lemon_magic Reviews

A Dangerous Man (2009 Video)

A Dangerous Waste Of Time

[3/10 · 10 February 2023]

Well, not 'dangerous' in a physical sense, but I do wonder if viewing even half or a third of Seagal's output over the last 15 years might have deleterious effects on a movie-fan's sensibilities.

Lots of snappy fight choreography but riddled with so many jump cuts and special effects (this one seems especially rough on the prop furniture) that it's hard to really care after the fourth or fifth time Seagal throws someone across a room into a table or something.

There's also lots of world-weary dialog, mostly from Seagal, as he does whatever he calls "acting" these days...and there's a LOT of posing and dialog heavy scenes between 3rd and 4th level bad guys saying boring and stupid things to each other when Seagal is off camera. (I am willing to give Seagal and the director some possible credit here, maybe wanting some lesser known actors to get a little extra screen time for their wallets and their resumes. But these ancillary scenes drag the movie to a halt every time).

I dunno. This one seemed to have a little more heart than much of his recent output, but I would rather watch "Out For Justice" a dozen more times than see this again even once.

Heist (III) (2015)

Riddled with plot problems and very derivative, but I still liked it

[7/10 · 14 December 2022]

I tried this movie after "Flick Connection" named it as one of the best current offerings on a new streaming service. Not as good as I hoped, but still pretty good.

The actual staging of the movie - the stunts, the acting, the editing - is pretty good. Not quite at the level of "Heat" or "The Score", but polished and skillful. And some of the dialog is sharp and memorable.

Where the movie falls apart is in the plotting: in order for the story to come out the way it does, it has to have the supporting characters make unbelievable sentimental choices that I just can't buy. Yes, the "Vaughn" character is a diamond in the rough, but you can't believe for a second that the hostages or the driver or the cop in pursuit would make the decisions they do to let Vaughn get away from the bus at the end. Similarly ,Robert DeNiro's character, who starts the movie's opening scene allowing a pair of hapless thieves to be tortured and put to death over a minor amount of money, but lets Vaughn get by with his own stunt after a heart-to-heart with his (DeNiro's) daughter.

So that cost the movie a star or two. But it had enough going for it that I pretty much was glad I saw it.

Time Lapse (2014)

A Hitchcock film with a time travel element - vigorously bleak and eerie

[8/10 · 15 November 2022]

About 10 minutes into this amazing little movie, I realized what it reminded me of - Danny Boyle's "Shallow Grave", but with a time travel element. The similarities are right there - the three roommates, their edgy young hipster dynamic, the outsider who that throws things into chaos, the sudden appearance of large amounts of cash, the sinister organized crime element that appears following the cash, the way one of the room mates grows increasingly erratic and violent...it's all there.

But I loved "Shallow Grave", so I didn't have a problem with that. And this is even bleaker and eerier than "Shallow Grave" - call it a fresh variation on the theme, rather than a rip off.

Yes, there are plot holes you could drive a truck through. Why didn't the young folks just DRAW THE CURTAINS on their front window? Or even easier, cover the camera lens? Why did the gambling member of the trio not realize that a perfect winning gambling record over several days at a track would draw attention? Why did the bookie feel the need to instantly resort to violence when simple intimidation was obviously working? Why didn't the young woman just tell the police officer at her door at the end to come back with a warrant?. But they don't really matter. The atmosphere and acting justify everything that goes on here and creates genuine dread - both for the fate of the characters (or even their very existences) AND for the romance between Finn and the girlfriend

Even more than simply enjoying "Time Lapse" - I was really, really impressed by the craft and the creativity on display here. It's not for everyone, but if you like stories that make you go "hmmm"...it might be for you.

Day of the Assassin (1979)

All action, no heart or brains

[3/10 · 6 September 2022]

This director has several good films to his credit...but this isn't one of them. Some of the bare bones of a decent action/adventure movie appear here and there - interesting stunts, some OK car chases and gun battles, an oddly uncharismatic and ineffective Chuck Connors trying to pretend he's 30 again, a bunch of other action stars you may recognize from other movies, all better than this one...some mildly amusing lines of dialog here and there...but there's no "oomph" to anything, and no reason to care about any of these characters.

I have rarely seen a movie where it was so obvious that everyone involved - actors, director, screenplay writers, etc - was just going through the motions. Glenn Ford, for instance, is here for about 5 minutes...and he doesn't actually do anything but grunt out some lines, look worldly, and wear a track suit. Yes, He's still Glenn Ford, but so what? And wait till you see the scene where Connors and his cohort have an extended conversation in a stage whisper that every single person in the building will obviously able to hear, including their enemy played by Richard Roundtree - who makes no attempt whatsoever to hide. Seriously, he's just leaning on a rail in plain sight.

