Fmartiterron Reviews

The Legend of Hell House (1973)

Almost great

[7/10 · 25 September 2012]

Ah, the haunted house sub-genre... there are quite a number of movies in it, but I can't think of any memorable or definitive one. Maybe that's why "Hell House" is more or less considered the best of the lot. Now, I don't want to attack the film gratuitously, but I have some problems with it. Generally speaking, "Hell house" is a creepy, well made little film, but the script by Richard Matheson -and his novel, which shares the same problems- is just smoke and mirrors.

My main issue with the film is that it seems to promise a scientific approach to the "haunted house" cliché. After all, the main character is a physicist, and there's a lot of dialogue about his theories and the inner workings of a machine of his invention he plans to use to "de-haunt" the mansion. However, when the supernatural phenomena start to appear, they seem practically to occur at random, and he barely investigates them. The whole thing then seems to take a different path, only to deliver an explanation of sorts at the very end, one that nobody could have guessed, although it is true that there are clues here and there. But come on, how are we supposed to connect the final explanation with stuff like a character being attacked by a black cat, or the increased sexual drive of others? It makes zero sense.

On the other hand, as I said, there are many things to like about "Hell house": it's never boring, the acting all around is competent -although I kept asking myself if Roddy McDowall was wearing a bad wig or not- and, specially, British director John Hough managed to infuse it with a great deal of atmosphere. Part of it is due to the electronic score and the immaculate set design, true, but now and then Hough manages to create a pervasive sense of unease only through his eccentric directing choices. For instance, he makes a very creative use of unusual techniques like low angles or deformant lenses, and he often frames faces in extreme close ups while keeping the background out of focus, which makes a very effective way of letting us now of the malignant influence of the house on its inhabitants.

Blue Steel (1990)

Still Kathryn Bigelow's best film

[7/10 · 25 September 2012]

With time, I've learned to avoid any film directed by Kathryn Bigelow. These days they often come as half-baked, pretentious or just bad affairs. But there was a time when she used to be an interesting filmmaker, and "Blue Steel" is perhaps her best film. Starting with close-ups of a revolver and partial shots of Jamie Lee Curtis playing to the electronic gasps of Brad Fiedel, it shouldn't come up as a surprise that this is a film about guns, violence and the almost sexual thrills they both can produce.

During the film both Jamie Lee Curtis and Ron Silver's characters try to channel those compulsions in different ways. Megan (Jamie Lee Curtis) comes from a dysfunctional family and a violent background. She chooses the way of repression, becoming a policewoman, a job were violence is legal, but only under the right circumstances. Eugene (Ron Silver) also lives in an ambiance of implied violence: his scenes at work always show him shouting and holding papers in the air, surrounded by other brokers in similar attitudes. He instead chooses the way of exteriorizing violence, going in a killing spree with a gun that accidentally falls in his hands.

Kathryn Bigelow shots both actors accordingly. Jamie Lee Curtis often appears tight-lipped, her hair restrained in a ponytail and her sexuality contained, if not entirely hidden under a police uniform or male clothes. in the occasional moments when she loosens up a little she still can't help to act somehow aggressively would-be suitors or co-workers. Ron Silver, on the other hand, often appears acting maniacally, letting whatever emotions run through his mind take reign of him.

"Blue Steel" is, for the most part, a great film. Co-writer Erid Red has a knack for tying together opposite characters and exploring madness, the same way he did in "The Hitcher".

***SPOILERS FOLLOW*** Regrettably, there's only one way the film can end, with a showdown where one of the character has to end up consumed by his compulsions, so it's no surprise that the film ends just like that.

***END SPOILERS*** On its way to said denouement, the film also often gets too close to offering generic psycho-thriller moments, and Kathryn Bigelow's stylish, detached camera-work can only hide that for a while.

But know what? I still like it more than I should.

