Reviews

I was fortunate to see this film about a year ago, and have become curious as to why it still has not seen the light of day. A little research has indicated it still might.

The storytelling here is simple but also inspired. Young couple Katie and Micah plan to film their home at night while sleeping in hopes of capturing evidence of a ghost that seems to haunting them, or more precisely Katie, since this is not the first time she has experienced these type of visitations. We watch the footage of the young couple sleeping and gradually things do start to happen. Katie and Micah also film themselves discussing the situation, a visit from a spiritualist, and a few other random moments. Doesn't sound like much, right? Or that it could possibly be the slightest bit scary. Well, Oren Peli's little indie film is everything a scary movie should be. In other words, it is indeed very scary.

Peli accomplishes the improbable through utilizing tension, character and imagination. The found footage concept used in the movie, a la "Blair Witch", "Cloverfield" and the recent "Quarantine", is perhaps slightly more effective in this situation. It's usually a still camera with things sometimes occurring just beyond what we can see. The result is a heightened sense of reality and a greater sense of dread as to what those sounds could be. We've all been there. We here a noise out in the dark and are frightened by the unknown. Peli seems to understand this greatly and uses it to great effect. When the camera does move it is often done slowly, perhaps in an effort to avoid the shaky-cam effect, but it also helps create greater tension.

But perhaps the one element most important to this film's success is the performance by Katie Featherston. In the beginning we meet a sweet young woman who has concerns about what could be happening to her. Perhaps a metaphor for fears regarding her relationship with Micah and their new home. As we approach the final scenes, Katie has been reduced to a person on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and we are deeply concerned for her well being. Each night as our young couple goes off to sleep we experience a deeper and greater dread that something bad is going to happen, and we don't like it. It helps that Ms. Featherston is an unknown (it's difficult to imagine caring this way about a recognizable actor) but her ability to create a believable and sympathetic character is remarkable and turns an effective thriller into something extraordinary.

It's not often that a movie will truly have me on the edge of my seat. Watching it I was reminded of those days long ago when I first saw "The Exorcist", "Halloween" and "Alien"; movies that have stayed with me over time as moments spent in a theatre genuinely frightened. It doesn't happen that often anymore, movies are either too gimmicky or too unbelievable or too music video flashy to get to me. But a little movie made with no money and no special effects did. To the cast and crew of "Paranormal Activity" - Thank you!

p.s. with regards to the future of this movie, the latest news is that it will be released and not remade as earlier planned. No idea when that will happen, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this special little film doesn't get left on a shelf.

They don't make 'em like this anymore.

Private Parts was the first feature film for Paul (Eating Raoul) Bartel, and it is an odd little film combining elements of 70's exploitation, Bartel's usual luridness and dark humor, and some genuinely creepy situations.

Acting slightly more naive than she actually is, Cheryl has become a resident of her aunt Martha's seedy and eccentric filled Los Angeles hotel. While most of the folk Cheryl meets seem harmless enough, someone is going around hacking up nosy visitors. The plot may be a familiar one, but this movie will take you places you could never imagine, mostly due to the strange relationship that emerges between Cheryl and George, a neighbor who is an avid photographer.

For a 70's cheapie, the film looks great, and it completely captures the grimy feel of its hotel setting. As Cheryl playfully makes her way through the locked doors of her neighbors, it's easy to become anxious wondering what she may encounter. The cast on a whole is also exceptional with Lucille Benson as Aunt Martha a particular stand out. Lucille Benson's portrayal is an expert mix of sweetness and an unsettling sternness.

Saying much more would give away too much. Suffice to say, this is a fun and unusual little 70's thriller. Anyone who enjoyed "Eating Raoul" or "Death Race 2000" would probably get a big kick out of this one too.

People seem to like this movie. Really??!! Well, comedy is very subjective, but still. There was nothing funny in this movie. Maybe a few moments that were amusing, but nothing clever, witty, or laugh inducing at all (for me).

The obvious film this should be compared to is "It's a Mad Mad Mad World", which I do find funny. "Mad World" is equally over the top, too long and often doesn't aim for anything more witty than things being smashed. But it does contain some good comedic performers. Not so with "Great Race". Lemmon does a much better turn as the foppish prince than as the always yelling Prof. Fate, probably because the character isn't around long enough to overstay his welcome. Prof. Fate though gets tired after about 5 seconds. Natalie Wood is lovely, but comedy doesn't seem to be her thing, or at least broad comedy. Curtis is fine in his role, but isn't given much to do other than be a hero.

