cyndrix Reviews

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Stellar film soiled by a sour ending

[26 October 2003]

When you take on the name Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you've got a lot to live up to. I'll try not to compare this film to the original, but failing to draw any reference point to it is impossible and irresponsible.

This movie starts strong. Very strong. In fact, it made me quite uneasy and I found it to be disturbing and unsettling, just as it should be. It even made me uncomfortable and I wasn't sure how much more I could take. I haven't seen the original film in quite some time, but I dare say this one did just as good of a job creating a creepy environment. They changed enough to make the story fresh and interesting, but left enough to make it recognizable as TCM.

The film chugs along like this for 70 or 80 minutes, and I was totally impressed. Then it begins to go downhill and fall flat on its face.

Now we have to look at the original for a minute. What is Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Well, it's a guy with a chainsaw chasing people around and killing them, right? Wrong. Leatherface and the chainsaw are barely even in the original movie. If that description were accurate, TCM would not live in notoriety; it would be the same as every other horror movie. TCM is a horrendously disturbing film that builds horror through empathy for the main character in bizarre situations and making the viewer ask himself, "what would I do if that happened to me?"

This is what made the first TCM great. It is also what made the first two thirds of this version great. However, the film quickly slips into the "guy chasing girl with weapon" formula. And I think I've seen that movie before several times...it was called Friday the 13th, Halloween, Scream, or something. Once that cat and mouse game starts, I completely lose empathy for the main character. No longer is she in a helpless situation and it's more difficult to empathize because deep down you know how ridiculous it is.

Unfortunately, this film falls into that trap in spades, complete with smart girl beating up bad guy with sharp weapon only to have him magically reappear later at an impossible time to chase her some more. Ho-hum. That's just not scary. The original TCM gave the audience more credit than that and stayed with the empathy formula just getting creepier and weirder far beyond your wildest expectations.

The bottom line is that this new TCM film does not fail in comparison to the original nearly so much as it fails in comparison to itself. It starts off so good and had it just stuck to its creepy feel instead of going to chase scenes, it could have been an incredible film. Tack on an ultra ultra cheesy ending that is a blatant rip-off of Blair Witch, and you leave the theater scratching your head wondering if someone was deliberately trying to ruin this film.

I can't say not to see this movie because I really liked it. I'm just angry because I should have loved it. They were so close to making something exceptional that it's so disappointing to see them drop the ball. It still stands as a pretty good movie, but if you want it to be great you should leave in the middle and then go home and watch the second half of the original.

Life as a House (2001)

Good drama and surprises despite some predictability

[21 October 2003]

In about the middle of watching this movie, a thought occurred to me..."hey, this is kind of a rip-off of American Beauty!" There are some differences, but the similarities are striking. I was therefore not surprised to find others comparing the films.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. American Beauty was an incredible piece of work, so imitation done correctly can also hold merits of its own. And Life as a House does.

At its core, American Beauty is about how a single man can change himself. Life as a House is about how a single man can change those around him. George evolves little as a character throughout the entire film, but the people who interact with him change dramatically. It's more about how you can change the lives of those around you and leave a lasting mark on the world than how to become self-actualized.

Though Life as a House does offer up the cliche person dying of cancer and wanting to mend frayed relationships plot lines we've all seen a million times, there are a few nice surprises throughout and a delightful and heart warming ending.

I do feel like the story telling was a tad bit off and I didn't get to know the characters as well as I would have liked. This, however, may have been purposeful to make the audience feel the same distance the characters felt from each other. I'm not sure, I just feel like the story did not unfold as flawlessly as it could have, though I can't fully explain why.

Life as a House is definitely one of the better dramas of recent years. Though it does not equal the brilliance of American Beauty or Magnolia, it has merits of its own that are worth checking out.

If you can't stand Hayden Christensen, as I can't, this film will not change your mind. If you just use a jedi mind trick on yourself and keep repeating "Hayden Christensen is not completely awful and annoying," it can help take your mind off how awful and annoying he indeed is.