1968 Tunnel Rats (2008)

Another side of Uwe Boll

[6/10 · 21 March 2010]

I don't count myself among Uwe Boll's apologists. I think it's important I mention that before I start talking about "Tunnel rats". I find all his films utter crap, and the fact that he has found stardom among the geeks as "the world's worst film director" a sort of cosmic joke that only God, should he exist, and Boll himself might find funny.

Then there's the occasional hint that he's not stupid. Like the sheer brilliance of one of his latest publicity stunts, boxing his critics, or his systematic criticism of Hollywood directors he finds as bad as he is. And even the latter has its own dose of lame-ness. Here's one director who doesn't claim he could make Hollywood blockbusters better than American directors, but just as badly as them.

Anyway, I had some expectations for "Tunnel rats", expectations that I have seen fulfilled, as you may guess from the fact that this thread is on the "Good movies" board. The film is nothing like "Platoon", which I still think it's the best Vietnam movie made so far, but more like "The Siege of Firebase Gloria", "Hamburger Hill" or even "Platoon leader". That is, I expected a movie light on content and budget but competently made and gritty, and that's what I got.

"Tunnel rats" tells the story of an American unit deployed in the jungles of Vietnam, where they are ordered to explore and take out a vast network of tunnels build by the Vietcong. And that's it. It plays like a cross between "Firebase Gloria" and "Cube", because sooner or later most characters end up underground, fighting for their survival.

The best I can say about "Tunnel rats", and the most accurate way to describe it, is to say it doesn't feel like an Uwe Boll movie. The production values are adequate, the music and cinematography are top notch and the acting is competent all around. The latter could have been even better, but the script doesn't exactly shine at character development. It wants all the characters to be underdeveloped, so you don't know who's going to die next, and acts accordingly.

Even better, the camera-work is actually pretty good. Boll here finally gets rid of that terrible habit of his of trying to cram to many things into the same movie, and the tone and the approach remain consistent throughout the whole movie. For once, you can see him aiming for subtlety instead of blatant plagiarism and schlock. Yes, I was shocked too. Here Boll restraints the camera as much as he can, aiming (and achieving) a tense calm in the scenes set in the surface, and a harrowing, claustrophobic sensation whenever anybody enters the tunnels.

Not all is that good, though. There are a few scenes depicting the V.C. fighters that carefully avoid taking sides, but which feel nevertheless a tad cliché, and a major action scene in the surface abandons the quietness of the previous action bits for a hand-held, rushed camera-work that feels like a major mistake.

But still, this is a must see, specially for those who enjoyed the many Nam actioners of the VHS era. Considering how tightly paced it is, and how careful Boll has been this time not to screw this one up, it's unlikely he does anything better anytime soon. What the hell, this film may easily end up passing as his masterpiece.

The Flock (2007)

Better than they say. Hell, better than "8 MM" too.

[6/10 · 9 November 2007]

I have just seen this movie. It just opened today (November 9th 2007) in Spain. Let me say that I understand the bad word of mouth the movie is having, it deals with a difficult subject (sexual abusers) and its tone is as dark as say "9 MM", if not darker.

But all things considered it's a pretty good film. The investigation angle makes for a very tense thriller, but where the film really shines is in the depiction of Richard Gere's characters, as well as the villain's, which I won't reveal.

Gere is really all stops go here, it's easily his most intense role since "Internal Affairs". Even if you are not Gere fans, you're gonna love him in this.

On the minus side, I didn't like the way the film is edited. It's full of flashes, freeze frames and all those "arty" stuff they cram into your TV series and direct-to-DVD movies. I understand they wanted to give the movie a hard edge, but it's often too distracting. The film is already dark and gritty enough as it is, and this bells and whistles don't add a damn thing.

And then there's Claire Danes. look, she's an OK actress, but she was like a fish out of water here. They give her character some interesting background, but she's constantly out off key. She looks like a raving lunatic when she tries to act quirky or vulnerable, and not very convincing when the script calls for her character to toughen up a little.

So, it's an interesting movie if you can go beyond the surface of its visual trickery, but not as good as it could be. I would say it earns a 6'5 - 7 in my scale.

