Change Your Image
mojo-15
Reviews
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
A grand message placed upon a tedious story.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Requiem for a Dream = ***
- Unrated (for pervasive drug use, sexual content including some considerably graphic activity, for strong language and some graphic violence)
I remember when I first saw the trailer for this film. I wanted to see it so bad almost instantly; I love all the art-house films with flashy style such as RUN LOLA RUN and NATURAL BORN KILLERS. Then, as I learned more about the film, I became drawn into the plot and my craving to see it grew more intense. Why not just see it, you say? A different subject, but the film's harsh NC-17 reputation kept my age group out of theaters. I had to wait for the DVD release.
When I finally saw it, I have to say I was not as impressed as I thought I would be. Maybe it was because I built it up too much in my mind beforehand or whatever, but for some reason it just wasn't as effective as I had imagined. The first half of the film is great. I cannot deny that. All the characters are leading such happy lives and it gives that happiness off to the audience in vibes; perhaps this is why watching the last half was just so dreary: Hubert Selby, Jr. completely murdered his array of potentially content lives - and director Arronofsky doesn't spare the viewer a moment to look away.
I disagree when commentors here say that the final images are brutal and disturbing... it is not so much the violence as it is watching your best friends suffer and atrophy. Does the film make it's point? Of coarse. Should they screen it in high schools? Absolutely not. The story was far too small and closely focused; broader issues of drugs are much more effective, not saying what CAN happen. I guess I just think the plot feels a little set up.
However, this is not to say that the film is bad. The film is very good. And I compliment it's makers with all my strength for daring to at least go a little further forward in terms of intensity than past films similar in theme. See it for yourself and you'll know what I mean.
Happiness (1998)
Thought-provoking, realistic, and appalling. See it.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Happiness = ***
- Unrated (for strong sexual content including open, graphic sexual discussions, and for language and some violence)
I heard that this movie was disturbing before I rented it. Then I saw it and although none of the material really stuck with me, I was very off-put while viewing it. So I wouldn't really call this movie "disturbing," but it was very sinister all the same.
One thing that at least shocked me while watching it was the open discussions of sex. Not only between certain characters (such as a father and son), but also how freely the film displayed this information to the viewer. The material was unrestrained, as all films *should* be but rarely are.
As for the film-making style itself, well there was none. It plays like a documentary. But I don't think anyone interested in "THE MATRIX"-quality pizazz would be watching this anyway. The atmospheres are dull and drab, possibly on purpose, and they offer no visual comfort. So, even in a literal way, this movie is hard to watch.
The movie relies completely on the script. It's all discussion and dramatic arguments and what not. It could even be a play. The main characters are all in a life they don't want, except for certain ones that ARE happy who don't realize they are not wanted or cared for. These range from a pederast father who rapes his son's friends, the son who wants to ejaculate for the first time as his peers do and can't, an obscene phone stalker who can't confront women, and a woman who loses over and over again and seems doomed for failure. The title of the movie refers to what all of the characters are in search for.
Although this movie is unpleasant, appalling, offensive to some, and emotionally wrenching, it rings TRUE, which makes it all the more disturbing. It proves how much sexual relationships really affect our lives ("all that Freud sh*t is true you know") and how much related urges can destroy them. Everyone should see this movie.
Fargo (1996)
The best modern Noir out there.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Fargo = ****
- Rated "R" (for strong grisly violence, pervasive language, and some sexuality/nudity)
The Coen Brothers put on the best show they are capable of (and are still known for) right here, in "FARGO." The story is simple and elegant, while the script is equally plain and appealing. The casting director really scored big with this one; all roles are perfect and acted out with amazing precision, especially McDormand, but then again, who didn't know that?
Oh, but that's not all. The direction is compact and clean-cut, and the dark tale of a kid-napping gone wrong is oddly mixed with humor and satire, and it even makes fun of northerners accents! It works! The Burwell score is one of the most enlightening and spine-tingling of the 90s. The Roger Deakins cinematography is again, very simple but masterful. Even the run-time of the movie fits in to the other factors; the length is enjoyably short and easy to handle.