Pups (1999)

It's heart is in the right place, but the execution is lacking

[11 October 2003]

I respect what Ash was trying to do with this movie, and the guerilla film making style could have worked. To make a great movie, you don't need a huge budget, fancy distribution, or heavy promotions; but you do need a good script.

When you're trying to watch a film that realistically depicts the angst of today's youth, cliche lines like "what about when you touched me down there?" only detract. Trouble is, this film is filled with cliches that tend to take away from the message.

The film also would have done better to just be honest instead of trying to prove it's cool factor. I mean, Kurt Loder??? The idea of having Kurt freaking Loder in a movie sounds more like the idea of a bunch of 50 year old balding executives wearing suits in a boardroom trying to be "hip" and "cool" than that of a director who actually is hip and/or cool. In fact, that pretty much sums up a lot of this film: it tries to be cool instead of just being cool. It almost seems like a big budget film trying to pretend it was made by a young hipster director on a tight budget.

Then, why is the lack of professionalism sorely evident in the lackluster acting and weak script? The kids probably could have done a decent job with more time and coaching, but this seems like it was shot in a single day. The raw talent is there, it just isn't polished. The same can be said for the film making itself...I even saw the boom mic in one shot.

Pups is a decent movie that could have been great. There are seeds of truth in Pups and a fair amount of honesty. You just have to be willing to weed through the cliches, rammed down your throat morality, fake coolness, and Kurt Loder to see it.

Obviously, the studio didn't think much of this movie. The DVD isn't even widescreen. If you want to see a movie that is cool without trying so hard to be, then definitely watch Clerks or Doom Generation. If you want to see an average movie that perhaps offers a glimpse into the angst of teens without telling the full story, Pups is a decent romp. If you can imagine a younger version of SFW, that's pretty much what this movie is.

Oh, by the way....Burt Reynolds, your career called. It said it's jumping off a cliff.

The Transformers: The Movie (1986)

Robots, rock & roll, and destruction

[11 October 2003]

What more could you want?

When you look at the Transformers movie, it's astounding how many barriers it broke. An all-star cast with the likes of Robert Stack, Leonard Nimoy, and the legendary Orson Welles.

But it's not only that. The Transformers actually had the guts to take a wildly succcessful franchise and throw a total monkeywrench into it by killing many of the favorite characters and introducing all new ones. It didn't prove to be a wildly successful strategy, but you've got to admire them for going for it instead of letting the whole thing go stale.

The movie also had the courage to use profanity, feature fairly graphic deaths (for a kid's movie), and introduce one of the most terrifying and evil characters in animated history: Unicron.

The Transformers movie surpasses the series in every way. More colors, better animation, deeper story, more plot twists, and better voice acting. In a world of ultra politically correct animation out there, Transformers is a perfect movie for 10-13 year old boys who are too old for Disney but not quite ready for rated R. Since I have such a fondness for the characters, it's difficult for me to say if this is really a quality movie if you don't care about Transformers.

All I know is I still love watching it to this day and am convinced it's the best feature length animated film in existence. Even if you don't take it that far, you have to appreciate the risks it takes and how it writes its own rules instead of following convention.

Awesome, awesome movie.

Cabin Fever (2002)

Not scary enough, funny enough, or weird enough

[19 September 2003]

Cabin Fever just tries to be too many things.

I thought first and foremost, it would be a horror film. Well, it's not really. It is, but it's just not scary. In order to be scared for victims, the viewer has to empathize with them. How can you feel empathy for characters as cliche as the friends since childhood who secretly pine for each other, the sleazy couple who just wants to have sex, or the frat boy-esque party animal (who surprisingly enough, comes the closest of the whole bunch to being a sympathetic character).

Empathy doesn't really matter if you just make a splatter film where the payoff is watching everyone get killed. Cabin Fever, however, asks us to care about the moral indiscretion and suffering of these people. That's something you need empathy for. If I don't care what happens to the characters, it really doesn't matter what kind of situation you put them in. The film fails to scare because I really don't care what happens to these people. I don't feel as if I know or even like them. This problem is exacerbated by the complete idiocy of the characters. If a plague is infecting your cabin and your friends are dying, you don't just try to find neighbors and go back home when you don't find a phone...you get on that road and start walking, even if it's 30 miles to the next town. If you pay attention, too many days pass for these people to be stuck. Which brings me to another question: where exactly are they where nobody has a telephone? Are they even in America? We need a much more plausible explanation for why they are stranded.

