Reviews

The film industry in Quebec has the sad and bad habit of releasing, every year, between one and three commercial films (this year, for example, it was Le Collectionneur, Seraphin, Les Boys 3 and Les Dangereux)...and Le Collectionneur is one of them. These films are not always THAT uninteresting, I admit that Les Boys, without being a good film, contains a couple of funny situations. And it is also the case with Le Collectionneur.

The film tells the story of a serial killer who kills people and cuts off some of their body parts (SPOILERS) to recreate the body of his parents (THAT'S A PURE COPY OF RESURRECTION!!! It's funny, because in his cottage, we see a lot of stuffed animals, so why didn't he just stuff the bodies of his parents instead of killing a dozen of people...and I have to mention that the motives for all that is never explained! So the film doesn't even study a killer's mind or the origins of his madness, except in a scene where Graham says some of the most pretentious and badly acted lines I've heard in years during an interview). In order to stop him from killing people, a detective named Maude Graham is in charge of the investigation. At the same time, she keeps a young male prostitute and a homeless kid at her home and takes care of them.

First, let's say one thing. It is inspired by a book written by Christine Brouillet, an overrated writer that I recognize as a responsible person for low quality books that always use the same formula. The story of the film is totally unoriginal, it's really a shameful cliche. It completely copies Se7en, and all its derivates (Resurrection, Blowback, Along Came a Spider, among others). It is sad that today, even in Quebec, where directors usually have original ideas, the word "thriller" is automatically associated with a stupid story about a serial killer with cruel methods that is chased by a nice police officer. In Se7en, it worked...it's a good formula, but it has to be exploited the right way. And in Jean Beaudin's film, everything is recycled. It's to originality what a bowl of Kraft Dinner is to food.

Then, there's the acting...it is unbelievably weak, except for Luc Picard, who really got into his role well, even though everything he does or says is a cliche. The protagonist is not so bad, but she really isn't impressive. The two boys are awful, really, I can't believe the director, after the take, said they did a good job and kept it for the final product...unbelievable. It's true to say that the stupid script didn't help them, because the lines are absolutely not natural...Did they have someone to adapt the dialogues for a film? Because it doesn't seem they had someone. Alexis Martin and Yvan Ponton suffer a lot from this huge flaw, because they're usually pretty good actors, but in this film, they seem to repeat their text like machines in front of the camera. On the other side, Luc Picard, like I said before, plays his role very well. The problem is that his role sucks. Yes, sometimes he seems to be exaggerating a lot in his acting (a problem that every actor in the film seems to have, but in a bigger amount) just to look freakier, but he's good, even thought we end up not knowing his character very well, with lots of things unexplained, and a very deceiving ending.

The directing is ordinary, even lower than average. His directing has no style, no signification and is a proof that Beaudin has a lack of instinct, which is essential when directing a thriller. Beaudin doesn't know how to create a creepy mood, as well as to reproduce terror. Okay, he copies the Americans in the settings, the characters, and pretty much everything, but he doesn't even direct the film decently, which is probably the only point that traces a difference between an American thriller and Le Collectionneur. Also, he makes a huge mistake, which is the subplot with the two kids (VERY CHEESY stuff!), which was needless and didn't fit in the film.

Alright, I bashed it a lot, but it certainly has an entertainment value. But again, it's its only goal, unlike the superior Se7en, which had a message and was not only a meaningless show of cats and mice. Briefly said, this film was made to sell out...that's it! And they did. Too bad.

This film has no real directing, one great actor, many BAD ones, a terrible script (especially the dialogues!), and has everything very formulatic.

4/10

I have been waiting for a long time to see "El Topo". When you realize how hard it can be to get it, it can sound somehow mysterious...however, the film itself is even more mysterious. Yes, there are several Bunuel influences in this film. Bunuel is one of the biggest names in the surreal movement, and he's also known for a very audacious scene in his film entitled "Un chien andalou"...yes, I'm talking about the first gore scene, involving an eye being sliced with a razor blade. Now, how is Bunuel influencial on Jodorowsky's work? I would say for the gore, because "El Topo", for its time, must have been considered as a very violent and bloody film, and also for the surreal part. But here I'll have to bring a nuance...many people say it is a surreal film, which I am more than a hundred percent sure would have been denied by the creators of the surreal movement. Yes, the images in "El Topo" are really bizarre, amazing, beautifully strange, but that does not mean surreal. The film has a message, and it is too obvious to be considered as part of a surreal ensemble. Okay, it says more on the author himself than it says about the main character, but the continuity and the fact that there is actually a "storyline" you can follow are not compatible with the movement it is too often associated to. The film is full of symbols, and, consequently, I do believe that Jodorowsky is more of a symbolist that likes to add surreal images to his films.

Anyways, that said, I can say that "El Topo" is truly an unforgettable experience. It starts with a very beautiful shot of El Topo and his son walking in the desert. That particular first image tells you right in the beginning that you are not about to watch a very ordinary film. You watch this "mole" (that's what "Topo" means in english) visiting a village where everyone has been massacred, you watch him confront several "masters" of the desert, including one he covers with dead rabbits and a blind one that is an incredible fast shooter. You also see a woman, with a despotic husband (who seems to be some kind of ancient army guy) being freed by El Topo, and her husband being stripped, being humiliated, being forced to shoot himself. Again, these are all symbols. All the images are there to represent something, they have meanings. So, with all thses crazily bizarre images, what is El Topo about? It is clear that this film is about religion. It is a vision of several gods confronting each other. El Topo encounters two women in his path, and (Spoilers warning) they betray him in the end...and then he's born again, in a village, a place where he is not accepted...does it remind you of something? Yes, the Bible..."El Topo" is the Bible, with surreal ideas and images. It's an allegory of many religions, and if you know enough about them (which does not necessarily mean you're a believer), you'll understand "El Topo", and you'll recognize the symbols. It is really worth the time to study a little bit many religions before seeing this film. It is an interesting parallel explanation of christianity that I think most believers (in their absolutely unopened minds) will not like. Those who like putting more nuance in things will like it, though.

I'm sorry to have explained all that, and I remind you that it is my own (but also a pretty common) interpretation of it. But now, also in a more common way, let's talk about the other aspects of the film. The acting is very good, even though the copy I have is in english with Japanese subtitles (yes it is a bootleg version, I didn't know that before I got it...I bought it from Ebay...so beware if you want to get your own copy) and the film's original language was spanish. Alejandro Jodorowsky plays the main character, and he has talent as an actor as much as he has talent as a director. Also, the first woman he encounters (I think it's Mara) is also a great actress, even thought it was her only appearance in a film.

The directing is pretty great, even though not as good as what was done in "The Holy Mountain". Jodorowsky has taken his time to make this film, like any other of his films. He knows how to make an image impressive and fascinating. His directing gives a slow paced mood, and plunges the viewer in the universe of his reincarnated Bible using very lenghty shots and very quiet sound effects that are broken by the characters (like the noise of foot steps in a deserted town), again, this directing technique speaks by itself and is, somehow, a symbol, again. That is not the only interesting technique he uses, but I'll let you discover the others by yourself.

Finally, I would say that "El Topo" is a very strange and beautiful film full of symbols and surreal images that will truly please to intellectuals and people who are tired of the average blockbuster. It could also teach a very good lesson to some main stream imbecils that try to make "surreal" films these days (hello Gregg Araki...) or enjoy these "wannabe films" (...hello fans of Gregg Araki!). Some christians are open-minded and others are not, and this film s only for the open-minded ones. Also, if you're not a believer (like me) but still know a little about some religions, you should definitely go for it. this film is very hard to rate, really, because there is no doubt it is good, but it really is not usual. Anyways, here's the rating I give it, it's now yours to decide if it is accurate...

9/10

Note: By the way, "El Topo" and "The Holy Mountain" are the only two Jodorowsky films I've seen, but "Santa Sangre" is number one on my must-see list, I just can't wait to see it and even though I haven't seen it, I also recommend it!

"The Ring" has acquired a reputation. When you watch the commercials on T.V. with these teenagers wearing the "cool & hip" brands of clothes, that have spiky hair, and that look like clones taken from the legion of main-stream teenagers of America saying: "It's the scariest film I've ever seen!", you should know what "The Ring" really is. This is a remake of the Japanese film entitled "Ringu", released in 1998, so if I counted well, four years ago. And they do a remake. But wait, the word "remake" is not really appropriate here. I would say Amercian version. Americans (in general) are not very opened to difference...and let me tell you that, for those who've seen some, a Japanese film is totally different from an American film...the acting is completely another thing, as well as the directing. Personally, I haven't seen "Ringu", but I don't care. I've seen "The Ring", and that's enough, even though I would have preferred to see "Ringu" instead.