You might as well buy this movie without seeing it first; you'll love it!
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
The ultimate horror freak show.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Dawn of the Dead = ***
- Dawn of the Dead (for horror enthusiasts) = ***1/2
- Unrated (for a disturbing and horrifying apocolyptic depiction of extremely explicit gore and other assorted extensively graphic violence)
The plot is simple here, ala "NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD," and is nothing special. The acting is okay.
But what makes this film an utter masterpiece is Romero's horrific vision of dehumanization and apocolypse at it's worst. Basically, it is a two and a half hour gore fest with style and class (!). Seriously folks, I'm warning you now: THIS FILM IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC!!!! George Romero spares the viewer nothing; all violence is explicit and un-hidden; bodies are ripped open from end to end, guts thrashed about with no pity for the audience. YOU HAVE BEEN CAUTIONED!
You just might need to get a night-light before watching this movie. It's a scream!
P.S. - Steer clear of censored or otherwise butchered versions, such as US 'R' cuts. I always recommend watching complete versions of films, but especially for "DOD," you need to see the original version as it was envisioned by the director.
Magnolia (1999)
Interesting character portraits.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Magnolia = ***1/2
- Rated "R" (for pervasive strong language including some vulgar, coarse dialogue, drug content, and for some sexuality/nudity and violence)
The movie introduces itself with a narrator explaining how "strange things" happen all the time, and gives examples, with the rest of the film as one long final example of characters strangely woven into one who all save each other and go to hell and back together... without really knowing it. These characters range from a lonely cop who only wants to do good in life, the drug addicted woman who he falls for, her incestuous, cancer-stricken father/game show host, two starring brainiac contestants (one a winner from way back in the 60s, the other a neglected child), the dying man who produces the show, and his regretful wife, caring nurse, and long lost son. Somehow all of these people share their emotional extremes together in waves of misery and nirvhana all on one full moon-ish day.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson tells us a heartfelt story with pain and joy to spare. Although utterly bizarre, "MAGNOLIA" miraculously rings truth, despite several odd moments of an almost science-fiction nature. At a staggering 3+ hours, it manages to interest the audience and all those who are willing to put in the time and observe three dimensional characters interacting realistically for once. A triumph, it still never manages to have a clear emotional climax, it all sort of runs together in a big blotch of sorrow and every sinful situation you can think of. But lets ask ourselves: does that really matter? If you just want to connect with a handful of people without a phone or modem, no. This is the type of movie you will walk away from hoping for a part 2, like a favorite soap opera where you save a certain part within yourself to care and hope for these imaginary characters. Wrenching and brilliant, if even flawed at times.
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Not as good as I hoped for.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Secrets & Lies = ***
- Rated "R" (for language and thematic elements, including some sexual material)
<MINOR SPOILERS>
Extremely original, interesting film with intense emotional scenes for sentiment lovers. A young black optometrist hunts down her birth mother to discover a poor white woman with an unstable lifestyle. Along the way, she meets her family for the first time.
Brenda Blethyn's performance, as always, is extremely strong and intense, while supporting cast members put in above average takes aswell. The only thing I guess really didn't hit me so well with this movie was the climax. I wasn't so keen on the emotional ending with the entire family. I thought it should have been a one-on-one type thing with Blethyn and her daughter. But if the audience wrote the movie, it wouldn't be very interesting, now would it?
In Dreams (1999)
Dreary and rewardless.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- In Dreams = **
- Rated "R" (for horror violence/gore and language)
I was warned about this movie and advised not to rent it; told that it was disturbing. I did so anyway, hoping for just that, but was disappointed.
This movie isn't disturbing. At least, it won't be if you have experience with the more intense breed of thrillers. As it began, I found myself interested, despite the plot being very similar to previously explored themes of the 90s, but soon it got very tiring and the midsection droned excitelessly.
As I struggled to keep myself awake (okay, okay, it isn't that boring; I was up late), I realized that it was simply unoriginal and given routine treatment of a dull story. I did, however, like the eye-candy art direction and enjoyed Bening's performance - even though her character was hollow to me.