Excuses! (2003 TV Movie)

A horror tale for adults.

[7/10 · 22 June 2007]

This is a TV broadcast of a theatrical play by the Catalan company Krampack. Krampack is well known to all Catlan audiences thanks to their TV series "Plats bruts".

This play, however, is a rather different animal. Whereas "Plats bruts" used (mostly) white humor and surrealism to satirize young adults in Spain, "Excuses!" is a rather adult take on a similar situation. Two young couples meet several times over the years, and we see in perfect detail how they fail to achieve anything resembling happiness or fulfillment, the major causes being mismatched couples and lack of maturity (specially evident in the case of Joel Joan's character).

Is it good? Yes, of course. The members of the company are very skilled actors (a special mentions should go to Monica Glaentzel's performance as a young mother), and the text is both agile and precise in its satire.

But to be honest I didn't enjoy the play as much as I expected. Part of the blame should be put on myself, because I was expecting something similar to "Plats bruts", but I should also mention that the mixture of humor and extremely adult situations, such as spousal or child abuse, was rather difficult to stomach. It is something the authors intended, I'm sure, but it still makes for difficult watching in some key scenes.

A Christmas Tale (2005 TV Movie)

Fantastic.

[8/10 · 10 November 2006]

"Stories to keep you awake" was a legendary Spanish TV series that told independent suspense / horror stories every week. As of 2006, some Spanish media have joined resources to produce a follow-up in the shape of six direct-to-DVD films, directed by some of the most popular Spanish film directors. "Cuento de Navidad" is helmed by Paco Plaza, director of "The second name" and "Romasanta".

Among the bunch of films that compose this series, this may easily be the best of the lot. Paco Plaza creates a surprisingly cruel negative to teen films, such as "The Goonies" or the Spanish TV series "Verano azul". Set in the early 80s (pop culture references abound in the story), it tells the story of a group of early teenagers that find a wounded woman in the woods, dressed up as Santa. Rather than helping her, they start abusing her, and as soon as they learn she's the suspect of a bank robbery they increase the abuse in order to obtain the robbed money themselves.

It's a bleak story, full of cruelty, and Plaza's talent is evident when he uses elements that in other hands would be comedic to increase the cruelty of the tale: when the abused woman manages to turn tables on the kids and pursues them axe in hand, they mistake her for a zombie, and in their efforts to defend themselves of her attacks, the mimic the techniques they've seen in horror movies, much to our horror.

It's not a perfect film. I've mentioned how the tale is packed with pop culture references, and some of them feel a bit gratuitous, although they are well integrated within the plot. I was specially amused by a zombie flick that appears recurrently, a parody of Lucio Fulci's movies that strucks more than a chord. Watching local rock and roll star Loquillo as a zombie hunter (with dubbed southamerican accent to boot) is absolutely priceless.

To Let (2006 TV Movie)

Good and gory.

[7/10 · 29 October 2006]

"Stories to keep you awake" was a legendary Spanish TV series that told independent suspense / horror stories every week. As of 2006, some Spanish media have joined resources to produce a follow-up in the shape of six direct-to-DVD films, directed by some of the most popular Spanish film directors. "Para entrar a vivir" is helmed by Jaume Balagueró, director of "The Nameless", "Darkness" and "Fragile".

The film is about a young couple who are looking for a new home. The man finds an interesting ad in his mailbox and they both drive to the suburbs. The building is almost derelict, and the efforts of the seller (Nuria Gonzalez) to calm down the couple fail miserably. Immediately, she knocks down the man and ties down the woman. The nightmare has just begun.

Coming from Balagueró I expected yet another rendition of the haunted place story, but surprisingly Balagueró goes for an Argento-style psycho thriller and succeeds. The visuals may not be as polished as Argento's (after the failure of "Darkness" Balagueró has turned to a more barebones style), but the tension and the gore are certainly there.

A must see for horror fans out there.