But mostly, the problem is Chuck Connors. He's in 80% of the movie, and the screenplay tries to make his character an "international man of mystery", mixed with a watered down version of Travis McGee...but it just doesn't work. Connors is too much of an pro to blow his lines, drop character, or look at the camera...but I was still embarrassed for him. He brought TV level acting to a wide screen movie that called for a lot more than he was giving. Of course, so was everyone else, but he bothered me most because Connors was my idol during his "Rifleman" and "Branded" days...and those days were obviously long gone.

To summarize: lot of people get shot and die, a lot of cars crash and explode, a lot of bullets are fired, and a lot of windy dialog is delivered in an OK way. And none of it means a darned thing.

Dangerous Men (2005)

In the words of MST3K, "Not so much a movie as a movie loaf"

[2/10 · 12 August 2022]

This movie has a "piecemeal vanity project" feel, although I give the director credit for not acting in the movie as well as doing everything else. That's just about the only good decision he made, alas.

"Dangerous Men" isn't as technically inept as some of the lesser "direct to video/DVD/cable" efforts out there. In fact I think that if you put "Rad" in charge of a project by a studio like "Full Moon" or "The Asylum", with an actual budget and support system, the results would be as good as anything those worthies pump out. But as it is, Rad really, really, really needed to collaborate with a 2nd or third party to help him realize what scenes and plot threads and performances simply did not work. If he'd dropped half of the annoying crap that went on too long in this movie, he'd have a brisk little 30-40 minute feature for an anthology film or TV series. Nobody would want to watch it, but it would at least make sense and be over before it exhausted the audience's patience.

Some scenes remind me of setups for soft-core porn, only with terrible makeup and lighting that rob them of any cheesecake value. Some scenes belong in a 70s biker film, but with worse characters and dialog. (BTW, Rad has absolutely no ear for dialog. The non-sequiturs come so thick and fast it's hard to tell sometimes when one is done and the next one is being launched.) There are fight scenes that make "The Guy From Harlem" look like "Enter The Dragon", with a kind of weird, misplaced emphasis on strangling and choking people.

I should also mention that the plot starts about being about one thing (a young woman seeking revenge on all rapists - or eventually men in general, I think)...and loses interest in that and becomes about bringing a drug dealer to justice somehow, which happens through a series of events that make no sense.

And then the movie just kind of....stops. Like a Road Runner cartoon, only without any humor or energy.

I feel a little bad poking so much fun at this inept piece of would-be cinema. It wants to be a movie, it tries to be a movie, it probably took over the director's life for months at a time as he kept trying to turn it into an actual movie...but this isn't even a "so bad it's good" movie because the feeling behind it is so slapdash and cynical.

You can miss this one. Or you can watch it drunk, or with friends while drunk, or with film fans who enjoying demolishing inept films.

Big Bug (2022)

Never really coheres into something that makes a difference

[5/10 · 31 May 2022]

This director has done exceptional work previously, ("Amelie","Delicatessen"), but here his satire and cleverness don't quite seem to hit the mark.

The plot concerns a loose family unit (I think the term is "blended family") of well meaning suburban light-weights who go through an ordeal when the AI around them (both inside the house and out in the city) turn on them. This isn't quite as grim as it sounds, because the household devices still like their humans and are quite devoted to them...but what with one thing and another, the 7 humans end up locked inside their own house while the android revolution takes place mostly offscreen and is reported on the news.

This scenario has lots of potential, but it mostly goes to waste - no one really suffers (although they become very uncomfortable), and when the outside androids come in to throw their weight around, they mostly just burn books and take away politically incorrect collectibles, etc. There may be a parable here (i.e., nothing important ever happens in the suburbs), but it wasn't really enough to drive the movie.

The blended family members are reasonably likable, and they don't turn on each other or anything, and that lack of internal conflict may be the real problem: for all the talk of revolution, it's like the movie doesn't really want anything really bad to happen.

On a positive note: the art and production design is fun to look at, as are the household AI's and the mean Androids. The acting is skilled and appropriate, and you can listen to the actors in their native French with subtitles, which is always better than a dub. Within a fairly dull "mission" (escaping house arrest), there are some twists and turns, and some give and take between the family members.

So...I don't know. Mostly harmless? Too lightweight to bother hating? A disposable trifle to amuse fans and followers of a famous director's work?

How about...not bad. But maybe a little more heft next time.

