TCurtis9192 Reviews

Wolfen (1981)

WOLFEN

[3/10 · 5 March 2024]

A string of clichés in all forms.

I watched it for Albert Finney really, and his character is pants. Cop, brought back to work because despite his alcoholism and mental problems he's the best there is. Deadpan wisecracks to cover up his emotional scars, can't stop eating when confronted with mutilated bodies, and all the other lazy stereotypes used to make a cop "interesting", like a bad haircut and dishevelled appearance.

No believable characters at all. All clichés.

Story gets worse and worse as it progresses. It's actually quite an achievement, like an illustration of pure corn.

Could have been excellent, a wasted opportunity.

Lolita (1962)

LOLITA

[10/10 · 2 March 2024]

I felt physically sick at times, it far too realistically portrays the deviousness, and delusions, of people. It is also incredibly clever.

For instance, James Mason was a very respectable and elegant actor, so casting him in the role of a creeping, lying, scheming pervert was inspired. Mason delivers such a fantastic performance, adding to how disturbing it is seeing him in such a role.

Shelley Winters is excellent, and much of the subtext lies with her character, particularly involving her late husband, who had been much older than her, and her precocious underage daughter with a thing for older men.

I hated the casting of Peter Sellers until I understood how clever it was to cast him.

A great film.

The Dead Zone (1983)

THE DEAD ZONE

[4/10 · 9 February 2024]

I am surprised to see that THE DEAD ZONE has a quite a competitive rating when compared with other Cronenberg films. 7.2 seems far too high to me for what is quite a dull film with ladle-loads of moralistic tosh.

Tom Skerritt is a worthwhile supporting actor here while Martin Sheen steals the show (albeit quite a late entrance for him). Christopher Walken is at his best playing anything but an average Joe, and although he brings a certain charm to the role he's not convincing.

I am no fan of Stephen King, but I am a fan of David Cronenberg, and this was a disappointment because there's very little about it that's Cronenbergian. A very plain film with not much going on. In my opinion, of course.

Eyes of Fire (1983)

EYES OF FIRE

[6/10 · 9 February 2024]

EYES OF FIRE was resurrected in recent times as a lost gem, and it is a gem but not without its faults.

The pros are that it is offbeat, imaginative, full of beautiful women who can act, well acted all round, and at times creepy.

The faults are that it doesn't fully live up to the imagination behind it, often looks cheap (not always), and it is a little too slow paced for a film of this nature. It doesn't build up to much of anything.

EYES OF FIRE's trailer does a good job of making it look like a compelling special effects bonanza on a budget, but it is much gentler than that.

I would definitely recommend for film lovers only.

Duel (1971 TV Movie)

DUEL

[6/10 · 6 February 2024]

A good little film that manages to derive suspense from the all-too-real possibility that someone will take a disliking to you over seemingly nothing (at least nothing that one has understandably done).

Very small moments manage to give us all the information we need regarding why this is happening, as well as providing insight into Weaver's character AND the faceless nemesis.

I give it 6/10 because it is full of continuity errors (something that continuously plagues Spielberg's works throughout his career) and gets a bit over the top as the film progresses. However it's good to see an environment from which there's no escape.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

2001

[10/10 · 6 February 2024]

2001 is visual poetry from start to finish.

There's quite obviously a story, but we're not explicitly let in on that story. Instead it is an intriguing mystery hiding behind a film that is so near-perfect, engaging, and believable, as to lead one into feeling one is watching real events unfold, like watching CCTV.

2001 is totally captivating, needs no explanation, and has had a real impact on cinema at large. It is unmatched. Even its sequel, 2010, a film made 16 years later that rode on this film's clout, couldn't come close to even matching the beauty of this film.

You have to see it to believe it.

The Black Hole (1979)

THE BLACK HOLE

[6/10 · 6 February 2024]

A fun film with many dark ideas bubbling under its child-friendly surface. It's fast paced once it gets going and the special effects are quite a treat, especially seeing Ernest Borgnine in zero gravity.

The whole cast does a really good job, I particularly liked Robert Forster but then I am a fan.

The black hole itself is presented as this swirling thing that is at once formidably impressive and awe-inspiringly mysterious, either way it is always there, waiting for the film to get to it, and when it does it's absolutely incredible.

If you like sci fi and action you might want to give this a go.

2010 (1984)

2010

[6/10 · 6 February 2024]

First of all I do want to say that 2010 is a visually pleasing film. It's of a much higher calibre than your average film aesthetically, but I feel it's a dressed up average film when it comes down to it.