Here's a little overview of the movie: A woman investigates on the mysterious death of her niece, who apparently died after watching a video cassette. She watches it, and it contains several successive images that don't really seem to have a meaning. But, going further in her investigation, she discovers the origins of the tape and the meaning of every image. But things get more complicated (and confused!) when she learns that she only has seven days to live after the viewing. So, that gives her seven days to find the solution. Original? A little. Scary? Unfortunately, a little. The only scary part of this film lasts about one minute and a half, and it's the viewing of the tape. It's mysterious, creepy, and great. THAT part was nice, and it somehow gave me shivers. But that's it. Actually, that's the only creepy part because that's the only one where we truly disconnect from reality. The rest of the film keeps a tone that I would describe as too sober for that kind of film. I mean, there are surnatural events, but they are either very ordinary (in horror films) or flawed. (Spoilers) Yes, seeing a woman going out of the television is not such a bad concept, it can be used cleverly and give a good scare, but, first, we saw it many times in other films (and I don't really consider that as a problem, because any idea can be used dozens of times and still be original, it all depends on the way it is delivered) and also, in "The Ring", the directing is not good enough to make it scary. Another thing is the constant use of sound to make the audience jump out of their seats. Okay, you can use it once, or twice, in very special occasions, and it will work...but in "The Ring", they overuse it, I mean, they always put a loud sound effect for any action the character is doing, that's gratuitous. If I hadn't seen it in a theater, it would not have been the same film. Those who will see it at home better have an excellent surround sound system, because in the opposite case, they'll fall asleep. The key of a great and truly scary horror film is the atmosphere. It has to be constantly creepy, to keep the audience in the mood, and that's what I meant by "a sober tone". Yes, one minute you start going in the mood of the film, but the first thing you know is that, thirty seconds later, you come back to reality, and the audience's progress is ruined. The ending tries to mix up reality and the horror, but it seems like the reality tone is stronger, and that ruins the whole potential of the film. Those who want to see the creepiest film ever, and also one of the most brilliant films should definitely watch Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining".

The directing by Gore Verbinski is ordinary, except, once again, for that minute and a half of bizarre and creepy images. He seems to like giving us fake scares (like playing a creepy background music and showing the heroin getting near a door and opening it slowly, making us believe that something horrible is hidden behind it and that we're going to jump off our seats when we see what it is (and, just a little comment, these days it's not even the image itself that scares, it's the sudden loud sound) and simply not doing it, so he fools us, creating mild suspense and trying to avoid cliches).

The acting is average. The little boy tries to scare us with his constant neutral facial expression, but fails. Usually, a boy of that kind in an horror film is one of the scariest aspects of it, but in this case, he simply doesn't fit, and he simply has no importance. He's not quite Danny Torrance (played by Danny Lloyd, in "The Shining"), let me tell you that. The other actors are okay, there is not much to mention about them.

The plot is needlessly complex. It tries to be complicated and everything, and in the end you realize it cannot explain itself. Somebody explain to me the nosebleeds, why the boy can talk to the girl from the tape, the hose jumping off the boat...they put lots of weird things, explain some of them, and try to make us forget the other ones they can't explain. For a good plot in an "horror" film, see Bill Paxton's "Frailty", it is a hundred times better, and it really works! It unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case for "The Ring".

I've read the discussion forums for this film on IMDb. One of them was "The Ring is the scariest film of the last twenty years". That's ridiculous. Those who say that have truly been hypnotized by Hollywood. "The Ring" happens to be a very overrated film that a generation of ignorants will find truly scary because they haven't seen anything else and have no cinematic culture...someone that says "The Ring" is the scariest film doesn't know anything about foreign or underground films...they only watch Hollywood blockbuster crap that is to cinema what McDonald's is to food...Last year, there's been a much scarier movie than that, and it IS a Hollywood film, I'm talking about "Frailty", from Bill Paxton...excellent film. Anyone remembers "Bram Stoker's Dracula" from Coppola? That was beautiful and creepy...that was not junk..."Interview With The Vampire", from Neil Jordan, anyone? Yes, it seems that these years (and I mean from 1996 to today) horror films have taken an atrocious turn into the category of SUSPENSE movies, which are a totally different thing....Wes Craven's Scream (an awful film, by the way) is a SUSPENSE, not an horror film! And, again, they had to ruin good things even worse, so they made awful suspense films with monsters or ghosts in them, and they wrapped it with leading actors and actresses with bigger chests than talent, and they've got a Box Office success that every ignorant North-American will find scary...congratulations...Anyone who thinks he or she loves horror movies has to watch "The Shining"...if you don't find it scary, then you don't know what a REAL horror movie is. Before I see "The Ring" again, it will see mine, if you know what I mean.

Overall, it is a very ordinary thriller, with some suspense, brief horror scenes, and it is a flawed horror film. At least it really tried to be a horror film, and ruined itself. It is average, deceiving in the thrill factor, but it still has better entertainment value than the majority of today's horror flicks from Hollywood...

5/10

Before seeing « The Doom Generation », I had already seen « Nowhere », which I absolutely hated. « The Doom Generation », however, makes all the same mistakes made in « Nowhere » (which I personally consider a cinematic mistake itself, so guess what « The Doom Generation » is).

Gregg Araki, who clearly misunderstood the surreal movement, tries to shock us with (Spoilers warning) a pathetic girl having sex with two different guys (and cheating on her boyfriend), having sex with two different guys at the same time, a Chinese guy being decapitated by a shotgun blast, a stupid News program showing butchered children, a guy being dismembered, a guy being raped and having his penis cut off by ridiculous Neo-nazis.wow! What a program! It is so HORRIBLE.I had to slap myself to stay awake. The film takes the aspect of a road movie, and puts lots of meaningless « surreal » inserts that are so obvious and pretentious and tries to get style and get a status of « artsy and original film ». It's not that easy making a surreal film, and it has to be more implicit than that. This film is the « pop » of surreal films.It's like saying : « Blink 182, that's punk music, man, they play so fast and they like skateboarding! » or « Limp Bizkit is metal, there are electric guitars in it!!! ».The director probably thought : « Right, so if there are stupid messages saying that society sucks written on walls in some scenes, an overall apocalyptic message or exaggeratedly violent and horny teens, this is surreal stuff! » It seemed like Araki, plugging Neo-nazis, threesomes, some scenes of mildly gory violence (and they are not impressive at all, and trust me, I have seen the unrated version) and loads of swear words simply and gratuitously tried to shock some faint-hearted viewers, even though the film, for a normal person, wouldn't be too disgusting.

The acting is annoying, especially from Rose McGowan, who really shows her phenomenal lack of talent. Right, she plays a shallow character, but her lines are so badly written, stupid, and ridiculously overloaded with F-words in places where they really don't fit. The two guys are not bad, even though they are not impressive.

The scenario is pointless, and the plot is absent, and I guess that was the movie's goal, but it would have worked in something in which the surreal, nihilistic or dadaist spirit would have seemed honest. But I felt like Araki was continuously telling lies, tried to put gruesome and weird stuff (and he failed!) to make original art of this, and still pretended that the film's form was not important. He kind of tried to get away with clean hands with all viewers, those who liked it, and those who didn't. Once again, he failed.

Maybe he tried to be a rebel in teen cinema, but it's still teen cinema, he's not a rebel, just a follower that TRIES to have more personality. The only difference between this and « She's All That » is the pretention behind « The Doom Generation », that's it. This film is nothing revolutionary, like we feel it tried to be. This film clumsily insults its main target audience, teenagers, and adults will find themselves wasting their time watching this (as well as teens!). Oh yeah, and the tagline, that stupidly says : « Sex, violence, whatever » is another thing used to provoke and nourish curiosity, don't get fooled. Shallow, meaningless, boring, pretentious, stupid, plain bad all describe « The Doom Generation ». Period.

1/10

« Moulin Rouge! » is, unlike many main stream and commercial movie lovers might have told you, a waste of time. With directing that looks more like what you would see in a stupid MTV video, those who've seen the awful video for the main song of this film (sung by the biggest amount of prostitutes put under the title of singers I've seen reunited together!), « Moulin Rouge! » doesn't bring anything new, except maybe another Blockbuster hit that will please to average North American families and make millions at the Box-Office... How amazing…

Right, the film itself is a musical that, by the way, features lots of remakes of very popular and modern songs, and doesn't deliver at all any other feeling or atmosphere you will see in masterpieces such as « Singin' In The Rain », which is a great musical. I know it is not happening in the same period of time, and it wasn't made in the same period of time, but the really disgusting aspect of it that really upsets me, especially when I think about all the nominations it got for Oscars (these guys are getting even harder to trust every year!) is the really shallow display of everything in this film. The film itself simply looks like a TV commercial that tries to sell you how beautiful the costumes are, how happy the characters are, how sad someone's death is, how much knowledge they have (Wow! They even know what Absinthe is! These guys have culture, have they?…UH? And I can prove that this is not a typical American film, yes I can prove it, because it has references to foreign cultures and some characters have weird accents that sound less natural than Arnie's American accent in Commando!) and they really try hard to create an atmosphere…but fail big time! There is nothing magic in all this mess, except maybe for this hypnotized, shallow generation of MTV fans that know absolutely nothing about cinema and think they have cinematic culture because they saw "Titanic".

