doubt the best work I have ever seen in an animated feature.
The ANIMATRIX is a kick-ass blend of ROBOT CARNIVAL (1987), HEAVY METAL magazine, and the short lived MTV Liquid Television series AEON FLUX. If you are into anime and science fiction, this is definitely for you. You don't even have to be a fan of THE MATRIX films to enjoy this. Without a doubt, a must see.
What is truly amazing about these shorts is the animation. Each segment was created by a different team of animators and hence has a completely unique aesthetic. Each story's individuality was achieved through a blend of visual mediums; some were pure animation, others CG, and some a seamless mixture of both.
This is the best overall animation direction I have ever seen since Hiroyuki Kitakubo's BLOOD (2000). The opening sequence to the KID'S STORY short is breath-taking. It is without a doubt the best work I have ever seen in an animated feature.
The ANIMATRIX is a kick-ass blend of ROBOT CARNIVAL (1987), HEAVY METAL magazine, and the short lived MTV Liquid Television series AEON FLUX. If you are into anime and science fiction, this is definitely for you. You don't even have to be a fan of THE MATRIX films to enjoy this. Without a doubt, a must see.
The Hunger
(1983)
"forever?"
30 April 2003
A beautifully stylistic film by Tony Scott. Catherine Deneuve and David Bowie star as ageless lovers who sustain eternal youth by drinking human blood. Although, this is not a vampire movie. These two immortals cast reflections and walk about in sunlight.
THE HUNGER is more art than horror. The colors, shot compositions, framings, and concept edits are wonderful. Bowie gives a convincing performance of a man faced with his own inescapable death. And make-up effects artist Dick Smith has great work (as always) in this film. His best moments are the subtle effects (a few wrinkles around the eye etc.) on David Bowie.
This film is an example of how the motion picture medium can be used as a vehicle for visual art. Director Tony Scott's trademark color schemed atmosphere (consisting primarily of blues and oranges) is here in full force. His technique of concept edits in this film, alone, is worth watching.
The standard format version (non widescreen) is an absolute debauchery of the director's work. A film like this is overwhelming evidence of how standard format butchers the beauty of a film.
Perhaps that is a reason why this film is and was largely neglected by viewers. However, over the years this film has developed a small fanbase (primarily) of Bowie/goth fans. In fact, the movie opens with a quasi-music video of the band Bauhaus performing none other than "Bela Lugosi's Dead."
The film also inspired a Showtime Original Miniseries of the same name in the late 1990s. So, at least, I know that I am not the only one who likes this movie.
THE HUNGER is more art than horror. The colors, shot compositions, framings, and concept edits are wonderful. Bowie gives a convincing performance of a man faced with his own inescapable death. And make-up effects artist Dick Smith has great work (as always) in this film. His best moments are the subtle effects (a few wrinkles around the eye etc.) on David Bowie.
This film is an example of how the motion picture medium can be used as a vehicle for visual art. Director Tony Scott's trademark color schemed atmosphere (consisting primarily of blues and oranges) is here in full force. His technique of concept edits in this film, alone, is worth watching.
The standard format version (non widescreen) is an absolute debauchery of the director's work. A film like this is overwhelming evidence of how standard format butchers the beauty of a film.
Perhaps that is a reason why this film is and was largely neglected by viewers. However, over the years this film has developed a small fanbase (primarily) of Bowie/goth fans. In fact, the movie opens with a quasi-music video of the band Bauhaus performing none other than "Bela Lugosi's Dead."
The film also inspired a Showtime Original Miniseries of the same name in the late 1990s. So, at least, I know that I am not the only one who likes this movie.
House of 1000 Corpses
(2003)
the MUNSTERS on ACID
23 April 2003
Who can resist a foul-mouthed gas station clown? Oh, you can? Well, what about a foul-mouthed gas station clown who gives complementary chicken to paying customers? Yeah, I thought so.
Rob Zombie's long-awaited feature film debut pays off as a real treat for horror buffs. It's no masterpiece, but it sure delivers the goods. There's everything in here: shootings, stabbings, torture, necrophilia, killer clowns, and even open-brain surgery. And there is a great cast of familiars including Bill Moseley (TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD) as Otis, Karen Black (TRILOGY OF TERROR) as Mother Firefly, and Sid Haig (SPIDER BABY) as the hilarious Capt. Spalding.