There's only one person who shines in this film and that is Ross Martin. His Baron is played straight, never broad. His sword fighting scene with Curtis is easily the most engaging moment of the film and his exit is probably one of the 2 or 3 chuckles the movie got out of me. His pratfall is funny because all of behavior prior was sure-footed and precise.

"The Great Race" was dedicated to Laurel & Hardy and seems to want to capture the spirit of their old classic short films. For clever slapstick comedy instead of watching "The Great Race" spend 30 minutes with the actual Laurel & Hardy in "The Music Box" and you will actually see something quite funny and still have 2 hours with which to watch some other quality comedy. Hell, if you want pie fights then stick to The Three Stooges.

4 out of 10 for good production values and Ross Martin.

Claiming the TV mini-series of The Shining is better than the 1980 Kubrick film because it's more like the book is like saying the 1976 version of King Kong is better than the 1933 film because the special effects are better. Yes, the mini-series is more like the book, but that doesn't mean it is good.

I loved the book, and was surprised at some of the changes in the 1980 film. But I still loved the movie. Movies are a visual medium , so not every concept from a book will work. Best example is the topiary hedge scene. In King's book, the idea of attacking hedge animals was frightening. Kubrick didn't use the idea and inserted a hedge maze. The hedge animals show up in the mini-series and the scene is laughable. Visually, hedges aren't scary. I'm guessing Kubrick understood this.

Worst of all, the mini-series tries too hard to be a drama. The Shining is a scary story, why not concentrate on that fact? So much time is spent on exposition and character background, that the result is just frustration waiting for something to occur. Basically, the problem is pacing. Usually, people complain that Kubrick's film are long and drawn out, but his Shining is a crack of the whip compared to this adaptation. While the acting and look of the film is decent, I'd have to say that King's adaptation fails mostly because of the fact that it is just like the book. Books work cause they're in your head. Movies show you those images. Kubrick's version worked because he concentrated on the aspects of the story that worked best visually. That scene where Jack is in the empty bar which suddenly is fully stocked with an eager bartender is great stuff, and those moments tell us all we need to know about Jack's drinking problem and the effect the Overlook was having on him.

Robin Tunney plays Zoe, a woman who finds herself trapped in her own home through the home arrest program after being falsely accused as a cop-killer. Tim Blake Nelson plays the home arrest worker who often visits to check on the equipment. The new film by Finn Taylor works like a romantic comedy, but also contains elements of a thriller. Cherish could easily have become buried in pretense or a messy mixture of genres, but it succeeds though, primarily by focusing on the complex character created by Tunney.

Most of the film takes place inside the loft apartment Zoe has been confined to. Gradually, she finds ways to expand her circle of territory, which mirrors her personal growth. The irony is that when she was free Zoe never connected with anyone, but when under arrest she is able to reach out and develop friendships. Tunney does a great job of playing an intelligent, but obviously flawed character. Tim Blake Nelson has a much smaller role, but he does a lot with it. When he becomes obsessed with Zoe he shows it in small ways, staring at a photo, buying her a radio. It's the kind of behavior I think we've all experienced when someone captures our attention. Other cast members that pop up in small but memorable roles include Jason Priestley (rather unrecognizable as a smarmy co-worker), Liz Phair, Nora Dunn and Brad Hunt as a stalker. But special mention should be made of Ricardo Gil, an amateur actor (he regularly works as a photographer) who plays Zoe's neighbor, a gay Jewish short person. Seems a bit extreme when writing it, but the nice thing is that Gil plays the part well never delving into pathos or caricature. The soundtrack is fun with several cheesy pop songs from the 70's and 80's, which often are played for comedic effect like when our stalker dances around to Hall and Oates's `Private Eyes'. What Taylor is aiming for though, is showing us people who want to use pop songs as a means of expression. It's a great twist to the usual method of just inserting an appropriate tune.

Roman Coppola's CQ is not a satire of campy 60's sci-fi, it is an homage, and it's also a very thoughtful film on the balance between art and entertainment. The movie stars Jeremy Davies (Saving Private Ryan and Spanking the Monkey) as Paul, an American filmmaker working in Paris on the B picture Codename: Dragonfly and his own personal project about his life in Paris with his French girlfriend Marlene (Elodie Bouchez).