(Spoilers coming up) Nicole Kidman's death in the film is truly one of the least sad ones I've ever seen, and if someone cried for this, they should definitely not see a REALLY emotional film. Kidman's character was not likeable at all, and I'd say that in « Moulin Rouge! », not unlike many other of her films, Kidman's performance is like a fashion show…she just wants all the attention on the screen, she wants to be the show…isn't that…hum…shallow? Indeed. Her character is a big cliche and is explicitly unidimensional. Ewan MacGregor is good, he's Ewan MacGergor after all, and he's a great actor and he has the most interesting role in this movie. John Leguizamo's not bad either. But, again, the characters are pretty slightly developed, and the director spent more time showing his « beautiful » plastic dresses and costumes and playing boring songs and putting them in boring music video-like sequences rather than doing essential things for his film.

An overall pretty empty film, with nothing but average, shallow entertainment that is the equivalent of two hours of MTV videos with better acting…Not very surprising it got nominations for Oscars, because these days only good taste is accepted and typical American films (very formulatic in many cases!) are privileged. So, I know I may have been a little severe with this film, but it really is the definition of the word « SHALLOW »…maybe that's why this word appeared so many times in my review. If you spend your days watching MTV, and if you cry when you watch teen movies, this might be for you…But if you're looking for something that goes deeper than skin, plastic, and absolutely not touching love stories, you'll be deceived. This is a better version of « Glitter » with better intentions (OUCH! That's a big punch in Mariah's face!) and a setting in the past. Oh yeah, and Ewan MacGregor and John Leguizamo's performances are good (this time I won't compare it to « Glitter », because there is truly a difference for this point….and again, your side's not the bright one, Mariah…you don't « glitter » that much, you know…), but don't save this film. Watch « Singin' In The Rain » instead…that is a great musical. I give « Moulin Rouge! » 4/10.

"Histoire de Pen" is a film by Michel Jette. This man has already directed another movie entitled "Hochelaga". In Quebec (that's where the movie was made), "Hochelaga" was considered as an Oliver "Stonesque" exploration of the dark world of bikers (which are the equivalent of the maffia here). It only had a budget of one million dollars (and it's Canadian dollars...so in U.S. dollars, it would be approximately 600 000 dollars!) but clearly said what it had to say. Michel Jette, in that film, made his name as a director that offers realistic films, with a very sober but raw way to tell a story that stands closely to reality. (Minor Spoilers Warning)

But "Hochelaga" was nothing compared to this. "Histoire de Pen" is, ten times stronger than "Hochelaga" was. And I'm saying that considering that "Hochelaga" was a pretty good and effective film.

"Histoire de Pen" tells the story of Claude, a man that has to spend ten years of his life in jail. It doesn't take a lot of time for him to discover that the prisoners are divided in several clans that fight each other...in other words, he discovers that inside the prison, it's an extremely wild jungle in which security guards have only a limited power, and that only the strong survive. Violence is inevitable, and alliances with clans are risky. Claude will have to make his way through that "animal factory" (oh yeah, and that's another film about prisons directed by Steve Buscemi!). I won't give away anything else about what happens inside, but I'll stimulate your curiosity by only saying that, piece by piece, the puzzle that contains the reason why Claude is in jail is resolved.

Now that you know a little about the story, you HAVE to know more about the directing of this film. It is simply great! Michel Jette has become a very promising name in Canadian cinema, and I'd even say he could be internationally known, but I don't believe that's his goal, though. He truly has a talent portraying the criminal world and really gives a very believable vision of it. The atmosphere in the prison is unlike anything you've seen before. It is just as I imagine it would be. The violence is raw and hard to watch, even though it is not gory or graphic, it is just too realistic. The sound is as good as in "Fight Club" when they hit each other...There is also a rape scene that will truly disturb you...it would never have been so horrible if there had not been such a great directing. For that scene and other fight scenes, I would not recommend this film for people under 16 years of age (even though in Quebec they gave it a 13 and over certification). The lighting is perfect, the camera and the angles are amazing, and the feeling the directing provides will give you the impression that you are inside the prison. The textures are strong and you can almost smell the iron and the sweat. Also, there is a poetic aspect (including references to Francois Villon) that gives a colored and tender aspect in the cold and hard atmosphere of the film. It is by far the most effective directing I've seen in a movie recently.

The acting is pretty good too. The only actor that I didn't like that much was Dominic Darceuil, who played a transvestite, but still, he was not bad. The best actor was Emmanuel Auger, who played the main character. The cast is really good, and they all play their roles more than well.

Now, what I think is the strongest point, and, also, the ultimate goal of Michel Jette's film, the message. Those who have seen Martin Scorsese's films, some of Oliver Stone's movies will be familiar with that kind of films. They offer a picture of reality, and unmask and show the real face of a particular world (the world of maffia ("Casino" and "Goodfellas"), bikers ("Hochelaga"), professional football ("Any Given Sunday"), politics ("JFK"), media ("Natural Born Killers"), among others). In "Histoire de Pen", the message is clear. We put criminals in a place where they HAVE to become even more violent and wild (in order to survive!), then, we release them, and look, we have worse killers, rapists in the streets. The film doesn't focus on who creates them, (even though Michel Jette, in a subtle way, shows that, where they live, these guys are meant to end up in jail, because it's a sector full of criminality, and guess what, this sector, that really exists by the way, is Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, from the title of his previous film) it puts a bigger emphasis on the effect of jail time on prisoners. This film will really leave you thinking.

The film has flaws too. The love story is not bad, but it has some cliches, even though every love story has cliches, and the point of the film is to seem realistic. Also, the way Claude escapes from the prison is more or less believable. Except for that, the film is truly great.

Overall, a film that will make you think, with very shocking images, awesome directing and acting. Really worth to go see it in a theater, the big screen really delivers the atmosphere with an incredible realism. And also, for me, it will worth the money I'll spend on it when it comes out on DVD, which I'll immediately buy! "Histoire de Pen" is raw, brutal, touching, realistic, and great. Bravo to Michel Jetté!

I give it 9/10.

"Histoire de Pen" is a film by Michel Jette. This man has already directed another movie entitled "Hochelaga". In Quebec (that's where the movie was made), "Hochelaga" was considered as an "Oliver Stonesque" exploration of the dark world of bikers (which are the equivalent of the maffia here). It only had a budget of one million dollars (and it's Canadian dollars...so in U.S. dollars, it would be approximately 600 000 dollars!) but clearly said what it had to say. Michel Jette, in that film, made his name as a director that offers realistic films, with a very sober but raw way to tell a story that stands closely to reality. (Minor Spoilers Warning)

But "Hochelaga" was nothing compared to this. "Histoire de Pen" is, ten times stronger than "Hochelaga" was. And I'm saying that considering that "Hochelaga" was a pretty good and effective film.

"Histoire de Pen" tells the story of Claude, a man that has to spend ten years of his life in jail. It doesn't take a lot of time for him to discover that the prisoners are divided in several clans that fight each other...in other words, he discovers that inside the prison, it's an extremely wild jungle in which security guards have only a limited power, and that only the strong survive. Violence is inevitable, and alliances with clans are risky. Claude will have to make his way through that "animal factory" (oh yeah, and that's another film about prisons directed by Steve Buscemi!). I won't give away anything else about what happens inside, but I'll stimulate your curiosity by only saying that, piece by piece, the puzzle that contains the reason why Claude is in jail is resolved.

Now that you know a little about the story, you HAVE to know more about the directing of this film. It is simply great! Michel Jette has become a very promising name in Canadian cinema, and I'd even say he could be internationally known, but I don't believe that's his goal, though. He truly has a talent portraying the criminal world and really gives a very believable vision of it. The atmosphere in the prison is unlike anything you've seen before. It is just as I imagine it would be. The violence is raw and hard to watch, even though it is not gory or graphic, it is just too realistic. The sound is as good as in "Fight Club" when they hit each other...There is also a rape scene that will truly disturb you...it would never have been so horrible if there had not been such a great directing. For that scene and other fight scenes, I would not recommend this film for people under 16 years of age (even though in Quebec they gave it a 13 and over certification). The lighting is perfect, the camera and the angles are amazing, and the feeling the directing provides will give you the impression that you are inside the prison. The textures are strong and you can almost smell the iron and the sweat. Also, there is a poetic aspect (including references to Francois Villon) that gives a colored and tender aspect in the cold and hard atmosphere of the film. It is by far the most effective directing I've seen in a movie recently.

The acting is pretty good too. The only actor that I didn't like that much was Dominic Darceuil, who played a transvestite, but still, he was not bad. The best actor was Emmanuel Auger, who played the main character. The cast is really good, and they all play their roles more than well.