Fateful Findings (2013)

Neil Breen calls in from Planet Breen to show us how it's not done

[2/10 · 27 April 2022]

Even more than Wiseau ('The Room') or Ngyuen ('Birdemic') watching these films is like looking at outsider art. It's as if Breen wanted all his life to make movies featuring himself, his friends, and his family, and then got the chance but never bothered to learn the first thing about acting, scriptwriting, set design, production design, or cinematography before he started.

This movie isn't terrible the way, say, "Manos" is terrible - and Manos was made with a handheld camera, with all dialog subbed in ADR by four actors. And it's not terrible the way most Jesse Franco films can be terrible. For all their faults, movies like "She Kills In Ecstasy" and "Castle Of Fu Manchu" were cheesy fun. But "fun" has been completely extracted from this particular film.

Think home movies. Now think of a director who seemingly just points the camera and lets it roll. Now think of that same director starring in that movie in nearly every scene, but having dead eyes and a flat monotone that shows no emotion or vitality no matter what he's playing. Now also making sure that attractive young women (who are nevertheless terrible on camera) come onto him as some kind of ego boost. Now think of a screen play that tries to ape Philip K Dick or David Lynch, but completely leaves out any actual emotion, empathy, or tension. Or even cause and effect.

I'd go back and watch "Birdemic" TWICE before I'd watch this movie again. I'd watch ANY Jesse Franco film half-a-dozen times before I'd watch this movie again.

Dancin': It's on! (2015)

You will believe that a $12M dance movie filled with attractive people can be unwatchable

[3/10 · 13 April 2022]

David Winters once again works his anti-magic on a potentially interesting (if derivative) story idea. The results are...quite cheesy and tone-deaf.

A large part the problem comes from decision to cast dancers who are not actors in major speaking parts, while the rest comes from Winters' (and his writers') inability or unwillingness to grasp the emotional core of whatever "good" film they are currently aping, or to match its art direction and design.

I've nothing against the female lead, really.. I'd probably decide she was quite attractive if I encountered her in person. But on screen she's a black hole who sucks the energy out of any scene with dialog. It appears that a huge chunk of her dialog is dubbed or ADR'd.

Furthermore, she's so "made up" and perfectly tanned that she seems to have been dipped in lacquer. The net effect is to make her look like a Barbie doll, not a dancer. Weirdly, she also seems somewhat soft and heavy for the part - although admittedly well within "normal" variations. Please note that I'm not going to do any "body shaming" here, but obviously the film makers felt the same way; notice the odd, pleated cut of many of her outfits, obviously meant to hide her figure flaws.

Her actual dancing is fine...but when she isn't dancing, she doesn't even WALK convincingly.

And the character is such a child of privilege that it's impossible for me to identify with or even like her.

The male lead is somewhat better, but his character is an idiot who isn't believable for a second. As proof, I offer his ridiculous and risible "rage dance" sequence. No human being in the history of the world has ever done this. Well, Michael Jackson probably did, but he's a special case.

I know this movie is supposed to be a fantasy, existing in its own world, like a Hallmark Movie Channel special. It doesn't matter. Winters and his screenwriter throw all kinds of spectacle and attractive people up on the screen for background and color...but even the extras and supporting cast are brought down by the complete lack of soul or grit, and are further hampered by bizarrely ineffective editing, art direction, and camera work.

I should note that Winters himself appears in a supporting role in his own movie. He was a dancer early in his career, with an impressive gig ("West Side Story") to his credit. So in this thing, he's the guru/mentor with a tragic backstory who dispenses Zen bromides about dance to our heroes. While he has charisma, he's as bad as everyone else. His dancing is fine - he's still admirably loose and fluid, although he appears so old and frail that I feared he might pull a ligament. But however earnest and reflective of his deepest beliefs his character might be, he's flat as a pancake. I felt bad for him.

You could do worse than watch this movie. And whatever else you say about it, it's cheerful and sunny. People who uncritically love dance movies in any form will probably never notice its problems. But for the rest of us, it's such a misfire that you'll probably not be able to finish it.

The Harder They Fall (2021)

"Look At Me! I'm Being Iconic!"

[7/10 · 10 January 2022]

Let me be clear up front that I liked a lot of things about this movie, and thought it was worth watching. How could it not be with Delroy Lindo and Idris Elba in the cast?. But the movie had pacing and self-awareness problems that brought it down a star or two.

Incorporating the tropes and beats of the great Westerns without falling into cliche, mannerisms, or even parody and pastiche has been a problem for would-be great Western directors and screenwriters ever since the heyday of the Western passed. When it works due to the sheer energy of the proceedings and cast, you get "Silverado". And Clint Eastwood managed it in "Unforgiven".