The film's story line is basically right out of a TEXAS CHAINSAW sequel, but who cares. This is a genre piece. And the strongest feature of HOUSE is its visual aesthetic. Fans of Mr. Zombie's music videos and artwork will find themselves in familiar territory. His trademark babes & monsters are as far as the eye can see.
This film, visually, is easily in a league all its own. The colors and editing techniques alone are beautifully executed with all the allure of an acid trip. HOUSE is a living, breathing, bleeding comic book. A throwback to the issues of TALES FROM THE CRYPT or THE VAULT OF HORROR that Mr. Zombie no doubtedly grew up on.
Unfortunately, the theatrical version is edited down to an "R" rating. We can only hope the vhs/dvd release will be available in all its uncut glory.
Rob Zombie's long-awaited feature film debut pays off as a real treat for horror buffs. It's no masterpiece, but it sure delivers the goods. There's everything in here: shootings, stabbings, torture, necrophilia, killer clowns, and even open-brain surgery. And there is a great cast of familiars including Bill Moseley (TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD) as Otis, Karen Black (TRILOGY OF TERROR) as Mother Firefly, and Sid Haig (SPIDER BABY) as the hilarious Capt. Spalding.
The film's story line is basically right out of a TEXAS CHAINSAW sequel, but who cares. This is a genre piece. And the strongest feature of HOUSE is its visual aesthetic. Fans of Mr. Zombie's music videos and artwork will find themselves in familiar territory. His trademark babes & monsters are as far as the eye can see.
This film, visually, is easily in a league all its own. The colors and editing techniques alone are beautifully executed with all the allure of an acid trip. HOUSE is a living, breathing, bleeding comic book. A throwback to the issues of TALES FROM THE CRYPT or THE VAULT OF HORROR that Mr. Zombie no doubtedly grew up on.
Unfortunately, the theatrical version is edited down to an "R" rating. We can only hope the vhs/dvd release will be available in all its uncut glory.
Shark Hunter
(2001)
"We're gonna need a bigger boat"
9 January 2003
Low budget movie about a giant shark. It really seems that Spielberg's JAWS (1975) made quite an impression on the world. SHARK HUNTER is just another film from an entire genre in the shadow of JAWS. Antonio Sabato Jr. stars as some sort of marine biologist hell bent on proving that his parents were killed by a prehistoric megalodon shark. Next thing you know he's at the bottom of the ocean with an experimental navy sub (crew included) fighting the twenty ton shark. Blah blah blah and loopholes so big, the shark could swim through them. However, no one is watching this type of movie for the story line...or even the acting. You are watching it for the killer shark.
Every scene of this film with the sixty-foot long shark is computer-generated and it looks like the movie's budget went into these effects. And it surprisingly pays off. They did a pretty damn good job. The CG shots look better than the majority of scenes with CG sharks in Renny Harlin's DEEP BLUE SEA (1999).
The only disappointment for me in this film were the shark attacks. The shark is so big that it can easily swallow a mini-sub (as shown in the movie). My point is that the shark is to big to attack people.
The highlight of SHARK HUNTER, for me, was the ending. It took me by surprise...really unexpected.
In conclusion, this is a really bad movie. However, if you love killer shark movies and have seen JAWS one too many times, this one's for you.
Every scene of this film with the sixty-foot long shark is computer-generated and it looks like the movie's budget went into these effects. And it surprisingly pays off. They did a pretty damn good job. The CG shots look better than the majority of scenes with CG sharks in Renny Harlin's DEEP BLUE SEA (1999).
The only disappointment for me in this film were the shark attacks. The shark is so big that it can easily swallow a mini-sub (as shown in the movie). My point is that the shark is to big to attack people.
The highlight of SHARK HUNTER, for me, was the ending. It took me by surprise...really unexpected.
In conclusion, this is a really bad movie. However, if you love killer shark movies and have seen JAWS one too many times, this one's for you.
The Exorcist
(1973)
let jesus F*** you!
22 November 2002
One of the most over-rated films of all time. This movie is not scary in the least and yet somehow it is one of the most recognizable "scary" movies. I don't understand why. Maybe if you are a sheltered Christian - then, I assume, this is scary stuff. I've just never found the devil to be scary. If anything, the classic, literary, and biblical character of Lucifer has always had a romanticism in its appeal.
This film's scare factor is a complete puzzle to me. A devil-possessed young girl spewing profanities and projectile vomit is simply comical. Some of Linda Blair's lines in this film are downright silly.