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

Among Clint's most daring films.

[10/10 · 27 September 2006]

WARNING: Contains spoilers.

This film must be one of my favorite westerns of all time, and I just watched it again on my brand new DVD player.

I also find it is one of the most strange westerns ever, something I'm not sure it is deliverate or it comes from the different personalities involved in the project. For starters, the film is based on a novel, and it is also known that Eastwood fired the man who was going to direct it (Philip Kaufman, also the screenwriter) when the project was already in an advanced stage.

Clint Eastwood stars as Josie Whales, a pacific farmer who sees his family killed during the American Civil war, and who, not having any good reason to live but to achieve revenge, joins the suddist irregulars. And here the strange things start to ocurr, because after the beginning credits the war is over and Whales is in more or less the same state where we left him. A series of events turn him into a fugitive, with literally every bounty hunter in the territory after him, and his dry, sullen persona starts to evolve as his journey towards Kansas progresses and he joins some of the most peculiar travel partners ever to grace a western: a young kid (Sam Bottons), a disenchanted Indian chief (Chief Dan George), an Indian woman who speaks in an unintelligible tongue, a dog, a puritan woman and her aloof young daughter (played by Sondra Locke, future companion and regular screen partner of Eastwood).

It is a wonderful film, really, but as I said it is VERY strange. It starts as your usual Eastwood vehicle, although Eastwood's tone as a director is even more laconic and dryly humorous than usual, but as the journey progresses new characters are introduced and Wales himself starts to change, developing, just like the film itself, and underlying schizophrenia. Wales is teared apart, as the film goes, between his desire for revenge and thus ending with his inner torment, and the newly found desire to reintegrate to society (he's been a loner for years as the film starts), as he founds himself as the leader of some sort of dysfunctional, even interracial, family.

This inner conflict is also transferred to the film itself, which seems to eternally debate between historical (and genre) accuracy (this must be the most "historical" of all Eastwood films, as it is based on historical events and several real figures like Quantril are mentioned) and Eastwood's desire to short-circuit it with dry humour and anti-archeotypical character allegiances.

This alone should make it a must see for all westerns aficionados, but it should also be noted that this is one of Eastwood's finest directing efforts. Attention to detail is overwhelming (notice for instance the use of period songs), and the cinematography is absolutely riveting, coating the interiors with persistent shadows, and washing out the familiar landscapes with invernal light. Kudos for the supporting cast, specially Chief Dan George, are also obligatory.

Masters of Horror (2005–2007)

A mixed bag.

[7/10 · 30 May 2006]

When I learned of this series, I was thrilled. I'm a big follower of some of the directors involved, such as Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter or Dario Argento, and the idea that they would be given freedom and resources to direct one-hour self-contained horror stories made me shiver with anticipation.

The results, however, are a mixed bag. Don't take me wrong, most of the directors involved seem to be in good shape, and the stories have potential, but the writing and the acting are, with some notable exceptions, just by the numbers.

Anyway, if you like horror you won't mind spending a few hours with the lesser episodes. They're still above average, and the series has enough hidden gems to keep you wanting more.

My favorite episodes were, in no particular order: "Incident on and off a road mountain" (Don Coscarelli), "Cigarette Burns" (John Carpenter), "Deer Woman" (John Landis)and "Sick Girl", directed by Lucky McKee.

I just heard the series has been renewed for another season. All I can say is that I will keep watching it.

El robobo de la jojoya (1991)

Flawed.

[2/10 · 2 May 2005]

Josema Yuste y Millan Salcedo are part of the History of recent Spanish comedy. They formed the comic duo "Martes y trece" (dissolved some years ago) and during ther 80s and early 90s revolutioned Spanish TV with their various TV shows and occasional performances. Their humour is very particular, often relying in absurd (think of an impossible mix of The Monty Python and Jerry Lewis), and it certainly works better in small doses.

