Change Your Image
Jaegar
Reviews
The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994)
Nice start!...Lousy Finish.
The movie looked kind of promising in the beginning, but by the time we met "Vilmer", I have to say, I just plain didn't care anymore. My goal in the movie wasn't to see a great ending where the good guys would win over evil, but rather to see the character of "Barry" die.
The movie did have some humorous parts, I'll give it that, but I was basically left sitting there going, "And I actually PAID to rent this?" I doubt that Zellweger and McConaughey are putting THIS at the top of their resumes, even though McConaughey did an excellent job portraying the psycho. (But the sound of his "fake" leg got really annoying after awhile.)
This movie basically had two highlights: the fact that it ended, and the fact that it was less than 90 minutes long. I assume it was supposed to be some sort of a slasher flick, but it missed the mark in that there were no good death scenes. Are people dead? Well, we THINK they are. We never actually see them die. This movie has the look of cheap, low-budget rent-a-flick, over-flowing with what were, at that time, low-paid, inexperienced, no-name-brand actors. In fact, a few haven't been in anything SINCE 1994.
Could this have been a good movie? Maybe, depending on your personal tastes. I'm not a huge fan of cannibalism, cheap theatrics, or over-done routines. About the only decent thing about the movie was the acting. I may have hated the characters, but Perensky and McConaughey were fabulous in those roles. I'm not even going to go INTO my complaints about Leatherface. They basically took Arnold Schwartzenegger and genetically mutated/crossed him with Strawberry Shortcake. Not a pretty result.
* out of *****
Sleepaway Camp (1983)
A Pretty Decent Suspense Flick
This movie had one of the most unique death scenes I've ever seen yet in a horror film (one word: bees), but it didn't manage to save it from the toss-away bin. Decent acting by a number of actors that basically haven't been seen since, but nothing truly spectacular.
This movie is best remembered for two things -- the interesting death scenes, and the psychotic mother-figure who should be guzzling Prozac by the bucket-load. It was way too predictable -- anyone who was paying attention the first five minutes not only knew who the killer was, but they weren't surprised at all by the ending, which is obvious by the time we figure out who Angela is (about half-way in, I think) -- but it was still watchable. Except for a cheap, half-off ending (it's like they just said, "oops! ran out of cash" and dropped it), the movie wasn't half bad.
***1/2 out of *****
Dead Men Don't Die (1990)
3.8? This movie made 3.8?
I'm sorry, but this is one case where there needs to be a rating system that takes away stars. I tried to like this movie, honestly I did, but it didn't work. Newscaster dies, is brought back to life as a zombie, and wanders around for a couple of hours, during which the viewers are slowly dying themselves, of Neverendingus Boredomitis. There is not a single part of the ratings scale that this movie works on. There is no plot. There is no characterization. There is no storyline. There is no comedy. Basically, a person could get a better show watching the snow that shows up on the TV channels you don't quite get.
Never fear, though -- there are movies just as lousy as this one. One step up you've got "The Stoned Age", and one step down you have "Broken Arrow". If you want to visit the realms of the truly lousy, check out most of Jim Carrey's films. But even Carrey's infomercial, "Copper Mountain", manages to do better than this bomb.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Six men for the price of one!
SPR is without a doubt one of the most talked about films of the year. I recently went to see it in the theatre to figure out why. It's impossible to judge this movie on a grand scale, since there are so many little intricacies.
Storyline: Less than fresh. Three brothers die, so a team of men is sent to find the remaining brother to take him home. Uh-huh, yeah, that's realistic. This movie basically has no storyline. It's just a bunch of dialogue strung together in the hopes that someone will make sense out of it all.
Casting: While each one of the actors cast in the role did an admirable job (with particular notice going to Edward Burns and Barry Pepper, who were both extremely impressive), I'd be interested in knowing why Spielberg thought he couldn't go within ten miles of reality. I'm sorry, but the average age of a soldier during WWII was not 35. It was 20. It's a sad, sad day when a 22-yr-old Giovanni Ribisi is the closest thing Spielberg has to a realistic soldier.
Emotional Reality: In as far as getting the reactions of soldiers, Spielberg did a fairly good job. Yes, war is Hell, which is what Spielberg showed with his message that war could turn any man into a monster. Too bad he killed it with chain of command. Those officers were just a tad too willing to scream at their CO's.
Physical Reality: There are a lot of complaints about the Americanism of the film. Of COURSE the film is Americanised! The only unit that actually managed to land anywhere near Omaha Beach was American. While it is asking a little much to expect viewers to believe that the troops never ran into troops from any other army, I don't think Spielberg wanted to test his luck. He couldn't get his OWN country's uniforms A-OK, let alone another country's.
Truthfulness: We ALL know that there is absolutely no fact in this movie whatsoever. Spielberg may have originally touted this as "the true story of the Niland brothers", but he recanted long ago, since it's obvious it wasn't. (If it was, they'd have gotten at least one fact in that story right.)
Military Reality: I'm with the experts on this one. A little less flash and trash there, Spielberg, and make an effort next time to get the right kind of weaponry. And BTW, Spielberg, no army would risk losing eight men to get one home, even if he was the president's son.
Cinematic Worth: Excellent. While the direction at times was a little choppy and left something to be desired, this was still an excellent movie.
Most people who are dissatisfied with this movie are probably those who expected to see a true story. Sorry, but you got the wrong war movie of 1998 -- the true story is in "The Thin Red Line", which in itself is an excellent war movie. Now sure, I admit, I spent half the movie hoping Matt Damon's character would get it in the end, but I was still extremely satisfied. (I did have to practically hold my great-uncles, both of whom were at Normandy, down to get them to stay -- both wanted to leave in disgust with Spielberg's Hollywoodization and capitalization on this horrific event.) It was well worth going to see in the theatre, and I don't often do that. I do think, though, that the movie will be highly disappointing once on video, because it's the kind of movie one NEEDS to see in a theatre.
Altogether? It's not the best movie of the year, but it's not the worst. It's an excellent fictional account of what life COULD have been like in WWII for a group of soldiers. If you want reality, watch "The Thin Red Line", but if you enjoy fictionalized war films like SPR, check out any of the films available in the "War" section of your local video store. Well, okay, so maybe "Rambo" isn't the thing to go for, but there are a number of excellent movies out there.