Another place the film fall short is on something I will call "weirdness." As a David Lynch fan, I was expecting a certain degree of artistic vision from a director who worked with him. Indeed, Cabin Fever does have certain elements that feel Lynch inspired. The trouble is, they feel completely forced and done for absolutely no reason other than just for the sake of doing them. These moments of "weirdness" do not have to advance the story or even make sense. They should, however, at least be appropriate for the scene where they are taking place and not just completely out of context.

For the good news, Cabin Fever does have some well written dialogue, and most of the actors do the best they can with the lousy story they were handed. This at least makes the movie watchable, but can not save it from failing overall.

Cabin Fever tries to be too many things and as a result fails at all of them. Not scary enough to be horror, not disturbing enough to be creepy, not funny enough for comedy, and not artistic enough to be art. The best thing Cabin Fever offers is decent dumb fun good for a single viewing on a late night rental. Though with 28 Days Later out there, I can't imagine why anyone would bother.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Powerful, beautiful, astounding, essential

[7 September 2003]

Requiem for a Dream is the best movie I have seen in a long time and one of the best ever. Part of the reason is how beautifully it flows together. The cinematography, the music, the dialogue, they all come together to create a wonderful experience. Even if that experience is not particularly pleasant, it has an effect on your soul unlike most other films.

One big mistake I've read is that this film is about drug use. It is not. The drugs are simply a metaphor for addiction of any kind, and in a broader sense, the things in our lives that control us that we have a very hard time controlling. Instead of drug use, the characters could have been in abusive relationships, dead-end jobs, or any other controlling factor. Requiem describes how these things can change and tear apart your life. It's not about drugs in particular.

In fact, an important element of Requiem is if you notice, you never actually see anybody take drugs. Drug use is simply an addiction that most people can understand.

Requiem for a Dream is an utterly astounding piece of work. What it says about addiction, relationships, poverty, sexuality, morality, and humanity is poignant and provoking. The content of the script is complemented by incredible work by the four main actors who each may have given the performance of their careers in Requiem.

As I said, the camera work and score are brilliant and highlight the despair of the film. The people who made this film refused to yield to the MPAA and accepted the NC-17 rating instead of making edits. That artistic integrity is evident in every aspect of this incredible work.

Love it or hate it, Requiem for a Dream will move you.

Twister (I) (1996)

Pure loud American action fun

[4 June 2003]

I like movies that deliver what they promise.

With a title like Twister, you would think that this movie would have a lot of tornados in it potrtayed in an adrenaline packed way. Guess what? If you think that, you're 100% right.

There's nothing revolutionary going on in the plot, but the acting is good and as an action film, the plot serves its purpose well: to do little more than support the action. Ok, there are one or two real cornball moments, but they don't ruin the film. The writing is good enough to make Helent Hunt's character a sympathetic protagonist, but doesn't get drawn out and deter from the twister action.

And twister action there is. There are several great scenes of awesome storms that look very realistic. More importantly, they sound realistic. If you crank up your dolby, you'll be able to feel the power of the wind. You really want to make sure you have some kind of surround sound (with a nice powered woofer) and at least a 27" screen.

Twister was one of the early films to incorporate a lot of CGI special effects and it does so conservatively. The effects are used to achieve a level of realism, none of the common "we're doing it just because we can" that makes some CGI effects look so lame. Every element has a point and serves it well. The point here is to recreate tornados in a realistic manner, and that's exactly what we get.

Twister is pure action fun. If you like your movies loud, your popcorn hot, rock and roll music and machine guns, it's hard to not like Twister. It's not going to win any awards (except maybe for effects or sound), but it certainly delivers what it promises. One of my favorite action flicks.

There are also lots of really beautiful scenery shots of Oklahoma. I've never been, but this movie makes me want to go.