Now, what I think is the strongest point, and, also, the ultimate goal of Michel Jette's film, the message. Those who have seen Martin Scorsese's films, some of Oliver Stone's movies will be familiar with that kind of films. They offer a picture of reality, and unmask and show the real face of a particular world (the world of mafia ("Casino" and "Goodfellas"), bikers ("Hochelaga"), professional football ("Any Given Sunday"), politics ("JFK"), media ("Natural Born Killers"), among others). In "Histoire de Pen", the message is clear. We put criminals in a place where they HAVE to become even more violent and wild (in order to survive!), then, we release them, and look, we have worse killers, rapists in our streets. The film doesn't focus on who creates them, (even though Michel Jette, in a subtle way, shows that, where they live, these guys are meant to end up in jail, because it's a sector full of criminality, and guess what, this sector, that really exists by the way, is Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, from the title of his previous film) it puts a bigger emphasis on the effect of jail time on prisoners. This film will really leave you thinking.

The film has flaws too. The love story is not bad, but it has some cliches, even though every love story has cliches, and the point of the film is to seem realistic. Also, the way Claude escapes from the prison is more or less believable. Except for that, the film is truly great.

Overall, a film that will make you think, with very shocking images, awesome directing and acting. Really worth to go see it in a theater, the big screen really delivers the atmosphere with an incredible realism. And also, for me, it will worth the money I'll spend on it when it comes out on DVD, which I'll immediately buy! "Histoire de Pen" is raw, brutal, touching, realistic, and great. Bravo to Michel Jetté!

I give it 9/10.

(Contains really minor spoilers)

There are two vampire movies that I would describe as masterpieces. The first one is Bram Stoker's Dracula, from Coppola, and the second one is The Vampire Chronicles, from Neil Jordan. But I'd like you to pay a particular attention to the second title I mentioned...It is written by a woman named Anne Rice.

Now, the point I'm trying to make is the following: Knowing that Queen of The Damned is an adaptation of an Anne Rice novel, just like Vampire Chronicles was, there was some kind of...how could I say that...very high expectations around this film. Well, let's simply say I was deceived in every way.

Now, if I was such an evil and mean guy, I would compare both films based on Anne Rice's novels....but Queen of The Damned is so awful, if I compared it to a masterpiece like Vampire Chronicles, it would be like comparing Stanley Kubrick and Ed Wood...

But, when I think about it, I'm not such a nice guy, and this film really deserves a bash!

Where do I start, because every point of the film is a flaw? But, I'll have to start with something, so let's go with the acting. With a protagonist that is as spooky as a stupid eleven year-old kid with a vampire costume on Halloween night. He really sucks. Trying to look like a goth with his leather pants and transparent shirt...wow! You only look like a fashion show robot! That's the image of American goths...wannabes! And thanks for keeping it alive, you idiot! I just can't believe this guy and Tom Cruise are supposed to play the same role! What a shame! And there's Aaliyah...who plays the least sensual and scary vampire I've seen in a long time. She also has a very limited talent in this film. There is Vincent Perez, who has a very cheap role, and whose performance is consequently ruined.

The directing has nothing impressive, it is very basic, it doesn't create any mood (now I'd like SOOOOO much to compare it to Neil Jordan's film!!!!!), and it is the most simple thing you can see, it still shows how lazy some Hollywood directors get for summer or blockbuster movies. As much as Neil Jordan's film is moody, intense, beautiful, well shot, well acted, interesting, somptuous, and great, as much Queen of The Damned is a pure piece of scum!

And, even though that may sound bizarre, there's the vampires. You know, in movies, there are several kinds of vampires: there are primitive, aggressive, black-blooded vampires (see John Carpenter's Vampires), there's classy vampires (Bram Stoker's Dracula and Vampire Chronicles), funny vampires (Fearless Vampire Killers, and the parody with Leslie Nielsen), classic vampires (Nosferatu, earlier versions of Dracula), and high-tech and criminal vampires (see Blade and Blade 2), disgusting vampires (From Dusk Till Dawn trilogy)...and, now, I'd like to add a new breed in the list, especially designed to describe the blood thirsty creatures in this movie: cheap vampires! They don't have the charm of classy vampires, they don't have the jokes of funny vampires, they don't have the make up of the disgusting vampires, they don't have the velocity and ferocity of aggressive and strong vampires....they simply got nothing! NOTHING!

Another element that some might find meaningless, but that I think is important in this kind of film, especially when everything else is bad...the gore! NONE!!! NONE NONE NONE! No gore! One brief decapitation, and that's it! That's it! Really deceiving. Even the best

The scenario is not that bad, but it is served on a plate that would completely ruin any good script.

So, I know my review is pretty short, but there is not much to say about an empty film. Again, this is today's version of vampire flicks...and it smells a lot like MTV crap. Now, I simply imagine the director crying because he got a big R rating for his movie...I'm sure this was meant to be rated PG-13...but now Michael Rymer can go cry with his friends Paul Anderson (Another kick in the face of your Resident Evil!) and Renny Harlin (the arm being ripped out in Deep Blue Sea was too much...Renny!) who live in the desperate world of harder selling main stream scum, because of the very mean MPAA who refused to give them a PG-13 rating when they truly deserved one. The only thing I can do is laugh at these guys...ha ha ha!

Awful film...I give it 2/10.

(Contains some spoilers)

Finally, I've seen Cannibal Ferox! Also known as the movie banned in the biggest number of countries!

Wow...So that must make it a really disgusting, twisted, sick, gory, explicit movie huh? Well...

I've heard that Cannibal Holocaust is banned in over 60 countries, but Cannibal Ferox still holds the record in the Guiness book with 31 countries...what the hell?? Anyways, Cannibal Holocaust at least has the merit of not being the rip-off of the other one...right, Mr.Lenzi? Anyways, let's just say one thing: the controversy around this film is, in my opinion, a joke. Let me explain...

It is true to say that Cannibal Ferox contains scenes depicting violence and torture...but the most disgusting scene in the film is truly the one in which the anaconda kills the heroes' pet (and by the way, it is one of the most stupid, especially when the three teens wake up and see their pet getting attacked and the guy says there is nothing to do to save it, even though he has a huge machete in his hand). It is really an intensely cruel scene. There are some scenes in which animals get killed (for real, by the way, and that is the only thing that is shocking in the film), especially the pet, and the turtle.

But besides that, I'd say it is only a pretty weak gore film (with a big lack of gore) and that it has a small shock value. The gore, except when it's real (so it's not really hard to mess up something done for real, so I can't even give them credit for that!) sometimes looks pretty good ( The scene where one of the bandits has his chest opened and his organs eaten is actually very convincing) but most of the time looks pretty bad (the castration scene is not very good, and the shot when the cannibals feast on a guy's brains is not fantastic). The real shame is when people get shot...there is no blood, no impact, nothing...it sucks. So, is the message in the beginning of the film saying that it is one of the most violent films of all times justified? Not that much, really! I make movies that are much more violent than that. Many people give the excuse that it was shocking when it was released, long ago...well, the audience had already seen cannibal movies (Cannibal Holocaust strikes again!), so it was not like it was a big innovation.

But here I am, today, in a generation where, unfortunately, gore movies are no longer made, and where blockbusters invade the world of cinema, and I have to judge this, even though I'm not "infected" by the biggest virus in cinema; main stream movies. I'll have to say that it is easy to understand why cannibal movies' reign was so short...the story itself is not important, the directors try so hard to make it seem like something that really happened (but mostly fail!) and they focus on the cruelty, but they don't even make something SO cruel and they put some cheap gore...I watch gore movies (even if they're not good) and I enjoy them...but this doesn't deserve such a reputation, really!

The story is about a bunch of teenagers that get into the jungle (for a school project) and get attacked by cannibals. And that's about it...there is also a sub-plot taking place in New-York, but it is so bad that it doesn't deserve a description.

One other thing; the music...It was totally inappropriate at times (but still good at other times) and really repetitive.

So, Cannibal Ferox deserves a viewing, yes, it deserves one, only to realize how misplaced its reputation is, and maybe just by curiosity. I'd like to see Cannibal Holocaust, really, to compare those two, and especially see how much of a rip-off "Ferox" is.

There are hundreds of much more gory movies (see Braindead, Bad Taste, Premutos, Violent Sh*t, Zombie, and others...) and the only reason why you could prefer this film to another gore movie is the cruelty, but again, many movies are a lot more cruel than that (Snuff movies, SS movies, Last House on The Left, Last House of Edge of The Park, Maniac, New York Ripper, I Spit On Your Grave, etc.) For any criteria that could justify a viewing of this movie, you'll find a better deal somewhere else. Deceiving...the only thing I can give it is some nice gore, and some entertainment value, even though it's not so fascinating...really not... I give it 3/10.

(Minor Spoilers)

The Item is on the same shelf than movies like Evil Dead. It has many elements that could easily make it a cult favorite: some funny characters (especially Alex), a weak and basic storyline, killer drag queens, a speaking creature, an extremely exaggerated amount of blood, and some sexual content involving a human girl and the creature.

The Item leaves a first impression, right after the first viewing...the impression that I've watched something very weird, and it left me with a curious doubt about my appreciation of the film. After watching it, I didn't know either if it was a "brilliant" movie or just a stupid piece of entertaining, bloody trash. And I still doubt.