But going with an all-black cast (except for some white spear carriers and incidental characters) presented the director with the meta-problem all over again, and I don't think he quite managed it. Too many of the establishing shots and face-offs quoted or referred to previous Westerns, and had the feel (to me) of "yeah, we're doing this too, only with an ALL BLACK CAST, baby!!"

Even more importantly, the need to make every single piece of dialog a tribute to and rewriting of the legacy of the great mainstream forebears seemed to make it necessary for the director to linger. Endlessly. On every. Utterance. Every. Character. Made.

So some scenes dragged a little, and I got restless when I should have been drinking things in.

And a movie that should clocked in at a bit under 2 hours took about 10 minutes longer than it should have because the director was trying to be Important, rather than intriguing.

And there were some plot-holes and logic failures here and there too (would ANY locomotive carrying a prisoner under military guard stop for a masked rider parking on the tracks when that is exactly the first step of a hijack or break out attempt? Nope, they would have relied on the cow-catcher to flip the beast and rider aside, not obligingly come to a stop.)

And most of the soundtrack wasn't to my taste (and yes, I am aware I wasn't the target audience, although I understood why they'd justify "Irie, Irie" style vocals and lyrics over the historic background.)

But still, I liked lots of this movie, especially the action sequences and the gunfights and the horse riding sequences. I would pay to see Lindo and Elbaread a laundry list. And the climactic ending was satisfying, if maybe a little too pat. (Also, I thought Rufus Buck gave up a little too easily at the end. If that's what he was always planning to do, he could have saved a lot of lives if he'd just done it in the first place.)

So: fine movie, not perfect. I'd gladly watch another by this director to see what else he has up his sleeve.

Worth your time if you really like Westerns or historical drama involving race and conflict.

Wheelman (2017)

"Wheelman"s greatest strength is also its biggest problem

[8/10 · 4 December 2021]

If I told you, "This movie is essentially 90 minutes of an actor yelling at people over his phone while driving a car", you might not be too motivated to watch it, right?

Well, it seems like the director and the lead actor set themselves the challenge to make that movie and try to keep it interesting and exciting. The good news is, they mostly succeed, mostly on the strength of Frank Grillo's charisma and cheekbones. Seriously, you could grate nutmeg off those cheekbones. The bad news is that once in a while, in spite of moody cinematography and creative editing, the movie does become somewhat claustrophobic and tiresome. In fact, I had to pause the movie 1/3 of the way through and come back the next night.

But there's more good than bad, and once I was able to settle into the rhythm of the movie, and to figure out the double-cross in the plot, and once the major plot points had been revealed (by Grillo yelling at people over the phone and some ominous text messaging), I was entertained and energized.

I should also mention that I caught a bit of a tribute to the end of the John Wayne movie "The Searchers", as the Wheelman watches mother and daughter unite and comfort each other as he looks on from outside, still in his car, unable to join them. I really liked that, and it added a star to the rating.

Well done, probably not for everyone, not even for everyone who likes auto movies and heist movies. But very good for its scale and mood.

Cop Car (2015)

Excellent suspense thriller

[7/10 · 13 November 2021]

I didn't rate this higher as a movie, because this is a low budget, small scale movie with a very limited appeal to anyone who doesn't care for this sort of story.

But for what it is...it's excellent. Pacing, back-story, acting, editing, camera work - this movie does everything it needs to to get the story across, and nothing it doesn't.

Yes, the story itself is somewhat heartless and mean. But it isn't meaner than it needs to be in order to ring true.

Bacon is so good in this that it's easy to overlook how good he actually is. His character is completely generic, but he invests the character with so much life and energy and purpose that it lifts the screenplay to a higher level.

And everyone else does a great job, too. Kudos to the casting agents and director who managed to find and coach a pair of young boys who are completely natural and believable in front of the camera.

I don't know if I will bother to watch this one again... the simple plot and small scale means there's not that much to see once you've got the basic plot...but for what it is, this is very good indeed.

Subject Two (2006)

If Harold Pinter did "Frankenstein"....

[4/10 · 21 August 2021]

I had a lot of hopes for "Subject Two" when I started, but the movie didn't live up to them.

That's perhaps harsher than the movie deserves. It's an intriguing premise, the movie looks great (especially considering the tiny budget), and there are several setups and payoffs that are well done. But the big payoff, when it finally comes, isn't worth the wait. If the screenplay had been trimmed down to a 60 minute horror anthology episode (for the modern equivalent of the Twilight Zone), I think it would have been punchier and worked better.