This movie wasn't *bad* - it is one of those that could be ***1/2 or ** depending on your interests. Even though I tend to like intense psychological thrillers ala "SE7EN," this was just very routine and dull. But like I say, if you're really into it...
Kalifornia (1993)
More of a drama then a thriller.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Kalifornia = ***
- Unrated (for strong violent material, considerable sexuality, and language)
I rented this film expecting an in-your-face summer-Blockbuster-quality celebration of Brad Pitt's face, but was happily surprised and disappointed. This really is more of a drama, and very grim at that... I remember some emotionally intense Duchovny voice-overs.
Pitt plays out his possibly un-sexiest film ever with startling talent. Who started out as a hopeless yet harmless "white trash" husband became realized as a violent, disturbing alcoholic with a messed mind. During some of the latter stages in the film, I found it hard to keep watching him - he was unpredictable and scary. This proves very good writing and acting.
The whole movie is filled with bizarre, sensational scenes that made me hold my breath not fewer than once, and I don't mean action scenes. I mean dialogue scenes so brilliantly crafted I actually winced and gasped at what I was seeing. It was like watching a rhino and a lion put in a cage and watching as they gnawed each other to death. Again, I am very impressed with the screenwriter(s); whoever they are did the impossible: mixed oil and water.
I also very much enjoyed Juliette Lewis's performance. It is so rare for this talented young actress to make an appearance these days that when she does it is such a joy. Some of her moments in this film brought me to tears. I mean that. The emotions this girl can arouse in your head are incredible, and I clearly remember getting blurry-eyed on a few occasions.
I almost feel like I'm cheating the quality craftsmanship the film makers have displayed by only giving "KALIFORNIA" a *** rating. But the dark feelings that it stirs are too potent and depressing to raise it. I do believe that everyone should see this movie though. I truly do.
Bride of Chucky (1998)
Look past the bad acting...
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Bride of Chucky = **1/2
- Rated "R" (for graphic horror violence/gore, language, and some drug and sexual content)
The first time I saw this movie, I thought it was horrible; possible the worst I had ever seen. However, I am the type of movie goer just like many others that change their minds upon multiple viewings. I rented it again remembering all of the good parts and ended up loving the whole thing.
The style and energy it carries is the best thing in the movie. Dark scenes, high-bass Rob Zombie tunes, and a brilliant Jennifer Tilly in skimpy outfits! If you look past the bad acting in this film, there isn't much not to like. I mean, looking at it from a serious critic's point of view, the film can't climb up very high on the star scale, but the film is so fun and lovable, what the hell? You'll love it, Chucky fans. Hell, fans of a fun movie on a Saturday night will love it too!
La vie rêvée des anges (1998)
Amazing character definition.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- The Dreamlife of Angels = ***1/2
- Rated "R" (for some sexuality and nudity)
This is the kind of low-budget indie that represents the respect people pay to non-mainstream movies. The plot is very simple and yet so elegant. Hand-held camera, and fewer-than-normal cuts; these elements are all here.
But what really stands out in "DREAMLIFE" is the character development, another thing that indies are known for. By the end of the movie, you feel like you have known the characters for years. You care for them. And what other thing is widely more strived for than that? Screenwriters and film-makers dream and hope that their films can effect audiences the way "DREAMLIFE" did. Watch this movie, and you will gain two friends.
Unknown, but almost better for it; it makes you feel like it was placed on the shelves just for you. What a trip.
The Piano (1993)
The best modern epic... a sheer delight!
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- The Piano = ****
- Rated "R" (for some graphic sexuality/nudity and brief violence)
Folks, I know a good movie when I see one. This movie compares to "GONE WITH THE WIND." I liked it more than "SCHINDLER'S LIST," and i am ashamed that it only got a 7-point-something on the IMDB scale. It should be in the high 8s and somewhere in the top 50 of the infamous "250 List."
From the moment this film fades open from black, the gorgeous music will sweep you off your feet and into another world. And when I say it is a joy to watch, I literally mean it. The lush colors and swirls of light are comparable to a Monet masterpiece set spinning in motion. Costumes, art direction, and cinematography all contribute.