First, I'll summarize the storyline. It's about a bunch of felons (four of them, and they can be pretty funny) who rob an item to some kind of weird man that really looks like the bad guy in a cheap Sci-Fi movie featuring Frank Zagarino, if you know what I mean. This mysterious item will supposedly make them rich...and I still don't know how the heck it could! So, they go to one of Alex's friends' house, in which they find her Drag Queen friends...so, these "guys" being witnesses, the four felons have to kill them, and then starts a bloody gun fight. After that (you know who won the fight), they go back to the house, and they have supper...but the "item" is about to get more involved in the story. So, curiosity can be a human flaw, and Alex and his pals open the box, to see what is inside. I won't tell you what it is, even though I'm not the first to review this film on IMDb, and many other people gave away the "punch" (even though we know pretty early in the movie what is inside the box). Not that the "item" is dangerous itself, it's not a powerful creature with fangs sharper than knives...but it is dangerous in a completely different way: it somehow reads someone's mind and turns it against other people. So, as you've probably seen before in kidnaping movies (Suicide Kings comes to my mind), where the victim has discussions with its kidnapers and turns them against each other, this movie is exactly like this, but instead of a normal person being kidnaped, it's a creature.

But if the creature was the only original point in the movie, that wouldn't be enough. So they put some humoristic touches, in the dialogue and in the visuals. The dialogue is often funny, and some other comical parts are the creature itself (you have to see it to understand), the costumes (especially the Drag Queens'), and of course, the gore. Now, I'll explain what the gore is about. This film is not gory like Evil Dead is gory. The Item is, I'd say, bloody. Pretty bloody. There is one scene with a brain, and some organs, but besides that, the only "gore" you see is red liquid. There is a lot of it, the amounts are very exaggerated, and that's very funny at times (Major Spoiler: when Alex gets shot, there is an incredible amount of blood that sprays on the wall, and, after he got the bullet in his chest, he begins choking a little bit, and you see some more blood spurting on the wall as he chokes, it's put in a pretty funny way). There are some funny violent scenes, which is a necessary point for a film of this kind (see Bad Taste, Braindead, Evil Dead, Story of Ricky, and others).

Now, in a more serious tone, I can say that The Item's directing is pretty average, I'd even say that it is below average at times, with a couple of weak camera effects that just remind you how amateurish this is. But amateurish doesn't mean bad, not at all! I'd even say it more than often is a pleasure to watch independent and low-budget movies like this...I loved Bad Taste, but the directing was not good at all...Not that the directing in a movie is not important, I would never say that, but for movies like this one, it won't stop me from loving them.

The acting is extended on many levels. There are very good actors in this film as much as there are weak ones. Mr.Clark is the best (and he's the director too!) actor in this movie, I think. His character is attaching, funny, and in the same leagues than Ash (from Evil Dead), Derek (from Bad Taste) or Lionel (from Braindead)...he surely has his own style, though. He is smart, fast-thinking, he has a conscience, he can be violent, he has fun lines, he's a great character.

The scenario is very simple, but what else could we expect? If this had De Palma's Mission:Impossible's scenario, the film would really suck. The Item doesn't take itself too seriously, but I have to admit that in the end it becomes a little too serious. I still believe that the ending is cool, but the scene before is pretty stupid (when the Chinese girl has sex with the creature).

Overall, it's hard to know if this was good or bad, this was certainly not a masterpiece, but as a future cult favorite, even though it won't be the best, I give it a 6/10, because it has flaws and even with some of the jokes and everything, this will never be as fun to watch as Braindead, never.

6/10

Note: If you liked this, watch the films I've mentioned above.

"Faust: Love of the Damned" was a total rip-off of "Spawn". It has the exact same storyline...But it's still funny to see that this flick is gorier than the Mark Dippé's realistic version of "Spawn", which used to be an ultra-violent comic book series. To me, "Faust: Love of The Damned" was a revenge. It was everything I wanted to see in "Spawn" a couple of years ago. I admit that I am not at all a fan of comic books,

I'd even say I find most of them stupid, but I always had a better feeling about "Spawn", because of its values, the hero, and especially the fact that the hero is a very violent character that has to learn how to control his hatred, the violence he keeps inside...Anyways, I always thought that Spawn didn't limit himself at kicking the bad guys' butts and knocking them to the floor, he got straight to the point; he kills them. And he doesn't say a bunch of cheesy lines after he has killed someone, and he doesn't beat up a bad guy and save him before he falls down a building, to show his good intentions, his lust for justice.

Actually, you may believe that what I'm saying is besides the point. It is not. Because, like I said before, "Faust" and "Spawn" are pretty much the same thing. It also has elements taken from "The Crow", (Spoilers) like the hero's girlfriend that is raped and killed by a bunch of felons. First, there is absolutely no explanation of why they killed her. Anyways, it's not that important, even though that's the reason why John Jaspers (Faust) signs a pact with a mysterious man (played by Andrew Divoff). Anyways, I won't tell you the whole storyline because, first, it is bad (it has less elements and details that "Spawn"'s or "The Crow"'s, but I am NOT saying that the storylines of these movies are BAD), and second, see both of the movies I just mentionned, and you'll have exactly the same thing, with more richness and explanations.

"Faust" may be an absolute copy of two better movies, but that's not where the main interest is, and I'm not saying this only from a personnal view. It's all about the gore. And Faust, in one scene, after having killed a dozen of bandits (and he kills them in very gruesome ways, with many graphic mutilations and lots of blood) simply looks at the camera, like he is talking to the viewer, and says: "Too much blood, or not enough?"...That's the moment where I caught the whole point. And that particular quote made me stop the movie, and think for a while...I looked at the box, and I saw "Directed by Brian Yuzna"...I had my explanation.

Yuzna directed a handful of pretty bloody movies, and usually doesn't deliver a very impressive scenario, but focuses on the gore aspect. That's okay, but it seemed like he tried to make something with values, something with a certain philosophy. That's not a bad idea, but he took someone else's ideas. So, I guess he'll have to keep on making stupid gory movies. It's his style, and really, today, that's original, because REAL gore movies are rare these days. And believe me, "Faust: Love of The Damned" is filled with gore, from the beginning to the end. I could easily say it's one of the goriest films of the last five or six years. It really has scenes of dismemberment, mutilations, and more. And what about the shotgun hits...they were nice...It's in a scene where a woman armed with a shotgun stands in front of two men and shoots one in the torso. The guy flies away and there's lots of blood. but then comes another pretty violent act; the woman shoots a guy that is lying on the floor point blank with the shotgun. The head simply explodes. There's also a weird scene involving Andrew Divoff and the woman, where he seems to give her a huge orgasm by simply looking at her, but she then mutates into some kind of worm. I just didn't get the point of that scene.

The special effects techniques are very nice, they don't use any computers and the gore is really effective. Faust's costume looks somehow goofy, with the very fake thorns, and the "X-men"'s Wolverine aspect. Plus, I'd say that the actor himself makes the hero look inoffensive. He's not a very good actor. And his voice, his face, and his text couldn't really make us believe that he's a powerful superhero. He proves it, though, in many violent sequences where he wastes dozens of people.

The imagery is varied,and sometimes pretty nice, and there's a certain mood in the film, but the weakness of the character development ruins it all. Anyways, for fans of Yuzna, this should be your treat, but for fans of good movies, and for people who don't have the slightest interest in gore, this is pure trash. But, if you are interested in gore cinema, this film is, I think, one of the greater models of what gore should still be. In the gore aspect, this is very close to old school gore movies. It's a survivor, and a strong one, in the level of gore and in the quality of the effects. This really is a violent film, it's really as violent as Hong Kong's mangas or very bloody Comic Books.

Finally, I can say that this is a joy to see that gore remains present in the world of films, that it's not completely dead, but so rare are the films of that genre these days, that we have to be happy with movies such as this one. Compare it that way: If you're in a desert, and you're really thirsty, and suddenly, you see an oasis where the water tastes real bad, you'll still drink, and try to forget the taste. It's exactly the same thing with us, the gore fans, that are suffering from the nostalgia of what we miss today. We are ready to swallow anything that has very nice gore, even if the scenario plain sucks. Sorry.

In teh gore meter, this definitely gets a 9/10, but as a normal film, it gets a 5/10.

"The House by The Cemetery" (or, in italian, "Quella villa al cimitero") is directed by Lucio Fulci. To me, at first, it said a lot. So, by pure curiosity, I bought a copy of this film, because I started being really interested in gore cinema, and I knew that the name of Lucio Fulci was a big one, in this cinematic genre. I was hesitant between buying "The house By the Cemetery" or "The Beyond". Now I know I should have bought "The Beyond". I'll explain why.