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Surprisingly bad for such a no-brainer

[1 June 2003]

If you're making a movie, nothing could be more ideal than use of one of the most popular characters in history and a major budget to back it up. You have to actually try to screw it up. That's even doubled with something like Godzilla. It's a fairly straightforward formula: all people want to see is a giant monster destroy things. Simple, right?

Apparently not to the people who made this movie. I can forgive the many faults of this film: wacky French militants, Hank Azaria's terrible New York accent, really lame and obvious chroma keys on the effects, a complete idiot of a protagonist female character, totally inappropriate and retarded comic relief, scenes directly ripped off from Jurassic Park and not even done as well, and all kinds of really bad plot holes.

Hey, it's a monster movie. All of those things are forgivable so long as I see what I want. That, of course, is lots of destruction.

Alas, Godzilla falls short on this. Most of the film takes place in Manhattan, so there are all kinds of opportunities for great destruction of landmarks. Admitedly, nobody wants to see the World Trade Center blown up nowadays, but it should have been obvious to do this in 1998 when Godzilla was made. Couldn't they at least have taken out the Empire State building? Or the Statue of Liberty?

Everybody loves to see New York get obliterated (especially those who have lived there). The problem is, most of the destruction in Godzilla is nondescript and could be anywhere. Few landmarks are destroyed. It's been proven how much people love to see recognizable landmarks blow up. Remember how much you cheered when you saw the White House in flames in Independence Day? Somehow it's just not as much fun when it's a generic looking building.

Despite Godzilla's faults, it could have redeemed itself by simply following the proven formula of wreaking total havoc in the city. Instead, Godzilla leaves us with a Manhattan that is amazingly intact for a city that just had an enormous lizard run wild in its streets.

Godzilla isn't terrible. It's just a very mediocre monster movie without enough destruction and cheese that isn't bad enough to be camp, but that's way too bad to be good. For that reason, there are way better action movies to invest your time in.

Terror Toons (2002 Video)

Watching this has been scientifically proven to reduce your IQ

[27 May 2003]

Question: If you locked two 12 year old boys in a room with a camera, a computer with Final Cut Pro, and a bag of marijuana and forced them to stay up all night long, what would you get?

Answer: Something better than Terror Toons.

Terror Toons is the the dumbest thing I've ever seen. And I've seen more dumb things that I'd care to admit. Quite simply, the worst movie I have ever watched. I would have turned it off, but I wanted to be able to warn others how awful it is and felt I must watch the whole thing before doing so.

I would rather be forced to mop the floor of a New York city subway station men's room with a loaf of French bread and then eat the bread than watch Terror Toons again. It's just that bad.

It's not just the wretched quality. Bad quality can be used for artistic effect. But this thing is just horrible. It looks like it was shot on Hi-8 video tape and then run down about 1,000 generations. I have seen better acting and writing in porno films. In fact, a good way to understand what Terror Toons is like is to imagine the 5 worst porno films you've ever seen, cut out the sex, and then watch them all in a row. That would still probably be better.

What amazes me is the director has the guts to appear in the special feature segment of the DVD. If I made this waste of time, I would want to be as anonymous as possible. I hope people beat him up in the street for being so stupid.

The only reason to ever rent or buy this movie is if you are planning to give it to someone you hate. Tell them it is the best thing you have ever seen and then laugh knowing that they are going to waste 75 minutes that they can never get back. Ugh, this is just so bad. I hope whatever company distributes this goes out of business. I can't believe someone decided to pick it up. I've seen better Flash movies on the Internet.

Even if you like really bad movies, you should still avoid this one. It actually angers me to think that human energy was expended to make this. Everyone involved should be sentenced to prison.

Astoundingly terrible.

What Dreams May Come (1998)

Great visuals mask a weak film

[25 May 2003]

Ever since seeing the trailer for What Dreams May Come, I have wanted to see this film. I finally saw it on DVD and was impressed by the creativity and execution of the visuals. Though there are some flaws in how they are executed, this is forgivable because of how unique they are.