I don't know how long it took to film this movie, but it must have taken for ever; all of the actor's movements and expressions are *perfect.* I LOVE HOLLY HUNTER! She carries such strength in her face and is so reasonable to watch, and her eyes speak more than words ever could. She deserved that Best Actress Oscar more than any other actress of the decade. Sam Neil, Harvey Kietel and Anna Paquin are *equally* as good.
The script and direction is first rate. The dialogue is crisp, realistic and memorable. The movie carries itself so gracefully, just like the main character in her lavish hoop dress. Oh, people, rent it!
Basic Instinct (1992)
A high-velocity sexual thriller.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Basic Instinct = ***
- Rated "R" (for strong, graphic sexuality and violence, language, and some drug content)
This film may be considered sleazy or cheap by many standards, and it may be. Paul Verhoeven directs, so right there you know you're in for a wild ride. Michael Douglas is fine and Sharon Stone is great, but why all the rave for a run-of-the-mill mystery thriller?
SEX
Pure, old-fashioned, enjoyable SEX. And VIOLENCE. And DRUGS. SEX, VIOLENCE, DRUGS, RAPE, LESBIANS, SEX, VIOLENCE, GORE, MURDER, SEX, NUDITY, VIOLENCE, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, DRINKING, SEX, NUDITY, VIOLENCE, GRAPHIC, EXPLICIT, SEX, VIOLENCE, FORCE, POWER, PULSE, SEX, POUND, SEX, VIOLENCE, SEX, DRUGS, SEX, SEX, SEX, SEX, SEX...
You find out.
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)
A family favorite.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Christmas Vacation = ***
- Rated "PG-13" (for brief strong language and other mild sexual expletives)
What a classic. This is the best out of the "VACATION" films. My family and I whip out the tape every November to prepare for the holidays. Basically, it is just a mainstream comedy that scores a bit above average. It will definately have you laughing in every scene, though. Enjoy.
Hannibal (2001)
Terrible... an insult to "SILENCE."
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Hannibal = *1/2
- Rated "R" (for gruesome violence and some language)
Even though I heard bad reviews about this film, I still began it with high hopes. I read the book, too, which fed my interest. But let me tell you folks, this one was *bad*...
The whole production quality is terrible. The script is cheap; it tries to be sophisticated and clever to live up to Ted Tally's "SILENCE" script, but it doesn't. The casting is simply terrible (with the obvious exclusion of Anthony Hopkins, whose always exhilerating performance is the sole reason for the *1/2 rating). Julianne Moore tries, but she just can't live up to Jodie Foster's subtle strength and assurance. All other co-stars are, plainly put, a shame.
<POSSIBLE SPOILERS> One thing that bothered me was how Mason Verger was made out to be some sort of gerbil. His face was skinned, but that doesn't cause his face to be lop-sided and distorted, or his hands to be gnarly and his body limber and elderly. Why oh why they felt they had to do that, is beyond me. Just to get a few whimpers out of the audience? It came off as very desperate to me. <END OF SPOILERS>
I am repulsed by Ridley Scott and his film crew.
Fight Club (1999)
Starts off well, then...
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Fight Club = ***
- Rated "R" (for disturbingly presented graphic violence, sexuality, and strong language)
This movie started off very well. I noticed from the beginning of the titles, with the rock 'n' roll in the background, that it would be good without a doubt. The first twenty minutes were very interesting, and the next hour after that was so intriguing, I thought I was in love.
Soon after, however, things got a little bizarre, and that comfy, welcoming atmosphere was beginning to vanish. The plot was becoming stranger and stickier by the moment. I'm not sure if the shocking ending, which seem to be so popular these days, struck me as cool or disappointing. It left me with an awe which would keep me thinking about it for days.
The acting is fun, with plenty of fighting for the guys and enough of Pitt for the girls. It shouldn't be considered mediocre or below for any young people out there at all. It certainly wasn't for me. It's just that the immediate ending was very abrupt after a long climax and it left me with thought-provoking sensations. Definately a must see, even if not entirely enjoyable.