The film within the film, Codename: Dragonfly, is a hoot. It's a Barbarella style film taking place in the exciting future of the year 2001 about a sexy secret agent (Dragonfly) who has been asked to infiltrate a group of rebels camped out on the moon. Coppola gets the look and style down perfectly, from the bad mattes all the way to the groovy music. I loved the fact that he includes a scene where it's snowing on the moon. The cast working on the film is a great collection of showbiz vets and some newcomers. Gerard Depardieu plays the temperamental director who is kicked off the project. Giancarlo Giannini plays the producer who wants nothing more than to finish the picture, and decides to hire Felix DeMarco, a young hotshot director. DeMarco is played by Jason Shwartzman and he really brings the screen to life every second he's on. Also working on the film is Billy Zane playing the Che Guevara-like rebel leader, John Phillip Law as the Corporation Chairman, and Angela Lindvall as Dragonfly. Lindvall does an amazing job with her role. As the actress Valentine, she displays a sweetness that is effortless. As the character of sex-kitten secret agent Dragonfly she exhibits great comic timing and understatement.

Where CQ didn't work as well for me were the sequences where Paul is struggling to come to terms with his personal film. Marlene asks him why he wants to make a film about himself, and he states that it's because he wants to make something honest. She responds, `But what if it's boring?' I found myself feeling the same way towards parts of CQ. But my guess is that Coppola is exploring the question of art vs. entertainment not only through the story but through the film itself. Copploa is like Paul, trying to create something honest and possibly boring while also trying to create an entertaining story. Where Paul and Coppola succeed in bringing art and entertainment together is through a very nice scene between Paul and his father (the wonderful and underused Dean Stockwell). Through their conversation Paul gets the germ for his idea on how to end Codename: Dragonfly. The notion here is that even in the silliest of pop entertainment it is possible to inject a personal vision. After all, despite its campiness, Barbarella is a great reflection of the era in which it was produced. In essence, it is art. I would recommend seeing CQ for the Codename: Dragonfly scenes alone, but Coppola's debut feature is a solid film with solid performances throughout.

One of the best films I've seen in a long time. It's not perfect, and some people will not like it at all, but it manages to be daring, insightful, and funny and contains an utterly beautiful performance by its lead, Angela Bettis. Also staring is Jeremy Sisto, very good as Adam the object of May's affection, and Anna Faris (the Scary Movies) as a flirtatious co-worker.

May is an intensely shy girl who is also a little unbalanced. In the opening minutes we get her life story; a lazy eye caused her to be self-conscious, her mother was obsessed with perfection, her only friend is a rather creepy looking doll that stands in a glass case. The film follows May's attempts at making human contact and the problems that arise when she finally does. Bettis plays May with just the right amount of offbeat charm and loner strangeness. We want May to find happiness, but not at the loss of her demented quirkiness. There's a moment when Adam shows her a gruesome student film, and her reaction is priceless, for her face expresses such joy in the gory visuals and in knowing that Adam is also a little twisted. Throughout the film, McKee and Bettis give the viewer massive amounts of these types of delightful touches. Another favorite is McKee's use of the sound of cracking glass that mirrors May's crumbling psyche.

I would rather not give away any more of the story, for it works best when the viewer knows little about what will happen. To call this movie darkly comic would be an understatement. Imagine Ghost World with elements of George Romero style horror. I did have one or two problems with it (if you haven't seen the film, just skip the rest of this paragraph), and my biggest problem is with the end. Without giving it away, the ending somewhat betrays the character. We understand May is troubled, but she developed a strong sense of self in killing. The final moments don't gel with what has come before, and make for a truly unhappy ending since we develop such a strong affection for May, even once she becomes a killer.

25 years ago, I saw this movie as a teenager. Now I work near the Dept. of Health building where several scenes take place, so I thought it would be a kick to watch again (for about the 6th time). Once again, I was struck by how strong this thriller is and how it's themes and sense of dread have become stronger over time.