The major problem : everything depends on the interaction of the two main characters and the chemistry between them; and in spite of the fact that one repeatedly murders the other, there aren't a lot of sparks flying around, not even homo-erotic or sadist/masochistic. The test subject remains the mildest of men, almost completely passive, and the doctor is (aside from a certain of Jack Nicholson derived snark) not especially worked up about the situation either.

The second problem (for me) is that the screenplay is mostly psychological horror; the repeated death traumas Subject Two suffers don't turn him a monster, a psycho, or a Jason-like serial killer or anything interesting in a cinematic sense; he just becomes more and more detached and unconnected and lost within himself. And that's really no "fun" to see at all. I guess the director wanted to create something more complex and Pinteresque than a typical monster movie...but the extended length here actually works against him, because he really doesn't have that much to say about the results that a mature 10th grader wouldn't know: Death diminishes a person. (I never would have guessed).

In its favor: the introduction of the hunter 2/3rd from the end breaks up the monotony a bit, and the ****SPOILER ALERT***

reintroduction of the character you thought was murdered in the first three minutes

***END SPOILER ALERT provides a nice twist that makes some of the previous events make more sense and provides a quirky feel more common to a British take on this kind of movie.

An aside: if you think about it, although Subject Two may appear hopelessly alienated and alone as he wanders off into the landscape in the final shot (which is gorgeous, BTW), unlike the original Frankenstein monster, he still looks "normal" and not all monstrous....so if he no longer wants to be part of the experiment, and he wants to die, and he isn't infectious...all he has to do is turn himself into any research or university hospital, and all of Western medicine will jump into to research his "undead" condition and find a cure or improvement. But the screenplay is hoping you won't think of that.

So: some good work was done here. Again, it's amazing how good they managed to make the movie look. The actors may not make the parts actually work, but they both seem to be hardworking pros and I wouldn't hesitate to watch them again in less problematic material. And there are some good moments here and there. But in spite of the Gothic gleam of the plot elements, this one just sits there and doesn't really grab me.

Your mileage, of course, may vary. And if it does grab you, well, then good for you.

Eden Lake (2008)

Technically well made and effective, but...

[6/10 · 11 August 2021]

The movie has the apparent message, "Never go anywhere, and if you do, NEVER confront teenage hoodlums if they bother you."

I found the screenplay and the performances and the cinematography mostly quite well done and effective. Very brutal, harrowing, and well staged.

I have a major qualm with the downer ending: the whole point of a "survival horror" film is supposed to be that one lone survivor staggers out at the end of the movie, i.e." ...And I alone am left to tell the tale." (Moby Dick). You need an ending like that in this kind of movie - otherwise it's just a self-indulgenct exercise in sadism and torture.

Even a scrubby, scabby, incoherent, torture-porn movie like "Bunnyman" knew that.

As Roger Ebert once said (about another movie),"What's the point? To tell us that monsters and evil exist in the world? We already knew that."

Also: the movie makers were so eager to dash and subvert our expectations with the downer ending that they left a huge hole in the plot: There were simply too many witnesses to the wife's arrival at the family gathering to allow the father to kill her, and he would know this. And no woman (or mother) would let it happen. And all the wife would have to say is, "Your son killed my husband and tried to burn me alive, and I've been running from his gang all night", and the gathered parents and family, no matter HOW dysfunctional and enabling, would take her to the police to check it out further and have her punished or proven a liar.

So I am annoyed with the writer/director for deliberately dragging down a pretty good "hunting humans" scenario just because he wanted to embrace the current trend of "downer" endings and proved he could one up Eli Roth. It wasn't necessary, and it didn't make psychological sense (at least it happened off camera.) So in my mind, after the final scene (with the gang leader smirking in the mirror), there is one more scene where he comes downstairs to smirk at the body...only to be told that the family has dragged the wife off to the police, to pay for her "crimes"...which is where the truth will come out. (We don't have to see this part, it is just implied.)

To summarize: an effective piece of filmmaking.

BUT: I never want to watch it again, in contrast to the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", which is 10 times grittier and more horrifying, and also holds up splendidly 4 decades later.

Angel of Death (I) (2009)

I liked it, but I have no idea if you will.

[7/10 · 7 July 2021]

I knew Brubaker from his Marvel comics tenure and from the "independent" work he's done with Sean Jenkins after that. Those later stories (aside from a tendency to write a little too much about writers and comic book creators as protagonists) are very good for what they are...especially the "Criminal" collections.

So I saw his name and Zoe Bell's attached to this, and I wanted to like it a lot more than I actually do. But I did like it.

Part of the problem is, of course, that Brubaker writes comics for a living. It's what he knows, and what he does. Any film project he is involved in is going to have some of that feel to it. Doing a comics influenced film requires a director with special talent to make that medium's approach work in a movie, even a heist/crime thriller. This director tries mightily to shoehorn the one into the other and he mostly makes it work where a lot of others might bobble the material. So, kudos to him.