I bought this almost one year ago. My interest for gore movies was rising, especially when I saw (and bought) George A. Romero's "Dawn of The Dead", Peter Jackson's "Braindead" and "Bad Taste", and many more. So, I went to the "Record Runner" music and movie store, with the idea that it was time for me to see a Lucio Fulci. I didn't know which one I'd prefer, because I was sort of a beginner in gore movies. So I made the wrong choice, I guess. I like zombie movies, and I thought "The House By The Cemetery" was another extremely gory, full of zombies film. Actually, that idea came to my head because I saw this title on the U.K.'s nasties list. And I have to mention that i don't really understand why it has its place in that list...really, there's nothing very shocking in this film. Yes, there are a couple of gory sequences, but they are nothing compared to what you can see in "Braindead", for example. (SPOILERS) I'll tell you the gory content, so, read this if you want to buy this movie for the gore it contains, you'll see it doesn't deserve to be bought for the gore. There is a scene where a young boy imagines a woman getting her head cut off (it's not gruesome at all), a scene where a man has his hand bitten by a bat and stabs the bat with scissors, a scene where a woman is killed with a long pick, she's stabbed in the body and neck, and there's lots of blood, a scene where you see many pieces of bodies and organs on an operation table, another scene where a woman has her throat slit and later on her head cut off, a scene where a woman is stabbed in the head (the classic knife through skull scene, not gruesome at all), a scene where a zombie is stabbed (there is a view of the maggots and blood spurting from the wound), a scene where a man has the skin on his neck torn, letting us see shortly the inside of his neck and the flowing blood). When you read this, it may sound like there's enough gore, but really, there isn't. But, considering the 87 minutes runtime, you'll just be waiting for something interesting to happen.

But, in the horror factor, this film is not bad. It has a certain scary atmosphere, some GREAT music, and a very nice ending. But there are so many things taken from Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", it's funny. You can often relate to scenes of Kubrick's masterpiece. It's like a mix of "The Shining", "The Haunting", and "The Relic". But it has that typical Italian style that is very obvious and cheesy. Fulci's directing is full of zoom ins, focuses on eyes (every character in this film has BLUE eyes!), in other words, many things that make the film look more amateurish, and others that try to give it a symbolic and bizarre aspect, for no reason. It's not the directing that gives the shivers in this film, it's the places where it was filmed.

The acting, especially from the boy who plays Bob, Giovanni Frezza, is awful. He's a total rip-off of Danny Torrance, in "The Shining". He has visions, same haircut, and the same behavior. And, by the way, if you see the english version, he has a voice that is absolutely intolerable voice. It's atrocious, he sounds like a girl, and says some really stupid lines. The rest of the cast is not as bad as Frezza, but they are just below average actors.

It's the only Lucio Fulci film I've seen, but I'll probably purchase "Zombie" or "The Beyond" or maybe "City of The Living Dead", but I'd like to know if they worth it, because I'm a huge gore fan, and I like a film with many scenes of gore, not two or three, a LOT! And I don't know if Lucio Fulci did that in one of his movies, but if he did, I'd like to know, so if anyone reads this review and can answer my questions, message me please.

So, overall, this is a movie that has a usual 80's horror movie scenario, some gore, a creepy atmosphere, and a bad actors. We really feel the Italian touch, especially in the end, with the very interesting quote :"We'll never know wether children are monsters or monsters are children." That's the brilliant point of the movie...the ending. Not one of the worst movies I've seen, but not at all one of the best, and especially not for the gore.

I give it 5/10.

"Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is, not only because of its realism or its interesting main character, a very good movie.

With this movie, I discovered an actor that never really attracted me, maybe because of SOME of his more recent projects: Michael Rooker. I know, he played in "Replicant" with Jean-Claude Van Damme, but except for that, I was pretty impressed by his filmography. Mr.Rooker is far away from being a bad actor, really. And this film, along with other productions, proves it. It was his first film, and definitely a great role to start. Many actors started their path through glory with a bad guy role. But Henry is more than a simple bad guy...

The film, in 1986, had brought a strong wave of controversy. I have to admit that it's pretty violent (not SO much, but I can understand why it was censored in the 80's). I saw a 81 minute version, which is not the whole runtime, and sometimes it was obvious that some murders had been cut. But too bad, it's true to say that the sadism and brutality of the violence brings something really intense and somehow disgusting in the film, but even with the 81 minutes version I felt its effect completely. (SPOILERS) Many murders are atrocious to see because of the graphic aspect, others are gratuitous, and others are disgustingly brutal. The graphic aspect makes it a sometimes pretty gory film, like the guy that gets his head smashed with a TV, or the guy that is stabbed in the eye and then gets his head cut off. These murders bring a sense of strong disgust to the viewer. The gratuitous murders, like when Henry gives a gun to Otis and tells him to kill anyone to see how it feels to kill someone, are probably the ones that show how sick Henry (and Otis) are. The brutal ones, without pretending that they are not ALL brutal, are the worse to watch. If you've seen Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", you'll understand. There is a very disturbing rape scene in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". But it's not only the rape that is SO disturbing, it's also the fact that they are filming everything, and Otis just can't stop watching it later. Those who found "Deliverance"'s rape scene shocking, don't see this, really, because "Deliverance"'s scene was very soft and had NOTHING brutal compared to "Henry"'s.

But, the most important point, the realism. The setting is very common. Henry, Otis and his sister live in a very small house, have very normal jobs, are not wearing some Versace clothes, and are simply looking like anybody you could meet on the street. There's a scene where Henry cleans the floor with a broom, you know, all these things you have to do in every day life, but that are never shown in movies. Movies usually show the extremes: either very rich people or poor people. But the middle-class environment is so well delivered. But we still have to understand that this is a low budget film, so even if they had wanted to make a richer environment, I doubt they could have done so. But believe me, it's a very good element of the film. The characters are also very affected (in a good way) by a near setting. The way the speak, their accent, vocabular, their jobs, their clothes, everything.

It appears that the character of Henry is an interpretation of the not THAT renowned killer Henry Lee Lucas. It's an interesting concept to make a movie about a killer that is not known as THE MOST DANGEROUS killer off all times. They could have made a movie about Charles Manson's life, but they decided to make it on someone a little less known's life. And that's good. It's like the film "Sweet and Lowdown", with Sean Penn, who plays the SECOND best guitarist of all times. It's good to see that they give second places a chance.

The characters are not so important, except for Otis and of course, Henry. Henry plays some kind of teacher (in mass murdering) to Otis, but he has more personality than that. He's a man full of contradictions, a man that has a very hard choice to make in the end of the movie, a man that has is full of nuances, but that still consists into a very dangerous serial killer. We have many hints of his past life, and it somehow justifies all of his horrible acts. Otis is different. He discovers a passion in murder and rape, but doesn't control himself, "exaggerates" too much. And Henry is aware of that. The character of Otis becomes slowly something totally different than what it was before. At first, he's a pretty normal man, with a minor violent behavior, but discovers suddenly a way to express his rage. To me, Otis seemed like a stupid junkie while Henry seemed like an experimented and cautious addict of killing people. Otis' sister, Becky,is important, but not for her evolution. She falls in love with Henry, who simply doesn't know how to react to somebody's feelings. Becky doesn't have a very important role, but her character becomes useful for one thing, and only one: love. And that's the point where Henry will be full of contradictions. And that's the most important thing, because it tops Henry's deranged mind. Henry is a nice character to analyze.

But, even with all that said, you'll never know how brilliant the ending is if you don't see it. So, overall, the urban yet middle-class setting makes this film very realistic, the complex characters make it twisted, the brutality makes it shocking and intense, and the music, directing and atmosphere are a huge contribution to this movie, that is, for sure, not the most interesting to watch, because you somehow stay pretty distant to the characters and atmosphere, but the whole thing has lots of qualities. Pretty enjoyable, and terrifying enough. "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is a great movie. It's a different approach to a serial killer's life, way more original than movies such as "Strangeland", "Resurrection", and other thrillers that are not bad, but do not focus enough on the killer's mind...and in "Henry", they did not make that mistake.

I give it 7/10, but it's really close to an 8.

And, by the way, I just couldn't believe they made a sequel to this film. Really, this fact deceived me (though I haven't seen the second film), because the ending of the first one was perfect, and a sequel simply ruins all of its meaning.

Like I said in the summary, "DNA" was one of my first cheesy experiences. And still, today, I watch this movie again and again, and I'm still laughing out loud. I have a particular affection (not in the usual meaning of the word) for this stupid, lame, pointless, laughable movie. It's the one that introduced me to a world I just can't leave; the world of bad movies. I have acquired a huge interest in this kind of cinema.

But that's beside the point. I have to say that, in every way, DNA is, for sure, one of the worst movies out there. This movie is SO unoriginal, it's awful. It's just a whole collection of cliches taken from other popular movies, such as Predator, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, and Alien.