This movie is one of the several cinema vehicles they starred in, and it is a pretty wretched effort. As I said, Martes y trece work better in small doses, such as their TV shows, where they could abandon any idea of narration and just focus on the absurd. Here, embedded in a caper / prison film parody they end up being quite annoying. The flat direction by veteran Álvaro Sáenz de Heredia and the inane supporting cast certainly don't help.

If you want to see Martes y trece at their best, get any of the TV specials they starred in, most of them have just been released in DVD.

La estanquera de Vallecas (1987)

A mixed bag, but still very interesting.

[6/10 · 1 May 2005]

A recent TV screening of this movie was preceded by a brief interview with director Eloy De La Iglesia. During the late 70s and 80s, De La Iglesia had became a prominent director by making a series of movies that mixed exploitation (nudity, violence) with asocial commentary. Seen today, his films are unique documents on how life was lived and perceived during that period. And unlike other filmmakers from the period, De La Iglesia is a very talented filmmaker. At his best, his films still have the gritty edge, the naturalistic approach and the poignancy that made them successful at the time. At his works, they show how thin is the line between contention and excess, between drama and exploitation.

On the interview I've mentioned De La Iglesia didn't seem much appreciative of this film. He had made it with the idea of making a commercial film, something light that would earn big money. He also mentioned that critics had slammed it for being broad, which he said it was something intentional.

And he is dead-on. The film starts like many of his urban dramas, with two small delinquents arriving to Vallecas and trying to assault a tobacco shop. But soon, comedy is introduced. The owner, an angry middle aged woman (an completely OTT Emma Penella) refuses to let the criminals take the money, and while the police takes siege to the shop tension and comedy escalates in both places, as the police seems hesitant to assault the shop and the hostages start to develop the Stockholm syndrome.

Personally, I enjoyed the film quite much, but I finally decided that the eye De La Iglesia has for social commentary (the attitudes of police and neighbors of Vallecas are very realistic) mix together quite badly with comedy, specially in cases like this one, where the stages of the Stockholm syndrome are so poorly explained that suspension of disbelief needs to be applied in great doses.

Still, it is a highly enjoyable film. Performances are fantastic, although Penella's very conscious overacting may displease some viewers. The actors playing the criminals are very good as well, and Marivel Verdú, in one of her earlier works, is lots of fun as well. We can also see Jesus Puente, a veteran Spanish actor, playing a police officer. He has one of the best dramatic moments in the movie, I won't say more.

The only real problem I have with this film is, as I mentioned earlier, that comedy and drama mix very poorly, and while I enjoyed many of the dramatic scenes some of the comedy had my eyes rolling. But, of course, if you are into dramas you can always watch the rest of De La Iglesia's movies.

No te fallaré (2001)

Why? Oh, why?

[1/10 · 4 January 2005]

Why making a bad movie out of a bad TV series when most of our cinema is crying for funds? The original TV series were bad enough, mistaking realism with exploitation an sensationalism. It wasn't a series about how our young people are, but as our elders believe we are. It was bad enough, with bad acting, clichés every minute and silly dialogue, but it turned out worse every year, with every episode becoming an excuse to show the girls in underwear and the boys doing stunts as more and more action elements were introduced.

This film, made out quickly to cash in money from the youngsters who liked the series, is as bad as that, but has a bigger budget. It shows the two main characters from the TV series several years later. He, the former rebel, is a waiter in a restaurant. The stupid girl with modeling ambitions has become a dancer and the lover of a small time mafioso. You see where the plot goes, don't you? Indeed. Because she's the girl, she'll get into trouble, and, because he is the boy, he will save her, f*ck her and, after a couple of shootouts and car stunts, return her to safety.

This is shameless exploitation, pure and simple. Occasional sex and violence obey to the rules of the genre, but are offered in small doses only. The rest of it is just sensationalism, sexism (see, dancers and prostitutes are the same, and girls, when they don't have men around to tie them become whores) and low-level drama. Stay away from here unless you enjoy bad movies. Even them, chances are that you will become more bored and angered than entertained.