The movie also has Zoe Bell to draw on, with the advantages and limitations that come along with it. She's handsome and photogenic and physical in a way very few female actors can match, and she can hold her own in front of a camera.

So there you have it. Some talented people put a lot of time and work into making a noir thriller with a ridiculous premise, visceral fight scenes, and a world weary cynicism that you've seen a thousand times before.

So will you like it? If you go into the movie determined to enjoy because of the names associated with it, you probably will. If you come across this cold, I really can't predict what your reaction will be. "Chinatown" or "The Big Sleep" it ain't.

Free Fire (2016)

Quick wit, gallows humor, and plenty of bullets

[7/10 · 19 May 2021]

Ben Wheatley seems to be a very consistent director. I've seen four examples of his output, and in spite of his films covering a wide range of topics, they tend to come across with about the same "feel". But there is enough variation between them that this isn't a problem.

One thing I will say by way of criticism - in the first 1/3rd of the movie (before the bullets start flying), the screenplay seems to be trying a little too hard in places. It's trying to out-Mamet David Mamet, and some of the dialog feels a bit forced. But once things go to hell, I no longer thought it was a problem.

Well done.

Code 8 (2019)

Goes through the motions in an enjoyable way.

[7/10 · 16 May 2021]

I see a lot of comparisons to the "X-Men" movie franchise for this movie, but it also reminds me of the 2009 movie "Push" (with Chris Evans), except that "Push" was set in Hong Kong and felt a lot more exotic. "Code 8" doesn't feel nearly as futuristic - it's just Toronto or Vancouver with drones and mutants .

The real problem with the movie is that it has a 2nd hand "received" quality to everything. You've seen everything here 100 times before, and the movie makers are relying on that to lend their dialog, characters, and special effects more impact. But in their favor, the tropes they ape and borrow are aped and borrowed effectively, so if that's what you want from your entertainment, this will go down fine.

I quite liked the actors, especially Connor (handsome and earnest in a Dean Cain way), Connor's mother, Garrett (also handsome and as "good" as life will let him be), and the bald-headed invulnerable guy (who was just fierce looking in an interesting way). Everyone else was at least decent, with the possible exception of the actress playing the Healer and Detective Park's sidekick, and I am willing to cut them some slack due to the thankless, cardboard characters they were playing.

So - for a low budget, standalone glimpse into dystopian Vancouver, this did a lot of things right, had a good balance of action, drama, and humanity, and was worth 100 minutes of your time.

Giant from the Unknown (1958)

You want to see a late Saturday night Creature Feature movie? Here you go.

[4/10 · 5 May 2021]

This is strictly by-the-numbers black and white "horror" fare. It isn't bad, it isn't good, it's just hack work done to a certain professional standard. To give you an idea, Morris Ankrum, who played any number of military commanders in a likeable, humane way, has a featured role, and he plays his part here the same way. You wouldn't go out of your way to see it, but he does the bit well.

On the other hand, the opening scene has a ton of exposition by another character actor (all about the violence and assaults and damage happening in the area), an actor who you've seen in a thousand similar movies...but his body language is stiff as a board, (with arms held unnaturally akimbo at his waist) , and completely off. (I can't believe the director was OK with his choices.) And in a gaping plot hole that is never explained, the creature committing the mayhem (the "Giant") isn't actually released from suspended animation until 1/2 way into the movie, so the Giant couldnt have been responsible...so what was the tale-teller going on about??

And there's all the "day for night" scenes. And a romantic relationship with no chemistry between the two principals. And a female lead whose role in the screenplay is mostly making coffee and sandwiches for the men. And a "Giant" who isn't so much a giant as a fairly bulky fellow who absorbs bullets with no apparent ill effects, but can be set back by a board across the chest.

Am I sorry I took the time to see this? No, it was...OK, if somewhat ragged around the edges. Reminiscent of a Corman flick from the same time. And I am sure the target audience from its time was only half-watching it anyway.

Mad Foxes (1981)

Not so much a movie as an incredible simulation

[2/10 · 1 February 2021]

You know what truly distinguishes "Mad Foxes"? The lines the actors say to each other between the main events and plot points (I think of this as "interstitial dialog", sort of like the stage business that actors in a play will do in the background while the big names do the plot up front.) The dubbed dialog here makes a typical hacked out Shaw Brothers kung fu import from 40 years sound like David Mamet by comparison. Ed Wood, Jerry Warren, and Herschel Gordon Lewis would all reel back laughing, and point out that no human beings ever talked like this. Ever.