The original from the 50's was a great parable for the Cold War (your neighbors can't be trusted, conformity is the enemy, the film could actually be claimed by both schools of thought as a metaphor, that is a true sign of greatness). This version by Phil Kaufman and screenwriter W.D. Richter ups the ante on the paranoia factor by moving the action from small town U.S.A. to big diverse city. In a big city people become insular, relating to few, and knowing fewer. Thus, the concept of an underground, or hidden, movement working behind the scenes becomes all too real. People are chased down the street and witnesses simply stare, if that. The desire to assist the authorities turns into a struggle against the system. If alien invaders (or in our modern society - terrorist factions) were to suddenly absorb individuals in a big city, I imagine it would happen just as it does in this film. Quietly and under our noses. We'd see strange things, but dismiss it as our imagination getting the better of us. And all the while, those with influential positions could easily be part of the menace and easily use their position to complete the takeover. Images of cultivation plants in remote areas and cargo ships in deserted shipyards being loaded with pods says it all; there would be no way to stop the process.

The movie works on all levels. It's suspenseful, has moments of humor, quality acting and production values, fun cameos (Robert Duvall, Kevin McCarthy, etc.), a great ambient score, effects that still look pretty damn good, and a great shocker ending. They don't make genre pictures like this anymore. An interesting footnote; just weeks prior to the film's release, San Francisco was hit by two tragedies, the mass suicide of the Peoples Temple and the assassination of Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk at City Hall. This must have dealt an unnatural eeriness to Bay Area audiences still reeling from real life events while watching scenes of their city fall to unseen invaders operating out in the open in front of the same City Hall.

OK, as the other comments for this film indicate, this is a "so bad it's good" type of movie. Shatner obviously wanted to break from his Capt. Kirk persona, and plays a real lady-killer, I mean he actually kills women. But the plot ain't important. This movie is a howler. The chase through the car wash is my favorite scene, but it's really just the tip of the iceberg. You've never seen outfits like the ones on display here. And Shatner's acting has to be seen to be believed. Plus, there are these wonderful moments that you can't find in most films, like a small girl asking a stranger for a ride, or a character flipping out when some balloons get in his way. I could go on and on, but my advice is to see this film should you get the chance. It does exist on video, and the best way to see it would be with a group who understand the joys of bad cinema.

With just a few characters and very few moments of shooting or battle, No Man's Land depicts the human toll caused by war. It's not just lives that are lost, but truly our humanity. The struggle is represented by two soldiers trapped between lines desperate to return to their respective sides. At times they are civil to one another, but the history of conflict continues to get between them. Governmental and bureaucratic forces work only to further dehumanize the individuals, even when operating with good intentions. The main theme would have to be the need for the individual to do the right thing, and it's final shot is an inspired and haunting image. Of the films I've seen lately, this is by far one of the best.

This movie comes very close to the themes explored in Dark Half. That film looked at the darkness lurking in a person, and how our creative expression can be a release for those impulses. Bruiser looks at the negative affects of ignoring those impulses. I'd have to say that I enjoyed Bruiser more than Dark Half, but there are still a few problems. The biggest problem is the end, which really just doesn't amount to much. Hardly any payoff or drama. Also, Romero relies too much on creating major a**holes for his antagonists, and Bruiser has one of the biggest. Luckily, he got a decent actor, Peter Stormare, to add some depth to what could easily have been a one dimensional bad guy. All in all a decent film, just missing a strong ending.

When I saw Deep Red, I discovered moments that had clearly been stolen by American filmmakers for their now classic horror films, especially John Carpenter's Halloween. Watching Phenomenon, I had the opposite reaction. Several scenes seemed to stolen from well known American films like Friday the 13th and Poltergeist. This does not make it a bad film, just not an original like Argento's films from the 70's. My biggest problem with it comes from a rather disjointed story. Too many elements seem to be thrown in without much development. But, the presence of a knife wielding monkey makes this movie a must watch in my book.

My disappointment in this film comes more from lost potential than actual problems with the film. With the setting and the concept, a real white-knuckler could have been produced. The scene with Hank digging out his treasure all alone at night was the moment I thought the film would really take off, but it was not to be. A solid film in all other ways, but when I think of what it could have been. O boy!

The Hypnotist begins with a series of strange, and rather cheesy, suicides. It then turns into a whodunit thriller involving cops, psychoanalysts, and a shady TV hypnotist. Plotwise, that's as far as I go. What amazed me was how engrossing the story became as it got closer to the end. Suddenly, the story became more mysterious, eerie, and tense.

The acting is solid throughout, especially the older detective. The special effects are not the best, but on occasion quite effective.

Best of all, the movie contains some truly creepy and gripping moments. A lone figure hanging on a neon sign, an interrogation that becomes rather sinister, a race against the clock to save a potential victim, and the actual villain at the end. I was really surprised how well the movie built to its conclusion, especially after its average beginning.