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
The best modern thriller there is.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- The Silence of the Lambs = ****
- Rated "R" (for grisly, graphic images, language, and some nudity)
When I hear people talk about this film, it seems like it is some sort of horror movie with excessive, extreme gore. It really agitates me because in fact this is almost the opposite of the truth. "THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS" is not a horror, but an intense drama - a thriller. There is violence only when necessary or to accentuate a particular scene. However, it is the manner in which the film is presented that intensifies the plot. It is a mature drama.
All scenes are grim and eerie; director Demme is to blame for all the bold, creepy images and camera work. But still, "SILENCE" retains something more than just a creep-fest: the plot is as tight as a rope holding a two ton piano, and the dialogue is crisp and sophisticated. Howard Shore's haunting score is equally as jarring.
In short, this film rings truth and still manages to creep. I wouldn't say "scare," although I'm sure some would. It's just a well-produced drama, as I say, brought up to the next level. And it's very good.
Cherry Falls (1999)
Terribly cliched to the point of comedy...
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Cherry Falls = **
- Rated "R" (for bloody violence, sexuality, language, and brief drug use)
This movie definatly tried to be a cross between "SCREAM" and "AMERICAN PIE," but as I was watching it, I found that it was in fact EXACTLY the same, without the extra spice that made each of these other films worthwhile.
As the film began, it seemed like a teenage horror film with good intentions but below-average film making quality. Then the plot started to unravel: teenage victims at Cherry Falls HS must lose their virginity to escape an anonymous killer's wrath. So... the kids decide to throw a huge orgy and call it a "ball." (This is where the film's title comes into play.)
The killer is just so obvious and predictable that it takes the only thing this type of movie has going for it: the surprise. But this movie had none of that; people walking down dark corridors questing for a possibly imagined noise.
Some of the acting is somewhat interesting, but otherwise, "CHERRY FALLS" is nothing but an orgy with some blood on the side, and a DAMN funny climax (but I don't think it was intended to be.) This might only bring pleasure to diehard "SCREAM" and "URBAN LEGEND" fans. Have fun.
Whipped (2000)
She's got you all whipped!
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Whipped = **1/2
- Rated "R" (for sole strong sexual content with dialogue, and for language)
There is one thing to know before seeing this movie: the whole 90 minutes is *completely* sex-related. It follows four guys who sit around a diner table and talk about past sexual episodes. That said, it was very entertaining. Of coarse, this may not apply to women (although they will most likely enjoy the ending).
However, three of these men (except the married one) discover the same amazing woman... and they all continue to date her! Pete is hilarious and breathtaking in that fabulous role. Mind you, the **1/2 rating applies only to people who can let go of their values for an hour and a half and enjoy some trash.
Disturbing Behavior (1998)
A waste. How Typical.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Disturbing Behavior = *1/2
- Rated "R" (for violence, language, drug content, and brief nudity)
As with most other late '90s "horror" films, this movie is horribly cliched: a group of teenagers, including the new kid Marsden, discover that the faculty and various other assimilated students are trying to "hypnotize" them into perfection.
A good cast is wasted here, and a (limited) few ideas as well. It's just so boring that it's a wonder that the studio threw so much money at a terrible concept. Holmes is a joy to watch, though.
Se7en (1995)
Absorbing crime drama, with moderately disappointing climax.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Se7en = ***
- Rated "R" (for grisly, gory images, and for language)
"SE7EN" combines a sophisticated, crime plot, with a fun, heavy-metal type quality lingering in the background. The atmosphere is grim and unsettling: perfect and delicious. The first 3/4 of it are absorbing and gripping; an above-average thriller. As the film moves onward, the first few of the climactic sequences ease up, and the killer is revealed. But that's just the beginning...
Personally, I hated the killer. I thought he/she was annoying and typical. Also, I think that screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker made a mostly unnoticeable but wounding mistake: the killer is "out in the open" for too long. I think that his/her mysticism, which kept tension for the first hour and a half, was the coolest thing going, but it was killed in the end, like a vampire burning in the open sun.
But don't let this stop you from picking it up with a box of pizza on the way home from work - you'll like it almost definately.