The only notable element of this film was the special effects. Make-up effects artist Dick Smith is a revolutionary in his field and this film is a showcase of his craftsmanship. The movie broke new ground only with Smith's contribution. This film should only be watched as a testiment to some of Dick Smith's work...or if you just want to see an underage girl masturbate with a crucifix.
This film's scare factor is a complete puzzle to me. A devil-possessed young girl spewing profanities and projectile vomit is simply comical. Some of Linda Blair's lines in this film are downright silly.
The only notable element of this film was the special effects. Make-up effects artist Dick Smith is a revolutionary in his field and this film is a showcase of his craftsmanship. The movie broke new ground only with Smith's contribution. This film should only be watched as a testiment to some of Dick Smith's work...or if you just want to see an underage girl masturbate with a crucifix.
Ginger Snaps
(2000)
surprisingly entertaining
9 September 2002
Two morbid teenage sisters are attacked by a werewolf one night and Ginger isn't quite herself anymore. This movie is a light mixture of horror and comedy. So horror fans be warned; don't expect too much. However, the film is fun and even enjoyable. There are some great surprises with Ginger's transformation too. There are also some funny metaphors in the film. For instance, the parallels between puberty and werewolfism (growing hair in strange places etc.) And Mimi Rogers gives a hilarious performance as the two girls' clueless mother.
Some pretty good and refreshing gore effects are in this movie (the opening sequence was impressively executed.) I am a horror junky, so I was delighted with a few of the scenes. In a nutshell, this movie (in style) is a tone-downed teenage version of An American Werewolf In London (1981).
Some pretty good and refreshing gore effects are in this movie (the opening sequence was impressively executed.) I am a horror junky, so I was delighted with a few of the scenes. In a nutshell, this movie (in style) is a tone-downed teenage version of An American Werewolf In London (1981).
Saturday Night Fever
(1977)
surprisingly offense
24 August 2002
I love dancing, so I rented SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER and was caught completely by surprise. The film is not about the joys of dancing at all. Instead you are bombarded with profanity, misogyny, drug use, promiscuity, racism, homophobia, suicide, and even rape. I cannot understand how this movie is so big and popular. All my life I've heard about this film and have encountered numerous satires. Since when is mainstream America so accepting of such material and content? This movie is extremely offensive and definitely adult-orientated. I assume that all of this is just the film's reflection of the disco generation because I am already aware of their ignorance. The disco scene was largely a "white" mainstream rip-off of two subcultures: the African-American and gay club scenes. So, in that regard SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER was a good portrayal of that time. I was just amazed that such a mainstream and well-known film had so much bigotry.
Now, don't get me wrong. This movie did have some credible moments (the opening sequence was fabulous!), but I was really caught off guard. I am a fan of fun and dancing and that is why I like disco music, but I certainly did not find any in this movie.
So kids, if you want to watch a movie with good old-fashion dance fun. This movie IS NOT for you. You'd be better off watching Baz Luhrmann's STRICTLY BALLROOM (1992).
Now, don't get me wrong. This movie did have some credible moments (the opening sequence was fabulous!), but I was really caught off guard. I am a fan of fun and dancing and that is why I like disco music, but I certainly did not find any in this movie.
So kids, if you want to watch a movie with good old-fashion dance fun. This movie IS NOT for you. You'd be better off watching Baz Luhrmann's STRICTLY BALLROOM (1992).
Zombie
(1979)
bad movie, but good FX
25 June 2002
I watched this movie with high expectations. I've always heard about it from valid sources. I am a lover of zombie movies so I gave it a viewing. The movie was very disappointing. However, it did have a lot of impressive moments. One of its pros was the gore. The movie is graphic and very violent. The zombie make-up designs were very impressive. The majority of these zombies are not fresh kills. Rather they have crawled out of their graves themselves (An occurrence absent from Romero's DEAD series). The film's US cover is a prime example of the FX's originality and authenticity.
Without a doubt, this is Lucio Filci's best film and it is worthy of a zombie fan's attention. However, the movie has a good-long hour of boredom in its middle. The only moment where I started enjoying the movie was the climax. The last twenty minutes or so were great. Everything before that was terribly boring. In conclusion, if you are a horror/zombie fan - check it out...for the FX.
Without a doubt, this is Lucio Filci's best film and it is worthy of a zombie fan's attention. However, the movie has a good-long hour of boredom in its middle. The only moment where I started enjoying the movie was the climax. The last twenty minutes or so were great. Everything before that was terribly boring. In conclusion, if you are a horror/zombie fan - check it out...for the FX.