The problem with What Dreams May Come is the writing is horrible. The plot itself is fairly interesting, if not slightly confusing at times, but the dialogue is quite bad. If told properly, the story could be quite compelling.

One thing that really ruined the film for me was the poor editing at the end. In one of the last scenes we see an over the shoulder shot of Robin Williams and can see his jaw moving from behind, but the words we hear are completely out of sync with his mouth movements and obviously overdubbed. This was so distracting to me I couldn't even pay attention to what he was saying. How can a major release from a real studio allow such sloppy work to be in the final cut? Would it really have been that difficult to shoot the scene again?

If you can enjoy a beautiful movie despite weak writing and some editing glitches, What Dreams My Come may float your boat. It's certainly worthwhile to see the creativity in how the paint world was created. However, if you are a perfectionist and demand quality, there are several technical and content flaws that will prevent you from fully enjoying the film.

Jason X (2001)

The best of the series

[20 October 2002]

Jason X can be summarized by one simple word: FUN

While hardcore fans of the Friday series may find themselves a tad disappointed with this installment, it opens itself up to a much broader audience than simply horror groupies. This is because Jason X is not a straight-up horror film. It's a brew made up of one part horror, one part action, a cup of sci-fi, and a dash of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Highly creative and graphically violent deaths should keep the horror fan in everyone entertained while the hunter vs. the hunted premise keeps the action element in high gear. One of the most notable features of Jason X is the finesse in which it pokes fun at itself. The mastery of this is akin to Evil Dead 2 with enough humor to be subtle and entertaining, but not over-the-top ala Army of Darkness. The humor also wonderfully combines inside jokes that Friday fans will get with fun moments that everyone can enjoy.

I have watched this film with six different people, many of whom are different kinds of moviegoers. Everyone found their own personal times to cheer, laugh, and scream. I really believe there are elements of Jason X that almost everyone can enjoy, you just have to go in seeking some enjoyment.

Personally, I have never been a major Jason fan. I believe Halloween to be a much more frightening experience than Friday the 13th, and consider Jason movies to be for a less sophisticated audience. Jason X, however, brings its sophistication up a notch and introduces wit to the series for the first time. It is also by far the best film making the series has seen, from well executed cinematography to an excellent score that sounds like it was lifted straight out of the Hellraiser series.

Jason X is one of the rare truly universal scary movies. It delivers enough for horror fans, but it also has enough other elements so that it is also entertaining for more mainstream moviegoers. Despite this more universal appeal, Jason X also contains some of the most brutal violence the masked one has ever committed.

Timing is executed wisely in Jason X. Right when things are getting too scary, some humor is tossed in. When things get too light-hearted, a dark and bloody sequence will be upcoming. I give Jason X high marks based on its brilliant death sequences, enjoyable humor, and it actually has some decent acting to boot.

I may be alone in this, but I consider Jason X to be the best in the Friday the 13th series...a welcome addition, especially after the abysmal Jason Goes To Hell.

The Jason X DVD is a great package containing 2 documentaries and an excellent feature that allows you to skip the plot of the movie and watch only the kill sequences. A+ job on the DVD.

Hardware (1990)

Beautifully filmed sci-fi masterpiece

[28 July 2002]

Those judging Hardware using the same criteria for judging major Hollywood sci-fi films are missing the point entirely.

Hardware is much more an art film than it is science fiction; it merely happens to have a sci-fi theme.

Given, the plot is a little cheesy. Given, the situation fairly unbelievable. And given, there are a few holes in the story.

Almost no film has all of these elements, but Hardware has something even more important. The way the story is told is nothing short of genius. Perhaps not in the way the happenings actually unfold, but in how they are presented. Hardware is an astounding achievement in lighting, cinematography, and audio engineering. As a professional video editor myself, I can assure you that this movie benefits from an A+ editing job.

I completely agree that there are only 2 types of people: those who love Hardware, and those who simply do not get it.

From the first frame of video, this movie is a constant barrage on the eyes, ears, and mind. If nothing else, you must admire the bleak vision of a post-nuclear holocaust America presented in Hardware. Images ranging from billowing smoke stacks and butchers in apartment lobbies to toddlers physically tied to their dead parents, Stanley paints a haunting vision of the future that will not be forgotten after you press stop.