The Doom Generation (1995)
Plotless farce by a confused director.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- The Doom Generation = *1/2
- Unrated (for frequent graphic sexuality and related dialogue, gory violence, strong language, and some drug use)
Whatever the statement in this gore and sex fest is, I couldn't understand it. Three teens go on a violent spree and experiment sexually along the way (and all their purchases cost $6.66). Does this sound significant? No? Good, so it wasn't just me.
The acting is so amateur, it is noticeable to even the most unskilled eye. The whole thing plays like a soft-core porn movie with those corny plots, and an absolutely HORRID ending. And although I'm sorry to say it, some of it is kind of interesting. Hence, it is just a notch above terrible.
Braindead (1992)
Extremely experimental horror fans only!
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Dead Alive = *1/2
- Rated "R" (for very grotesque violence and gore)
- Unrated (for nonstop extremely explicit and gruesome gore)
This movie really does not need much critique. To put it plainly, it sucked. Hard. The plot is the worst of the year, and the acting is frustratingly uneven with the rest of the movie. The mix-match of comedy and horror, although terrible, is maybe the best thing this film has going for it.
The only reason I would recommend this movie is because it lives up to the quote on the front of the box; it is indeed the goriest film I, and many other IMDB residents, have ever seen. For these creative effects, I give *1/2 only. So you might aswell get the unrated version if you are to see this movie at all, but if you are nothing but a gore lover, than this film would be of a BOMB quality.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
A disgrace to the original.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 = BOMB
- Rated "R" (for graphic horror violence and grotesque gore, including a sexual threat, and some language)
The beginning of this film leaves hope for a few chills, but once Leatherface and his jittery brother make their first main attack, i knew that hope was lost. People, I beg of you, PLEASE do not see this movie before you see the first one! But, even if you have seen the first one, read the spoiler below if you don't want Leatherface to weaken in your mind...
<SPOILER> It absolutely ruins Leatherface's image. Why did the screenwriters feel that he would actually fall for a girl and not kill her? What are all those little jiggles and silly notions that he makes? Leatherface is supposed to be SCARY! Here, he simply is a laugh riot. I don't know how I will feel when I see the first movie again. That's how horrible this movie ruined the series' main character, who *used* to be one of the most scary in my mind. <END OF SPOILER>
It's just sad. Tobe just isn't himself anymore in my mind; the direction is cheap and such a let down since the first one. What the hell is up with that last shot? How sleazy is that?
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
A true classic in the name of terror.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- The Texas Chain Saw Massacre = ***1/2
- Rated "R" (for gruesome horror material with some mild violence, and for some drug content)
Tobe Hooper created this all-time great with the best possible elements. Leatherface and his family are absolutely horrifying, unlike in the sequels, and there is barely any violence! I just hate it when people say that this movie is explicit. The violence is off camera, imagened by the viewer, and not seen.
Low budget and created with freedom, this movie will give you the jolt that most other movies don't dare to give. Classic images will remain in your head...
Pink Flamingos (1972)
Shock value has lost its effect over the years.
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten
***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see
*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece
**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws
** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)
*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments
BOMB = Not of a viewable quality
- Pink Flamingos = **
- Rated "NC-17" (for explicit sexuality and nudity, extremely coarse crude humor, strong language, and some graphic violence)
This movie will be sparked with interest for first time viewers, as it is entitled "The Bible of Trash Films," and the tag line is "An Exorcise in Poor Taste," and also because of the "NC-17" rating, and numerous other rumors. I was one of these people, but the so-called "shock value" must have been depleted over the years because it did not chock me at all. Sure, i was surprised at the graphic content, but not *shocked.*
Still, this movie is interesting, and Divine is just hilarious to even look at. Also, it was fun to see John Water's earlier works (I had seen more of his modern movies before this one). It WILL hold your attention for a full ninety minutes, but it is hard to say whether it is extraordinary or crap. Possibly a mix of both.
NOTE: My ** rating does not go to the "shocks." It actually goes to everything except them; the critic side of me would raise the rating if these perversions were in fact removed from the film, but the normal, curious person I am would be disappointed to see them go. In short, see it for yourself.