Hellraiser
(1987)
one of the genre's finest
23 June 2002
This is acclaimed horror/fantasy novelist Clive Barker's directoral debut. His first (and quite successful) attempt in the film medium resulted in a horror frenzy and the establishment of a new horror icon: a character that viewers affectionately dubbed "Pinhead."
This film is far from flawless, but it is one of the genre's finest. It was released in 1987, when the horror genre was dominated by mindless and degrading FRIDAY THE 13TH and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET sequels. This film firmly reestablished what a real horror movie should be. Nauseously graphic and at times sensually compelling. Barker taps into our souls and presents an eroticism through his portrayal of violence. Death has never seemed so sexy.
A cast of unknowns all perform well and a beautifully eerie score by Christopher Young builds an incredible atmosphere. Writer/director Clive Barker's specialty of unique (and sometimes outright bizarre) characters along with a unifying mixture of sex and violence are all showcased in this film.
A stylistic and sensual horror movie to mark the film debut of a horror master. The "Titan of Terror" rules. Welcome to his domain.
This film is far from flawless, but it is one of the genre's finest. It was released in 1987, when the horror genre was dominated by mindless and degrading FRIDAY THE 13TH and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET sequels. This film firmly reestablished what a real horror movie should be. Nauseously graphic and at times sensually compelling. Barker taps into our souls and presents an eroticism through his portrayal of violence. Death has never seemed so sexy.
A cast of unknowns all perform well and a beautifully eerie score by Christopher Young builds an incredible atmosphere. Writer/director Clive Barker's specialty of unique (and sometimes outright bizarre) characters along with a unifying mixture of sex and violence are all showcased in this film.
A stylistic and sensual horror movie to mark the film debut of a horror master. The "Titan of Terror" rules. Welcome to his domain.
Screamers
(1995)
one of the better sci-fi flicks
19 June 2002
I must confess, the trailer for this film was not impressive. However, the look of the film aesthetically was very impressive. What grabbed my attention were the locations and the actor's costumes. I saw vast desolated landscapes as the backdrop for this sci-fi picture and that really attracted me. I am a fan of Science Fiction so I rented it. And I really enjoyed this movie.
First off, it stars Peter Weller. I really enjoy this actor and am very disappointed that we do not see much of him these days. The only real roles I choose to remember him as are Alex J Murphy in the 1987 Verhoeven classic ROBOCOP and Bill Lee in Cronenberg's 1991 NAKED LUNCH.
SCREAMERS is basically a futuristic blend of THE TERMINATOR (1984) and TREMORS (1990). The film is about an alien world dead of life except for two fighting human armies. A specific weapon called "screamers" were designed for warfare. These small (blade-like) killing machines attack from beneath you, exploding upward from the ground. With a quick slice of horror, victims are left missing a limb...or two. Soon enough the machines grow smarter and modify themselves. Let's just say all hell breaks loose.
The movie has a good blend of the sci-fi and horror/suspense elements needed for a good movie and the FX aren't bad. The story never falters (there are even a lot of scares/surprises) and all the actors give good performances. Also, upon watching this movie I noticed many impressive credits that I should share with you. First off, the film is based on a short story by Philip K Dick (other films inspired by his shorts are 1982's BLADE RUNNER and 1990's TOTAL RECALL). The screenplay is cowritten by Dan O'Bannon (whose writing credits include 1979's ALIEN and 1981's HEAVY METAL). And of course SCREAMERS stars Peter Weller, RoboCop himself. Another great Science Fiction movie.
*SIDE NOTE* is it just me or does Peter Weller frightenly resemble Bauhaus vocalist Peter Murphy? And check this out, "Peter" Weller plays Alex "Murphy" in ROBOCOP. Put the two names together and you have "Peter" "Murphy" ??!?!?!?!?!?!!?
Anyway, back to SCREAMERS. In a nutshell: if you love Science Fiction or even like it, then I highly recommend this movie. It is worth your time.
First off, it stars Peter Weller. I really enjoy this actor and am very disappointed that we do not see much of him these days. The only real roles I choose to remember him as are Alex J Murphy in the 1987 Verhoeven classic ROBOCOP and Bill Lee in Cronenberg's 1991 NAKED LUNCH.
SCREAMERS is basically a futuristic blend of THE TERMINATOR (1984) and TREMORS (1990). The film is about an alien world dead of life except for two fighting human armies. A specific weapon called "screamers" were designed for warfare. These small (blade-like) killing machines attack from beneath you, exploding upward from the ground. With a quick slice of horror, victims are left missing a limb...or two. Soon enough the machines grow smarter and modify themselves. Let's just say all hell breaks loose.