Hardware is not what you would expect to come out of Hollywood. It is what you would expect a pure artist to create. Perhaps it is better suited to fans of independent film than just sci-fi fans. Films like Terminator and Aliens might be regarded as much better sci-fi work, but I assure you that they can't touch the riskiness and edginess of Hardware in how they are presented. That is why you hear casual moviegoers complaining about this movie. For pure fans of the art behind film making, sci-fi just doesn't get any better than Hardware.

It should be noted that the excellent score does much to augment the visuals in this film. It's criminal that nobody has seen it necessary to print Hardware on DVD as I would love to experience it in Dolby 5.1.

As a final note, Hardware may not be a film everyone will enjoy. Even if you don't like it, you will become a more enlightened viewer if you can at least identify why this is such a courageous film and how it differs from the Hollywood fodder you are probably used to.

Eight Legged Freaks (2002)

Can't quite decide what it is

[23 July 2002]

I won't go into too many details on what this movie is. If you can't figure that out from the title, you don't really deserve to breathe let alone see movies.

Eight Legged Freaks is a fun little romp that has elements of horror and comedy. Overall, I liked the film and wish that Hollywood would make more like it. There isn't the ever so common over-reliance on CGI here. It's used where it works, but actual fake spiders are also used where more appropriate. The director is really clued into human responses with the comedy. Ostriches are inherently comical creatures, and even if you don't think the idea of giant spiders eating ostriches is a humorous subject, you really can't help but to laugh when you see these bizarre looking creatures being dragged to the ground. It's also very difficult not to laugh when you see a cat leave an imprint of its face on some drywall...Eight Legged Freaks really has its comedy down.

Similarly, the horror elements are on target. While no death scenes are particularly gruesome, Eight Legged Freaks makes no apologies about who it kills. For such a non-violent movie, I was surprised by how many innocent people that the film actually developed somewhat are taken out by the bugs. If the director had expanded on this just a little more, he could have made some really horrifying and memorable death sequences. Also to the director's credit, the little kid who really knows what is going on is easy to like. These type of "nobody believes me" kids are usually horribly annoying characters that you wish would die but you know they won't. Kari Wuhrer also does a surprisingly good acting job.

This is where the problem with ELF comes in. The horror and comedy work well, but there is also an element of cheese that absolutely does NOT work. In certain scenes, the spiders are given cute little voices and do everything from yell "oh, oh, oh, oh!" when being drug by a car to coughing when immersed in a cloud of dust. In other scenes, the spiders are harrowing creatures complete with deep growls. This film can't quite decide whether we should be scared of these spiders or laugh at them; it's too bad that this distinction is essential to the success of the movie.

Eight Legged Freaks is pure, solid, fun. My only complaint is that I wish it had been more Evil Dead 2 and less Gremlins. It also would have worked well as a straight horror film, but the cheese kid-friendly elements don't work on any level. They may not ruin the movie, but they will surely keep it from ever becoming a classic, cult or otherwise.

Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment (1985 Video)

An honest look at Guinea Pig

[23 June 2002]

I felt compelled to write this review because I read so many negative things about the film before I saw it. I wondered if the film was really that bad or if people were just so disgusted by what they saw they felt the need to trash it. That's why I decided to provide an honest look at Guinea Pig.

The first important thing to know about Guinea Pig is that it is quite obviously fake. I won't go into details as to why, but the reasons are many and widespread throughout the entire film. From the first frame of video alone, text that explains where the film came from...are we to believe that this was actually released? A much more effective start would have been to just dive right into the video. That way we might have some sense that perhaps we are viewing something illegal that somehow slipped through the cracks.

The question is, why is it so important that Guinea Pig is obviously fake? Unlike other films, Guinea Pig doesn't have any character development. Without empathy for the film's characters, the only thing that we have to rely on for fear is the thought that maybe, just maybe, what we are seeing is real. Contrast that with Texas Chainsaw Massacre. We know that's just a film, but it is much more effective because we care what happens to the characters. Also, TCM is able to show some scenes of violence from the victim's point of view allowing the viewer to put himself in the victim's shoes. Guinea Pig can't do those things, so the only thing it has to frighten us with is realism.