2001 is a great film and always will be. Making a sequel to a masterpiece is no mean feat, and in all honesty I don't think 2001 could have been repeated, not even by Kubrick.

What this film does is relies on dialogue. It is constant explained exposition that lets it down. 2001 didn't care about explanations, it just gives you what it wants and makes no apology. You either get it or you don't. 2010 really wants you to be in on what's happening, even though it doesn't know what's happening itself, and it has a focus on explaining the first film.

Still, as far as sequels go it does its best, and it's an entertaining, if forgettable, ride.

The Brood (1979)

THE BROOD

[6/10 · 6 February 2024]

Not bad, but the concept is far more interesting than the end result.

Had Cronenberg made this when he was in full swing I think he would have done a better job.

As it is it provides quite a few genuinely creepy moments and is a solid mature suspenser. More polished than RABID and SLITHER, it would have been Cronenberg's standout film at the time, but better was to come.

Oliver Reed is as great as ever, turning in a very genuine performance. Art Hindle does a really good job, as does Samantha Eggar (and everyone, truth be told).

Howard Shore provides an effectively chilling score and the whole film looks good.

Hellraiser (2022)

HELLRAISER

[1/10 · 28 January 2024]

Probably better than many of the original sequels but that's not saying much.

It's a bad film. It looks cheap, the characters are rubbish, too much focus on teenagers doing stupid douchebag things while being oh so plucky and adventurous. The cenobites are not intimidating and the mystique around the iconic box is just gone at this point- no matter how many upgrades it received for the reboot.

What are the plusses? Nice to see a gay couple represented as simply a couple rather than a plot device or source of strife; most of the effects are practical; there's some interesting violence.

All in all it was a disappointment like basically all of the HELLRAISER films from the third one onwards.

The Duellists (1977)

THE DUELLISTS

[10/10 · 24 January 2024]

Wonderful. Marvelous. Breathtakingly beautiful. Astoundingly brilliant. Phenomenal. Involving. Stratospherically sublime. Spellbinding. Exciting, witty, real. Fantastic. Amazing. Excellent. Fabulous. Tremendously triumphant. Significant. Striking. Distinguished. Extravagant. Outstanding. Remarkable. Impressively grand. Major. Glorious. Unbeatable. Unforgettable. Admirable. Terrific. Awesome. Pure gold. Rich. Dynamic. Incomparable. Rubaceous. Gorgeous. Sexy. Gritty. Electric. Explosive. Mouth-wateringly captivating. Great. Classic. Priceless. Handsome. Ravishing. Devastating. Luxuriently luscious.

A film to marry.

The Outer Limits (1963–1965)

THE OUTER LIMITS

[10/10 · 1 January 2024]

There is nothing wrong with IMDB. Do not attempt to adjust the reviews section. We have written this review.

I absolutely love The Outer Limits from the 60's. I've always been a big fan of monster movies and sci fi from that era, and this series is a combination of imaginative beasties and thoughtful science fiction. Pretty much every episode is well written, well acted, and there's always copious amounts of special effects.

And there are 49 episodes! That basically amounts to 49 great sci fi and sci fi horror movies from the 60's. It's a treasure chest of engaging stories and ideas, and I am so glad I have them.

The Zanti Misfits, The Invisibles, Tourist Attraction, The Invisible Enemy, Don't Open Til Doomsday, and The Soldier are some of my favourites.

Earth vs. the Spider (2001 TV Movie)

EARTH VS THE SPIDER

[3/10 · 1 January 2024]

A horror take on spider man that incorporates the body horror of Cronenberg's THE FLY.

Yes it has very good special effects from Stan Winston studios and is probably the best entry in the AIP tribute creature feature series produced for TV.

It starts off in such a way as to seem like a copy of Spiderman, only it veers into an horrific tangent (although it would fail at being scary if that was its aim).

Although people like me harp on about wanting practical effects and sets, always citing the same triumphant examples, effects hardly ever make a film.

Despite the effects being excellent, I have no intention of watching this film again. Both the original EARTH VS THE SPIDER and Cronenberg's THE FLY leave this film in the dust, inspite of the former being a less than typical 1950's big bug fare with a terrible script and bad plot development.

She Creature (2001 TV Movie)

THE SHE CREATURE

[3/10 · 1 January 2024]

I watched this for the titular monster, the face of which was plastered all over the dvd cover. Unfortunately the creature doesn't appear until near the end and her arrival changes the tone completely.