The movie has a good blend of the sci-fi and horror/suspense elements needed for a good movie and the FX aren't bad. The story never falters (there are even a lot of scares/surprises) and all the actors give good performances. Also, upon watching this movie I noticed many impressive credits that I should share with you. First off, the film is based on a short story by Philip K Dick (other films inspired by his shorts are 1982's BLADE RUNNER and 1990's TOTAL RECALL). The screenplay is cowritten by Dan O'Bannon (whose writing credits include 1979's ALIEN and 1981's HEAVY METAL). And of course SCREAMERS stars Peter Weller, RoboCop himself. Another great Science Fiction movie.
*SIDE NOTE* is it just me or does Peter Weller frightenly resemble Bauhaus vocalist Peter Murphy? And check this out, "Peter" Weller plays Alex "Murphy" in ROBOCOP. Put the two names together and you have "Peter" "Murphy" ??!?!?!?!?!?!!?
Anyway, back to SCREAMERS. In a nutshell: if you love Science Fiction or even like it, then I highly recommend this movie. It is worth your time.
Hard Boiled
(1992)
the best action film ever made
28 May 2002
I love movies and one genre in particular that I have a sweet-spot for is Action. I think that the only real reason why I have a taste for action flicks is because of the impressions they left on me as a child. Even if the movie is terrible you can still love it as a child.
This brings me to Mr. John Woo. I first saw his film HARD TARGET with Jean-Claude Van Damme in 1993 or so. I was twelve and I had been a fan of Jean-Claude since I saw Bloodsport when I was seven. So I watched Hard Target and it introduced me to John Woo. I really liked the movie, but what impressed me the most was the directing. Anyway, long story short I started locating John Woo films and without a doubt HARD-BOILED (LASHOU SHENTAN) is his best.
On a side note, and an incredibly sad note, John Woo's films have gotten worse lately. I was disappointed with 1996's BROKEN ARROW, but 1997's FACE-OFF was really good. However, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I'll just stop there and get back to HARD-BOILED.
I saw this movie in 1998 when I was seventeen and loved it. I think what primarily impressed me the most was the style of the film. I was already familiar with John Woo's style, but it was more stylish in this film. What I mean is, I feel like John Woo's style (ever since he started making American movies) has gone down the toilet. His early films are the best. And I do love THE KILLER, but it can't touch HARD-BOILED.
This particular movie basically introduced me to Hong Kong action films. And it made me hate American action movies even more. The Chinese genre is lightyears ahead of us slow Americans. And it looks like we are finally catching up (DESPERADO, BLADE, THE MATRIX, etc.) or just trying to be like them.
I can't say enough how great this movie was. It is without a doubt the best action movie ever made! And I don't see how Woo could ever beat it. If you have not seen it then watch it. I can't tell you anything else about it.
This brings me to Mr. John Woo. I first saw his film HARD TARGET with Jean-Claude Van Damme in 1993 or so. I was twelve and I had been a fan of Jean-Claude since I saw Bloodsport when I was seven. So I watched Hard Target and it introduced me to John Woo. I really liked the movie, but what impressed me the most was the directing. Anyway, long story short I started locating John Woo films and without a doubt HARD-BOILED (LASHOU SHENTAN) is his best.
On a side note, and an incredibly sad note, John Woo's films have gotten worse lately. I was disappointed with 1996's BROKEN ARROW, but 1997's FACE-OFF was really good. However, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I'll just stop there and get back to HARD-BOILED.
I saw this movie in 1998 when I was seventeen and loved it. I think what primarily impressed me the most was the style of the film. I was already familiar with John Woo's style, but it was more stylish in this film. What I mean is, I feel like John Woo's style (ever since he started making American movies) has gone down the toilet. His early films are the best. And I do love THE KILLER, but it can't touch HARD-BOILED.
This particular movie basically introduced me to Hong Kong action films. And it made me hate American action movies even more. The Chinese genre is lightyears ahead of us slow Americans. And it looks like we are finally catching up (DESPERADO, BLADE, THE MATRIX, etc.) or just trying to be like them.
I can't say enough how great this movie was. It is without a doubt the best action movie ever made! And I don't see how Woo could ever beat it. If you have not seen it then watch it. I can't tell you anything else about it.
Tell Your Friends