Guinea Pig fails in the realism department, so does that mean the film is a total failure? Not exactly. I think Guinea Pig succeeds on two levels.

Human beings have a natural instinct towards self-preservation. It's that very instinct that causes the thought of true snuff to illicit such horror as well as curiosity. When viewing questionable material, this instinct also causes us to search for explanations as to why what we are watching is not real. In one scene, the victim has hot oil poured on her arm. This is obviously not really happening as she makes no reasonable attempt to move her arm out of the path of the spilling oil. But hold on....how do I know that? The film made me consider it. The mere fact that viewing Guinea Pig made me have to think about how a person might react to hot oil being spilled on them means that it has succeeded on some level. Whether this success of the film is something that the viewer actually wants is another question entirely.

Secondly, I think Guinea Pig succeeds in forcing us to think about what we are willing to see. Though quite fake, the famous climactic needle scene is indescribably difficult to watch. This forces the viewer to consider how much more he is willing to see. Many people seek shocking video, but then wish they could unsee what they have seen. Perhaps Guinea Pig can provide some answers as to what we are willing to see. If nothing else, maybe after seeing Guinea Pig we will really think about viewing something before wishing we could unsee it.

In summation, I can't recommend Guinea Pig because of its shortcomings. I expect its recent domestic release on DVD will create wide interest in the film, but I would certainly wait until it's in the $10 bin before considering it. I even found Jeepers Creepers to be a scarier experience because at least the story was told well. With the lack of any story and the lack of realism, what does Guinea Pig really have to offer? Not much.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

It is what it is

[23 June 2002]

23 years after it was released, Cannibal Holocaust remains one of the most talked about films of all time. And for good reason.

In a world filled with horror films that make grandiose promises of terror with laughable results, Cannibal Holocaust delivers on its intent to horrify. For many years I didn't really care for this film. I thought it was overrated and a fairly pointless shock film. After seeing the Blair Witch Project (an obvious rip-off), I decided to go back to the original deal and give it another chance.

On my second viewing of Cannibal Holocaust, I realized a few things that escaped me the first time. The original film makers are much deeper characters than I had originally given them credit for. Overwhelmed with the desire to make an award winning documentary, they will stop at nothing to succeed. This raises questions as to how far is too far for ambition and how much is really enough. Amazingly, the actors do a quite believable job exhibiting extreme behavior throughout the film.

It's a shame that the questions surrounding the main characters are no more than afterthoughts, mere excuses to show shocking and disturbing violence. The effects in Cannibal Holocaust are excellent because they are very realistic looking despite a meager budget. All of the shortcomings of the effects are brilliantly masked by wobbly amateur handheld camera shakes and angles, another trick used by Blair Witch. The final scene, in particular, uses these camera tricks well to build a chaotic and disturbing sequence.

Another saving grace of Cannibal Holocaust is the wonderful score. Mostly made up of creepy synth sounds and drum beats, the sheer simplicity of the music amazingly and quite surprisingly highlights the despair of the film. Simple music, simple emotion. I also found the use, or rather misuse, of a cheery sounding love ballad during scenes of violence to be unsettling and confusing in a rather thought provoking way.

The only real beef that I have with Cannibal Holocaust is the deplorable act of animal butchery. This serves its purpose well, as the very real animal mutilations subconsciously serve to make the staged violence seem more real. This, however, is a natural human response. So Deodato's reliance on this visceral response to actual violence is a cop-out and proves that he could not horrify using only his skills as a film director. Almost anybody can horrify audiences using real violence, but it takes skill to do it with an original work. I wish Deodato had tried to do it on his own without relying on this shameful tactic.

If animal cruelty really bothers you, you should not watch this film. If you are able to see past it and look at what really makes this movie what it is, Cannibal Holocaust provides an experience like no other. That is, after all, why people can't stop talking about it after all this time.