The film is slow. Personally I don't like the style of the film and I didn't the pacing.

SHE CREATURE was part of something promising, a series of films that were remakes (in name only) of old AIP films. The remakes were promised to be old school creature features, and with Stan Winston and Stan Winston studios on board, the promise was looking good.

Until the films were made.

Although the monster is great, she's not there enough.

The Brain Eaters (1958)

THE BRAIN EATERS

[4/10 · 1 January 2024]

THE BRAIN EATERS is not a terrible film at all, but despite its short runtime I found myself tempted at times to switch it off.

Unfortunately there's not enough of the parasites. Instead it opts to show them for a few seconds near the end. Although the film is well directed, it would have benefited from more creature action, being a low rent film.

It was funny to see Leonard Nimoy playing essentially the same role as he had in the great INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS from 1978. In that film he does have a much larger role, but he tells us about the pods, their history, and their intentions, in such an eloquent way that only he could pull off. He does the same here for the parasites.

The film makes great use of music, proposes some interesting ideas, and isn't too long. Again, it's a shame about the lack of parasites.

Godmonster of Indian Flats (1973)

Wut DA?!

[2/10 · 30 December 2023]

I don't know what that was all about but it was definitely interesting.

Unlike many cheap monster films which pad themselves out with unentertaining FPV shots and people staring at scenery with vague concern, this chose to pad itself out with a multi layered plot that is about the death of the wild west, and how flogging a dead horse won't bring it back.

The titular monster is more of a subplot and, although you see it often enough, it doesn't do much.

However I was pleasantly surprised at how it was shot and the use of music. The actor playing Barnstable had the best character development and gave the best performance.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET

[2/10 · 27 December 2023]

2 stars for Robert Englund's performance as Kruger, a missing 8 stars for the rest of the film. Englund isn't enough, despite doing a great job, to make this watchable, and neither is the incredibly promising plot or great special effects.

The main character is incredibly annoying. It's not the actress's part, she was simply too young to play such a part. Even if she were able to deliver her lines, she's a kid, and kids don't act that way. In fact, people don't act that way.

It's a film aimed at kids, so it shows the adults being rubbish and a teenager being super resourceful and so clued in on what's happening that it's like she read the script and no one else had one. All the adults are let-downs, nothing but stupid decisions are made, and it's lamentable.

Scanners (1981)

SCANNERS

[7/10 · 26 December 2023]

It's a good film. It has a good plot and its own take on psychic ability.

The film is violent through and through. It isn't just the gore that makes it violent, but the discomfort of being scanned and the hopelessness of a scanner's life is genuinely saddening.

Ironside's villain is completely compelling and his motives are well drawn and understandable. Lack's performance isn't great but he has a certain screen-worthy presence. McGoohan is also very good.

The effects are absolutely effective and typical of Cronenberg's films from that time, on a par with VIDEODROME, both being less polished than THE FLY.

Worth it and it makes you think.

Castle Freak (1995 Video)

CASTLE FREAK: the psychosexuality of Stuart Gordon

[2/10 · 25 December 2023]

Stuart Gordon returned to "Lovecraft" years after directing the classics REANIMATOR and FROM BEYOND, with CASTLE FREAK.

It's interesting how he and Yuzna and Paoli took the source material (Lovecraft's writing) and updated it with copious amounts of gore and psychosexuality in REANIMATOR and FROM BEYOND. The two films worked excellently, and I would say that REANIMATOR is one of the greatest schlock horror films ever made.

He went wrong with CASTLE FREAK. Visually it is bland, lacking the gorgeous cinematography, wit, and all-round creativity of the former two films. Of course things had changed, it was the 90's, Gordon wasn't so eager to please as he was established, and there was a new kid on the block: Peter Jackson.

Apparently Stuart Gordon suffered from a case of penis envy when he found out that Jackson's film Dead Alive used a lot more fake blood than REANIMATOR so, not wanting to pale in comparison, he wanted to top Jackson with violence.

CASTLE FREAK was what was to re-pedestalise Gordon in the horror world (in his mind only) and it just doesn't.

In REANIMATOR we had the "head giving head" scene, which was only flirted with. In CASTLE FREAK we got the "pussy eating" scene.

What's interesting about Gordon is his obsession with castration. It's pivotal to understanding the psychosexuality of his work.

When Dr Hill's head is cut off in REANIMATOR he is set free and able to confidently explore his repressed sexuality because he is no longer attached to his penis. He then has Halsey bring his own daughter up to the alter for the sexual gratification of the man who lobotomised him.