First, I'll have to say that the acting is really bad. Especially the boy that's playing Matzu. The only satisfying point that the film could bring to me was that stupid, sissy boy's death. (Spoilers) Actually, I had the very nice surprise of seeing him get killed by the monster. That was kind of weird to see that because normally, in movies, the little boy rarely dies. But, let me tell you that it was the only good point of this cheese pie. The rest of the cast is not a lot better. Mark Dacascos (who played in "masterpieces" such as "The Base", "Sanctuary" and other stupid action movies) completely changes his acting path...in DNA, he plays a doctor! Yes, a doctor! It's strange, because in his previous and other films, he always has a violence-related character. Now the question is: how the heck could the director make a DOCTOR aggressive like Mark's character? Yeah, I mean, the first thing you know is that after 20 minutes of runtime Mark must have been tired of such a non-violent role and suddenly, this doctor takes off his smock, letting us see his muscled body and his warrior-like tattoos, and threatens the monster with a hatchet...very convincing doctor, Mark. You should try a scalpel! No, seriously, he's bad. And there's Jurgen Prochnow, which plays the bad guy, also a scientist, that discovers a mysterious formula...so mysterious that we don't even understand it when he simply adds two lines of chalk on a blackboard full of meaningless symbols that are supposed to make a mathematic solution to something that would explain where a certain creature comes from, a creature that would be some kind of deviated dinosaur...it's not clearly explained. But, the funny fact is that, 50 minutes later, you learn that the creature is not a dinosaur, it's an extra-terrestrial. Now, if that's not a complete illogic plot turn, then I'm a plastic cyber ninja...which I am not. There's also Robin McKee, a very bad actress that should definitely change her profession.

The funniest point in "DNA" is, I think, its special effects. The helicopter crash is simply a classic! It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, I think. Special effects in "Godzilla" are better than that. You have to see it to believe it, really! There's also some very bad action coordination. Mark stabs an aboriginal in the back while he's running with a machete...you should see the scene, it's laughable. The aboriginal starts falling on the ground before Mark stabs him. And the sound effects are just sometimes absent. The monster is a pure (and poor) copy of a creature from the "Alien" movies. The costume looks like a Matel action figure. Sometimes it is made by CGI, and it's even worse, especially when the monster cloaks...it was rendered better in 1987's "Predator". And let's not forget that the cloaking ability of the monster is a pure rip off of the predator, and not the only one. The movie sets in the jungle, there's one part where Mark makes traps in the jungle to kill the creature. There's a part where Mark gets out of the water and covers himself with mud to avoid being seen by the monster. If that's not pure rip off, then what is it? Certainly not originality. The part where the bad guys try to catch the monster in an electrified fence using a goat to lure the beast...doesn't that remind you of a scene with a T-Rex and a cow in "Jurassic Park"?

There are many other parts that make absolutely no sense, like when Mark dives down a cliff (another "Predator" rip off!) in the water, leaving his bazooka on top of the cliff, but taking it back when he's in the water...where was that gun? Anyways, all those reasons make of "DNA" an essential movie for any cheese fan. It really is the perfect stupid and bad movie, it's an awful piece of cinema. Cheap action, really, really laughable special effects, bad acting, some stupid one-liners, a funny and nonsense wannabe scientific content, and so many comparisons with other movies that this one ripped off. Funny stuff, very cheesy, ideal for a cheese fest night with friends.

I give it 1/10 (but it could have been 0.5/10).

Have fun!

"Resident Evil" was, originally a series of really enjoyable video games. With a dark, creepy atmosphere that could make you jump out of your seat, it created a world in which you could easily go into. It also had the reputation of being a very graphic and gory game. Another great element of the games was the plot; you had to resolve many puzzles, and your intelligence was required to play.

The same things are not all true in "Resident Evil", the film.

"Resident Evil" tells the story of a woman who had been rescued from a virus infested research center. She awakens later on, she has forgotten everything. After that, a military team takes her and brings her back in the research facility, when the effects of the virus are no longer contagious. They find that the release of the deadly virus was a conspiracy. But there are many problems on their way; some almost invincible zombies, a main system (which takes the aspect of a little girl) that wants to kill every intruder, and a security system that turns against them.

In the case of "Resident Evil", it's not the movie itself that is so bad, it's all those little things that are messed up, without ruining completely the quality of the movie. If you've seen "Deep Blue Sea" and liked it, then you'll love Resident Evil. As much as "Deep Blue Sea" was a very simple and common model of what a suspense movie turns out to be in Hollywood, "Resident Evil" is another clone of that model. What I mean by that is the presence of the similar elements, which mostly are: A good-looking girl, a bunch of men that get killed one by one, a spectacular enemy, some high-tech facilities and equipment, a very simple scenario, some violence (not graphic enough to gross out the average teenager, which is 80% of their target audience, but not mild enough to be rated PG-13), and some cool looking action sequences. It's a formula that works many times, and they chose it for a movie that promised so much, but did not deliver what the real "Resident Evil" fans like.

A movie that could have been so much more...I could easily criticize the plot, or the actors, but you know how it is, and we all know how it is. It's just normal, common, average...it has nothing special...it is an excuse to make a movie. I'll still have to admit that Milla Jovovich is not only a beautiful woman, but she's also a pretty good actress. Even though her role in "Resident Evil" did not require a lot of talent, she's still able, sometimes, to make us share the shivers she plays on the screen.

The points where I would focus a little more are two very important elements in the "Resident Evil" video games. Like I said before, originally, these games were moody and gory. Two major deceptions here. The gore...ARGH! I just can't take it, it's made by computer! This is a message to all directors: If you want to put any gore in your films, do it the old fashioned way. Digital blood looks fake, digital monsters look fake...Even with some very cheap gore/creature effects, you can do a better job than the one they did in "Resident Evil"...the same thing is true in Blade...Every single mutilation in "Resident Evil" was made in CGI, and every single one of them really looks bad. (Spoilers) There's a part where more than half a dozen soldiers are cut in pieces by lasers (and it really deceived me to see that three quarters of the human characters die in two minutes...human characters were the only hope of seeing a gore scene in this film, because the zombies in this film have coagulated blood, which is, for sure, realistic and intelligent, but absolutely not satisfying for the gore fans) and some heads are cut off, some bodies are cut in cubes. But every darn death looks so fake! Even in the excellent low-budget Canadian movie "Cube", the effect with the guy that gets sliced into dices is really, really, really, really, a thousand times better than all of "Resident Evil"'s reunited gore moments. I'm sick of CGI gore...and all CGI made movies...this is removing all the human aspects of movies...people are amazed to see things that were made with computers and almost look real...Yeah, they almost look real, but if they were done like before, they would look even more real! Well, what is the point of being impressed with things that could be a lot more simple and look better if they were done like before...It's not because technology exists that films should overuse it...Technology is a tool, and many film makers don't understand it.

The other aspect, the mood, is not delivered the same way...it's more like a futuristic atmosphere, with a certain lack of terror, a very "Blockbuster" atmosphere, with nothing really eerie. The music is not bad, but it certainly is not as creepy as the one in the games. The zombies are not scary at all, and the other "creatures" are plain laughable.

They kept some elements from the games, and that's a good thing. The city is still "Raccoon City", the train really is identical to the one in the game of "Resident Evil 2", (Spoilers) the city in the end really seems to be an image taken from the game, it's the Umbrella Corporation, etc. But, talking about that ending, which is actually pretty good, I would have seen the whole movie setting in the Raccoon City streets, like we do in the beginning of "Resident Evil 2" (the game).

Overall, I'd say that "Resident Evil" really is a disappointment, especially if you were a big fan of the games, but for those who haven't heard of the games and saw the movie and thought it was good, you should definitely check these games out! "Resident Evil", the movie, is a very common piece of entertainment, that, without being bad, simply offers some acceptable entertainment, some mild thrills, and an easy and agreeable night at the theater. It really is nothing impressive, but it's very ordinary recipe of Hollywood thriller that puts itself under a name that has acquired reputation with the years. Not that bad, but nothing great either.

I give it 5/10.

Jason X is, like the other Friday the 13th movies, a real cheesy thing. And I guess it was meant to be like that. I've not seen all of them, but enough to say that they are all pretty much the same thing (Jason comes back to life and murders many people at Crystal Lake).

Well, in this film, Crystal Lake has become a military research center (???). This element was brought up simply to keep some of the older Jason movies' roots, but in that point, I think they failed. Actually, in one way, it's really pointless, because a summer camp that becomes a research center in such a short period of time (since the last Friday The 13th film, which was released in 1991, I think, and Crystal Lake, in 2010 is a research center...huh?).

But it seems that the director wanted to keep some more fundamental roots; the bad acting. I don't know how he could pay actors that were that bad...really, especially the girls...They are stupid, stereotyped, and, the most pointless thing, they are wearing some really fashioned, tight and "show everything" clothes. I know this can be attractive for the male viewers, but really, this was pointless. The actresses are so superficial, so lame, this director must have had something against women, because this film really shows them bad. Lexa Doig, probably the worst in this film, says her lines too fast, she answers to the other character's questions like a machine...she's really bad, and the other blonde (Spoilers) that gets her face frozen and smashed is pretty awful too.

The futuristic aspect is just an excuse to bring Jason back to life. The whole movie happens in spaceships, which could have been interesting (but, knowing that it's a Jason movie, I didn't really had sincere hopes of having something interesting), but the atmosphere is not really there...I'll still have to admit that this film keeps the old dark, "almost (and that's being generous)scary" mood of the Jason movies.