Watching "Mad Foxes", you can't help but wonder if a couple of precocious 9 year olds watched some biker films on VHS, decided to write a screenplay and found a 12 year old to direct it,a 14 year old to choreograph the fights and the stunts, and a 15 year old to handle the sex scenes.

The "best" part of the movie is a swing dance sequence near the beginning that has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and is obviously there to pad out the screen play. It's still pretty cheesy, but the dancers have energy and enthusiasm.

There are also some enjoyable 2nd unit driving sequences that take in some cityscapes and countryside, and it's fun to see the protagonist's hot car (a Stingray?) cruise down the roads in some places.

Just about everything else is hot garbage. I'd watch something like "Guy From Harlem" a dozen times before I'd watch this again.

Your mileage may vary. But don't say you weren't warned.

Death Machine (1994)

Starts out weak, but I ended up enjoying it.(Spoilers)

[7/10 · 30 January 2021]

The first 25 or so minutes of the movie is a slog. The art direction is not quite "there", the plot drags, the performances don't mesh and the dialog doesn't quite click.

However, once the screenplay stops being about future dystopian corporations, and starts being about people being eviscerated by an Alien/Terminator hybrid in a sealed skyscraper, things pick up. IMO, this happens about the time that the remaining "raiders" reveal that they are actually good guys and the "Warbeast" rips into the bottom of the elevator everyone is riding. A big jolt of energy enlivens the proceedings, and I had a pretty good time for the remainder of the movie.

Most of the humorous touches work pretty well (some better than others) and it seemed to me that as the movie progressed, the actors were more comfortable in their roles and worked better together. (I could be wrong, of course).

Brad Dourif does his usual barely-in-control lunatic routine here, and it's a bit cliche - as if he's reading straight out of "The Little Golden Book Of Psychopath Acting" - but he doesn't hold back, and he's fun to watch.

Worth watching if you liked "Aliens", "Terminator", "RoboCop" and don't mind a lot of callbacks, pastiche, in jokes, and small budget approximations of big budget/major talent Sci-Fi.

The Black Cat (1981)

If you like this sort of movie, here is an exemplar of the genre

[8/10 · 16 October 2020]

It seems to me that Fulci succeeds best when he doesn't hold back and just goes for the throat, and that's what happens here. The story is silly, even ludicrous, but told with complete conviction, and that makes for a nice funhouse ride.

Also in its favor - the pacing of the movie and its most important scenes is almost perfect, no easy task when the whole idea is to build dread and suspense and then explode into shock. Fulci and his crew aren't always good at this, but they succeed here.

Add some strikingly nuanced performances (I don't really know how good Magee, Warbeck, and Mimsy Farmer actually are, but this kind of material seems to play to their strengths), some cinematography that is so good that you don't even realize how good it is, and an excellent soundtrack...and you've got something worth watching.

So: try not to think too hard about the plot (even Poe came a cropper now and then) and just enjoy the experience.

The Scientist (2020)

Tries hard, but comes up short

[5/10 · 10 October 2020]

A lot of care, craft, hard work, and talent obviously went into making "The Scientist"...but it comes up short as a horror or suspense film.

I will give kudos to the lead actor on this movie - he labored mightily to sell the role, and he has talent and range. It would be interesting to see him in something else. However, there are lots of problems with "The Scientist", and the cast can't save it.

The biggest problem is the pacing. I realize the screenplay is all about building a sense of doom and dread, and to be fair, the last 10 minutes are almost worth the wait. But only almost. Most of the scenes in the first 2/3rd of "The Scientist" just seem to drag on and on. I think the director had enough on the ball that he was going for some kind of stressing of our hopes and goodwill...but he overplays that hand.

Also, while the screenplay tries to be sensitive and show some human feeling during the scenes involving the dying wife, sometimes it turns into Lifetime Movie Network material instead of a horror movie. I will give it credit for trying to capture a sense of tragedy and loss; I just wished the movie didn't come to a dead stop so often just so we could watch the actors emote.

As you can probably tell, I wanted to like this movie more than I actually did. It tries something a little different by "documenting" how a zombie apocalypse might happen (rather than plopping us in the middle of one), it does a good job of portraying a well meaning man's descent into madness, and the last few minutes are good fun. But the whole was less than the sum of the parts this time around.

Let the Corpses Tan (2017)

Self-consciously "artsy" tribute to a by-gone era

[7/10 · 23 September 2020]

"Let The Corpses Tan" is a bravura giallo/Spaghetti Western pastiche, almost (but not quite) ruined by overly intrusive sequences that are apparently either fantasies, hallucinations or memories (most of which involve the female painter/haggard sex goddess) and way too many closeups of eyes and mouths.