We have two cases of this in FROM BEYOND. The first is Dr Pretorius, as it is hinted at (explicitly when Crawford calls him a eunuch and taunts him about his impotence) that he either has no penis OR can't use it. This leads him to brutalise women with BDSM violence. Once he gets ultimate power in the beyond he is free to do as he pleases, but of course has no women. Crawford himself was impotent under the wing of Pretorius, because he was his assistant, making him the "beta" intellect, and also had to listen to his master brutalising woman after woman after gently wining and dining them. THEN we have the castration of Crawford when McMichaels bites off his erect pineal gland. He not only returns to his senses but becomes a courageous hero who rises above his old master.

Now in CASTLE FREAK the titular freak is castrated. This was done by the evil matriarchal figure in his life, who imprisoned him, disfigured him, and destroyed his humanity. We have a scene where John makes love to a prostitute. He employs suckling and cunnilingus before doing the deed. Giorgio, who has never known sex or love, watches and is eager to try. But instead of repeating what his now absent brother did he mutilates the woman by eating her breast and vagina. What is different between CASTLE FREAK and the previous films is that this film focuses on the effects of the evil matriarch and how that corrupted a man. The dichotomy of the two brothers, one having all the worst luck and simply being lost in the world, the other having the best luck and also being lost in the world with alcoholism and a fraying relationship, deepens the psychosexual angle whilst also pointing out that it doesn't matter what your upbringing was like, we can all suffer mentally.

Unfortunately it's not a good film. How the freak spent his life stuck in a cell, brutalised beyond belief, and starved, somehow develops super human strength, is beyond me. And the scene described above leaves a bad taste in my mouth; it's disgusting and no fun. As I said, it lacks the wit of the first two outings. There is, however, an unavoidable sensitivity towards poor Giorgio, who one can't help but feel sorry for.

Galaxy of Terror (1981)

GALAXY OF TERROR

[7/10 · 24 December 2023]

This is a real treat of a film in many ways.

Firstly it doesn't hold back on monsters. There are many and all are effectively creepy.

Secondly its sets are sublime. They really are. It's a "no stone left unturned" film.

Thirdly it is well acted, especially Robert England, and the script isn't bad at all.

Fourthly its plot is very good. Yes ALIEN was on Corman's mind but the film is so far away from ALIEN. It's not a by-the-numbers monster movie really.

Yes it's very gory, and is trash- but it's really well polished trash and deserves a lot more than a simple "it's an ALIEN clone" because to my mind it's not that at all. Through all the schlock and exploitation it has a tone that feels very 1950's or 60's. If you took out one particularly lurid scene and toned down the gore, it could easily come across as a big budget 1960's sci-fi horror film. It could also be seen as an exploitation -loaded star trek spin off.

The Blu-ray release is to die for by the way. The restoration is beautiful.

Lords of the Deep (1989)

Better than The Abyss

[5/10 · 24 December 2023]

I maintain that the films in the preemptive strike against The Abyss's freshness are all more entertaining than James Cameron's odiously idealistic and cliché-ridden special effects bonanza of the same year. I can't stress enough, however, that Michael Biehn's performance as Coffi is the best performance out of the many films of this nature released that year.

LORDS OF THE DEEP is no exception despite the hindrances of its low production value. Unlike the other fairly rushed efforts it deals with peaceful aliens, much like THE ABYSS, and the problems come from its villain, played very well by Bradford Dillman. It deals with environmental issues and doesn't do it with the same nasty insubordinate tone of James Cameron's disgustingly evil ideas in the propaganda that is THE ABYSS.

The aliens themselves are a treat when you see them and they're quite cool to look at.

The plot itself, especially the actions of Dillman's villain, is absolutely serviceable, as is the music.

I wouldn't rate it as good as LEVIATHAN, DEEPSTAR SIX, or even THE RIFT, because it doesn't have much re-watchability, owing to the lack of special effects, but it's fine for chilling out to.

The Abyss (1989)

The Abyss

[3/10 · 23 December 2023]

A very poor film with great special effects and a wonderful performance from Michael Biehn that was all too short.

It promotes a hippy dippy idea of world peace in the weakest possible way. I don't know why Biehn's character wasn't utilised to aid and abet that message because that would have been the most logical move. Instead he is treated with scorn, which is the antithesis of what the film is about.