But there comes the part I really enjoyed...the gore! If you've seen the previous Friday The 13th movies, you'll know that they are sometimes pretty gory. This one has a surprisingly high gore level. (Spoilers) A cop is sliced in half, many people are dismembered, killed with Jason's machete, many people are impaled...but that's nothing compared to what Jason gets...he gets shot like 300 times during the whole movie, and there's one place, where a female humanoid shoots him with a pretty powerful gun...Jason gets a leg, an arm and finally his head blown into pieces...and guess what...he still survives, not in the usual way, but you'll see what I'm talking about when you watch it. the gore is abundant, and FINALLY! a recent movie that has some REAL gore. What I mean by REAL gore is bloody special effects that are not made by computer...I'm really, really tired of that...computer-made gore does not and cannot look as good as the old fashioned way to make a bloody scene...with some real red liquid, with some real fake brains, I mean, with movies with really bad-looking gore such as Resident Evil and Blade, all directors should have realized that it simply doesn't work. Gore made by computer is for me what Jar Jar Binks was for the Star Wars fans: BULL...you know the rest. And, at least, Jim Isaac, Jason X's director understood that. There are some scenes where the gore is made by CGI, but they have the excuse that it was in a video game (you'll understand if you see it). This has some really nice gore.

Now, the killer. Jason, the one we've known, is still the same...really, except for these short 5 minutes where he's "upgraded", but don't worry about that, it's nothing very important. The whole movie puts its emphasis on Jason, who's butchering many characters, that have two functions: looking good on the screen, and getting killed. I mean, most characters in this film are there to be slashed, really. They're just cattle, human meat...that's it...And that's how it's always been, and that's how it still is.

The film is very repetitive. It's always a couple of people, sometimes with weapons, that are trying to either kill or escape from Jason Voorhees. It's an hour and a half of that. But for the Friday The 13th fans, this should be a great deal, and probably one of the best Jason movies. It's lame, stupid, gory, and has some good-looking girls, that's all it's ever been, and that's all it still is. Personnally, there's only the gore factor that really satisfied me, and I'd say that for gore fans, this is a nice deal too. It's even gorier than many of the older films! And it's funny to see how Jason would react in a futuristic world...

My lust of gore was satisfied, but if I had had the lust for a nice scenario...OUCH! I would have wanted a refund! Good gore, bad movie... I give it 4 out of 10.

Dellamorte Dellamore could be, for sure, in the top ten movies suffering of the most potential prejudices. Really...don't trust your first impressions, or don't avoid it because of its cover or its title. This has a very rich and highly intelligent content.

First, let's start with something important; this film doesn't take itself too seriously, (spoilers) there's a man in love with a severed head, a man that is getting so used to kill zombies that he doesn't even seem to notice them before killing them, he doesn't even have to look at them, he can simply continue, for example, the conversation he's having on the phone while shooting a couple of zombies that are infiltrating his house, etc. Theses were just examples of things that don't seem serious in the film, but have a very important and realistic meaning to the story, and to the viewer.

The characters in this film are not heavily-armed soldiers splattering zombies' brains (even though there are some GOOD zombie movies with that type of character). They are important (especially Dellamorte) and they have a brain that has anther use than being splattered on a wall (generally, at least!). There are so many mind twists and evolutions in their heads, it's incedible. Like when Dellamorte has a visit from "Death" and is latermore no longer able to recognize real humans from zombies, and goes on a couple of killing sprees, or the ending would be a brilliant example of that too.

The gore is generous, even though it is more realistic (??? can a zombie film be realistic anyways???) because zombies don't splatter blood from their heads, because it would normally be coagulated. But, even with that point said, I have to mention the killing sprees against human people, which are often very bloody and gratuitous. (Spoilers again) Does anyone remember American Psycho? Because those who thought that the killing spree at the end of American Psycho was funny, well you should see this one, it is so gratuitous and pointless...This film is an Italian version of American Psycho.

There are many symbols in the film, like when Dellamorte meets two other women that look like his loved one, or the appearance of "Death", or (Spoilers again!) the impression given that Dellamorte's assistant is retarded...this makes the movie even smarter and great.

The acting is pretty good, Rupert Everett plays a Dellamorte that could be classified in the "Lionel" (from Braindead) and "Ash" (from Evil Dead) rank. He's not so funny, but he's a very complex character, with lots of secret faces to discover. The one who plays his chubby assistant is good too, and Anna Falchi is sensual (she does what she has to do in this film, adding a touch of something beautiful and pure in a macabre atmosphere, and that's the symbol she represents).

The directing has something eerie, "cold", you'll never feel like a place could be warm in this film, and that's only one of the points that give the viewer a hint of Dellamorte's reasons for going insane. The film shows so many things that represent our every day life style, and where it really gets a bonus merit is with the fact that it is still a zombie movie...with a brain.

So, overall, I won't give you an overview of the story, because: first, there are probably a hundred of other reviewers that already did it, and secondly, because you should discover it by yourself, and if you do that, the spoilers I gave before won't reveal anything important, and you'll be able to enjoy this film in all its goodness.

This is a film that may not please to everyone, because I'll admit it, it's not so attaching, but it surely deserves a watch, especially for those who don't believe that a zombie movie can be intelligent...and Dellamorte Dellamore proves it with even more strength than Dawn of The Dead, which is more entertaining, but poorer in the brain factor.

Watch this if you like good scenarios, zombies, and gore (and if you're one lame pervert that is ready to rent a movie to see a pretty girl's bare breasts, which I am not).

I give it 8/10.

I can't believe that Fire on The Amazon needed to be cut (there's the R-rated version of 78 minutes and another one of 85 minutes). Really, there isn't anything particularly disturbing...well, there is absolutely nothing offensive...really.

And for those who think that the nude scene with Sandra Bullock worths it, I don't know what planet you can be from...really, I didn't know there was that scene before watching it, and if I had known, I wouldn't have rented this, because, even though the scene doesn't show anything, I didn't want to see Sandra doing the thing.

Anyways, these few lines were an overview of the whole film's point, so you can imagine how pointless this film can be. The storyline has nothing particular, though it is not bad either, but nothing comes out of this movie...It talks about an environmentalist that has been murdered (and the killer used an arrow, to make people believe it was an indian-were they making a joke to show how stupid authorities can be and believe that if the guy has been killed with an arrow, it automatically has to be an indian guy that killed him?). And a journalist (Craig Sheffer)(who has the bad -and that will probably get on your nerves- habit of always taking photos) followed by a woman that works nearby (Sandra Bullock) investigate and go further in their researches of the real killer (because an indian had already been accused).

Well, the acting in this film isn't bad at all, and that's really surprising, because Sandra Bullock has, usually, the habit of playing her characters like an half-brained maggot. But in this film, she is actually really natural and good. The storyline is very ordinary, but its development is really poor. The directing is painful to watch, especially because of the picture quality, but also for the atmosphere that it delivers-it makes the film even more boring.

Actually, the major problem with Fire on The Amazon is the plot. Really, it looks as if they first wanted to make an adventure movie, with an investigation, but the director and producers seemed to have had a change of their mind, and to have changed their objectives of the film. Let me explain. (Spoilers warning) There's a part where Bullock and Sheffer try to follow an indian guy in a boat. When they arrive, another man tries to kill them (and hits Sheffer in the shoulder, after what he seems totally okay, by the way), but they survive. After this mild peril (and the way it happens it really is mild peril, because the director doesn't seem to know how a scene of suspense should be done!), they join the indians in their village, and they eat some kind of herbs that make them high. And that's where the director had his mind twist...he made his characters eat some herbs and he gives the reason that it's an indian ritual...and it gives him a reason to introduce a scene of sexuality, where Sheffer and Bullock (who previously couldn't stand each other, by the way) make love while they're high, in very multiple positions (and that's what shocked the censors, even though there is no visible nudity showing anyone's private parts). Now, the question is; why did they put this scene? Maybe they've been inspired by the herbs they smoked before writing the scenario...and it's an inside joke by the producers...I didn't find it funny anyways...After that, another mind twist from the director, which is to kill some characters. There are some gunfights (really, this doesn't even deserve to be called "action", the fight scenes are shameful).

One other thing, the running time. I've seen the 85 minutes version, and even though 85 minutes represents a very short film in my opinion, this was long and dull. Nothing happens in this film, nothing makes you jump on your seat. Every time something supposedly (or that is supposed to be) interesting, you just realize how lame and wrongfully filmed it is. Luis Llosa (who also brought us masterpieces such as The Specialist, Sniper, and of course, Anaconda- feel the sarcasm here?) just doesn't know how to deliver some scenes, and in this film, it happens to be the most important ones that he missed.

Finally, Roger Corman is the producer...I'm saying it again, Roger Corman is a symbol...when you see that name on a movie box, and you're looking for some quality film, avoid it. Roger Corman is a synonym of "bad movie" or "cheesy movie" or "lame movie". And this one doesn't even have the merit of going in the "cheesy" category. This is plain bad, and boring. Bullock acted very well, for the first and last time in her career, but when you're falling asleep while watching a movie, even if the lead actress is good, it's still a very bad movie...

I give it 3/10.