Another problem: the shifting allegiances and points-of-view make it hard to figure out what the heck is going on sometimes, especially when all the characters are really just signifiers for various fictional archetypes - visually striking, but narratively just kind of occupying space.

In its favor: the movie is flat out gorgeous. I wanted to stop the film at any number of points to take a screen print, frame that print, and hang it on my walls. Also in its favor: the characters the actors play are opaque ciphers (there's really nothing to "know" about any of them except their roles - gangster, cop, crooked lawyer, dissolute painter, etc.) - but the actors do a wonderful job emoting for the camera. Even though you don't have any real reason to care about them, they are all really interesting to watch as they do their things.

So: if you want a movie that's hard to care about, but fun to watch even if it doesn't make a lot of sense...this may be worth your time. I'm not sorry I took the time to run it down, and I might even watch it again at some point.

Nightmare Castle (1965)

Well made but predictable...held back by a draggy middle act

[6/10 · 1 August 2020]

You know, I watched Steele's "The Long Hair Of Death" a few months ago, and in my review I complained about the same things I want to complain about here. (And in fact, Steele was cast in dual roles in that movie, too). So I suspect that this may just be the way a certain kind of Gothic Italian horror film of the time was supposed to work - graphic, lurid beginning, 45-60 minutes of talk and soap opera (padded with lush photography and sets and moody music) , and then a nice gory finish.

Fair enough.

Although this is extremely well made, and the acting from the entire cast is suitable to the material, without a false step in the bunch...it may be a bit too slow and tame for modern audiences. If Steele wasn't so hot, I might not have made it to the end.

But she was, and I did, and the slog was pretty much worth it.

This is really just a fairly painless, non-challenging way to pass 90-some minutes. But you could do worse, and if you decide to watch it and stick with it...you'll probably be satisfied with the investment of your time.

Cockfighter (1974)

Brilliant in its way, but ethically problematic

[8/10 · 27 July 2020]

I always knew Warren Oates was a great "thinking man's" actor - huge dynamic range, believable in an amazing range of roles - but it took seeing "Cockfighter" to make me realize how exceptional he actually was. This is an amazing performance that absolutely carries the movie. (Everyone here is good-to-great, in fact).

I was interested in seeing "Cockfighter" because I am a fan of Charles Willeford, and I wanted to see what someone did with this (even though I've never managed to snag a copy). And I have to say - this is practically an "art house" film. It tackles the presentation of a seemingly un-filmable story, breathes life into it, and makes the viewer a part of the proceedings. It seems at least as much of a character study as anything else, and of a quirky, broken man who pursues his seemingly pointless goal with the dedication of a Catholic martyr.

Now the problematic part: if you have a problem with cruelty to animals, I don't see how you're going to be able to watch this film. There is a lot of cock-fighting staged here, and the violence and death seem quite real. (I'm sure there was some wrangling and makeup involved, but there's no way all of this could have been faked.) This isn't gratuitous - the attitude of the characters towards the birds is woven into the fabric of the story, and faked, sanitized violence wouldn't have worked. But it does make the movie hard to watch at points.

Your choice. I tried to watch with the intention and POV of the people it portrays and found it a fascinating slice of life and culture.

Chrome (2020– )

Threadbare plot, jam-packed visuals

[7/10 · 22 July 2020]

There's nothing new or usual about the idea of a robot revolt in a dystopian future,and "Chrome" doesn't bring very much new to the table in this regard.

But whatever complexity is lacking in the plot is more than compensated for by the visuals and sound design. Looking at any street scene in "Chrome" is like playing "Where's Waldo" - there are so many flying objects, miniatures, graphics, rotoscopes (I think), flashing neon screens, holograms, stuttering frame rates, and bizarre color palettes on display that sometimes my eyes just couldn't take it all in, or figure out what exactly was going on. I'm reasonably sure that's what the creator had in mind,of course, but more than once I wanted to yell something at the screen like

"OK!! YOU REALLY LIKED BLADE RUNNER! NOW CAN YOU DIAL IT BACK to "11" ??

Still, an excess of energy and creativity beats the other end of the spectrum, and I am sure that lots of fun can be had just freezing the screen at various points and looking at all the ideas on display.

This one episode (as of 2020) appears to be all there is, which is too bad. Pilot episodes are almost always a rough draft, where the creators don't always have the rough parts of the story figured out, and there was obviously a lot of moxie and energy poured into this (if not a lot of taste). Let's hope that this gets some interest and some support, so that the creator can show where he wants to go with it.