The protagonists were all clichés in the most annoying way. From Ed Harris's hero, the stereotypical hothead with a heart of gold, the skinny motormouth with his pet rat on his shoulder, to the woman who hardened her heart to the world but just wants to be sensitive really... Not to mention the vomit inducing nicknames they all go by.

The film is absolutely full of cringey dialogue and plot development. It's only worth it for the special effects and Biehn's unhinged performance - but when it comes to both, there's not much of them in the film's runtime.

I had a lot more fun with the knock offs of this film, such as Leviathan and Deepstar Six.

Star Crystal (1986)

Perhaps a masterpiece on a 4 star level

[4/10 · 21 December 2023]

Well wut DA?!

What begins as a garbage Alien copy, and continues on in that vein for much of its runtime, and features terrible editing while suffering from the usual lack-of-screentime for the monster, suddenly changes into something unique...

Don't read on if you don't want to know.

... when the alien reads the bible, understands that humans aren't all bad, and then calls a truce. What follows is joyous music over a heartwarming montage of the two survivors and Gar (the alien) getting along famously before the humans leave the ship and Gar takes to the stars to live out his wholesome existence.

The Thing (I) (2011)

Lazy prequel

[2/10 · 27 November 2023]

John Carpenter's film is not perfect, not REALLY, but it is great, and a hard act to follow. Certainly a real improvement on Christian Nyby's film.

What made Carpenter's film so good? The monster? No, because really there was no discernible monster, just a shape-shifting thing that gets shown in a variety of ways. The practical effects? They're a real treat from a time of treats in film, perhaps a crowning achievement, but they don't drive the film.

There's no sexual politics, just a bunch of guys working somewhere. There's no preexisting drama to write home about, and no former grudges drive the narrative. They're a bunch of individuals who are comfortable around one another and living through mundanity. Better yet, they all have a personality that is unique to them and easily spotted because each actor brings it effortlessly. Not one of them is treated with anything but respect and we get to make our own minds up.

Ennio Morricone's score is serious, perfect for the film, and memorable.

The film is involving.

Deaths are not foisted on us with emotive music and overly long shots of them dying in tears. The film moves on like the survivors have to.

Why I gave the prequel a 2/10:

1: it is not faithful to the story, but it imitates the original in an embarrassing way: it just copies it. From Windows desperately trying the radio to Blair grimly performing autopsies. Oh and Childs pausing before using the flamethrower is recreated. As well as other moments. I don't know why they didn't stick to the source material: those black and white videos we all saw.

2: the CGI. It's bad and the worst thing about it is that the plot and characters are secondary to the bad effects. They decided to do things that couldn't be easily achieved with practical effects, but they are too sensational. The alien is slow and insidious in the original, there was no need to make it a super fast video game mutant for this prequel.

3. The characters are just not likable and the script is full of leaps. The writers were repeating from another film, so they didn't bother to wonder what it would be like for those people. The leading lady is not relatable, does everything on her own, and, due to the way she was written, contributes to the underlying sexual politics and attack on "patriarchy". Why did they have to make her boss the enemy just because he put her in her place? It was absurd having the alien adopt his face when chasing her towards the end. Aside from that the people are either pretending to be characters from Carpenter's film or acting tough (and badly) for no reason.

4. the outpost was Norwegian in the original. Somehow they became a mix of Norwegian, American, and British in this film. And of course, it's the Americans who take up the screen time. They could have had a bunch of Norwegians talking English with accents, or subtitled it.

5. There is little imagination in the creature, sets, dialogue, plot, music, or anything. The bug it looks like in the beginning is a cliche at this point. But the idea of the creature not being able to replicate inanimate material like fillings was interesting.

6. Further proof of how unimaginative the film is: it is called "The Thing", just like the other one.

As much as I couldn't stand this, I would have given it a 1/10 if it hadn't been a Thing film.

Adam Adamant Lives! (1966–1967)

Amazin 💥💪

[10/10 · 3 November 2023]

First I would like to lament over the missing episodes and I hope they are found like Adam Adamant was: a perfectly preserved time capsule to better days.

This a great series that I can't recommend enough. Absolutely amazing! It wastes no time in the opening episode and is a no fuss sort of show. It is a well written, well acted, simply shot, rather innocent show with a compelling hero, a dastardly villain, and a strong moral compass.

It is also of great value in the modern world. If it were well known it would be highly quotable and memeable, and that's good for such an old work. It's good swashbuckling fun from a different era, much like Adam Adamant was to the people of the 60's.