Change Your Image
ecto216
Reviews
Identity (2003)
Very intelligent up until the ending
It's not the easiest thing, to write a review of a psychological thriller without giving away too many important points in the movie. But I'll try to give you an overall idea of what to look for and what's worth your attention in this film.
The main thing I appreciated about this film was the unique way of being able to tell a story. This isn't a solid beginning to end film, it's a bit jumbled up, which adds to the movies excitement (Especially the accident scene) and really keeps your head going at full throttle to understand what you're seeing. It's impossible to not have your head going throughout the movie. With that said, the story and way the director decided to shoot it really helps the film out, and separates it from your usual `Who done it?' façade that most movies in this genre exploit.
Moving on, great cast! John Cusak and Ray Liotta were perfect for their roles. I don't know how happy I was with Amanda Pete, but overall she worked out. The other characters however, fit into a cliché, which was unfortunate. The little boy, the feuding couple, the eccentric husband, even the prisoner Liotta's character is transporting looks like your average comic book creep, which is really a shame considering the sets used in the film were so nice, and there was no need to have these formulaic characters in them. It took away from how creepy the film could have been, and more importantly, ruined the tone during many a scene.
Now what most people are interested in, the plot. The plot is the hardest thing to write about. I'll say this much: This movie has one of the most interesting, original plot twists that I have ever scene. People who have seen `The Usual Suspects' (and who hasn't) will appreciate the way this movie plays itself out. I can't imagine anyone being able to figure out why the events at the motel are happening, and form the correct conclusion on their own. Quite the unique piece of cinematic story telling.
The biggest problem this movie has is not knowing when to stop, specifically the last five minutes of the movie. After digesting what was just dictated to you by the characters in the film, you sit back and think, `wow, that was really something. I was never expecting things to turn out that way.' However, once the ending is laid into place and you recline in the theater seat thinking how smart the movie was, you're treated to a double ending. What you think was true, is not and the true `killer' shows their face. In what has to be the worst idea in psychological thriller history, someone decided to make a certain character responsible for the acts committed that night with the motel murders. What a mistake! What an awful mistake! There was no need for it, it was unnecessary and completely out of place.
Overall, the movie is smart, but plagued by one of the worst ending in recent history. Even psychological thrillers that I hated, such as `Angel Heart', had better endings than this! Great cast, great sets, great story, but in order to maintain that feeling, you have to walk out before the last two minutes of the film get revealed. Overall, 7 out of 10.
Night Terrors (1993)
They got the terror part right...it's a terror to watch!
Tobe Hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. Like any other horror fan, I loved the Texas Chainsaw, but I think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title, you should have at least more than one hit movie. I can't really think of any other movie Hooper has done (on his own, don't count Poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. And this movie, Night Terrors, just backs up my point.
Poor Robert Englund, I give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. He did what he could. As for the movie itself? Pure drudge. Unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes, a story that must have been penned in an our, and really just awful scenery, music, and cinematography. Nothing in this film is redeemable. Don't waste your time.
Overall, 1 out of 10. I feel sorry for Hooper, his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. I hope that he's able to pump out at least one more good flick, that way he can do his cult status some justice.
Shadowzone (1990)
If you thought Full Moon movies made in the 21st century were bad...
Wow, I'm at a loss for how bad this movie is. I love Full Moon and all of their early work, such as Puppet Master, Trancers, and Demonic Toys, and I have a great appreciation for a lot of their talent and independent films, but this?! This doesn't get any stars from me!
There is not one character to care about, the plot is full of holes, the story, or lack there of, is atrocious to begin with...I can go on, but I think I'll stop. Bottom line, if you thought full moon movies they make today like Trancers 6, Stitches, and Shrieker suck, you haven't seen anything until you watch this! At least those movies had maybe one or two redeeming moments. This one has none
Take my word for it and listen to this warning. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME! I love horror, I love B-Films, but this movie fails to meet the expectations I have for both. 1 out of 10
Trancers 6 (2002)
It'll never be the same (or in this case, even close to good)
I know that Full Moon, or any other film studio for that matter, could never recapture the fun and cheesy sci-fi feeling that was the original `Trancers.' And with the last two entries in the series having Jack Deth in medieval times instead of futuristic Los Angeles, it became quite obvious that there really was little hope in reviving the Trancers series. Breathing new life into a film is one thing, but taking our main character out of his element and putting him into the past, well, it didn't work! So now with Trancers 6, Full Moon has breathed so much new life into the series that we don't even deal with Jack Deth any more. We now deal with his daughter, Jo. Jack is in her body and must go into the past and fight the Trancers one more time.
*MINOR SPOILER: FIRST SCENE OF THE FILM REVEALED*
To prove how bad this movie is, you only need watch the first two minutes of the film when the original Jack Deth appears on the screen. But it's not actually Tim Thomerson. It's clips of him and sound bytes strung together (trust me, you can tell they're strung together) horribly to provide the viewer the last of the true Jack Deth humor. And from this point on, things only go down hill. Having this girl, Jo Deth, as our main character while Jack Deth is supposed to be in her body, is the worst idea in the world. Having this cute young woman act as a rough and tough man isn't the right track at all! It doesn't work and it really comes off as foolish.
I'm not going to go into the aspects of special effects and makeup because most reading this know what Full Moon has become: A really, really, low budget enterprise. I don't know what to say about this movie, except I really wish Full Moon could be like it was in the days of Demonic Toys, Puppet Master, and Trancers 1. Back then, while the special effects weren't great, the story telling was. They made serious b-movies for serious B movie and horror fans, and that just doesn't take place today with the new Full Moon Studios. I yearn for the good ol' days, and truly hope, that Full Moon can pull itself out of this horrible slump that they're in right now.
Trancers 6 gets a 2 out of 10.
House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
3 years of waiting has come to an end...was it worth it?
I went to the theater at about 1:00 pm to get tickets to an 8:00 pm show of Corpses. Some would say that's crazy because this movie won't do well, but I say it was smart considering less than five minutes after arriving to get my seat at 7:30 pm, an announcement was made that the movie was sold out. Nothing could make me happier than to hear this movie was sold out since horror movies these days haven't exactly been up to par and people are starting to ignore the genre (Though who knows, it could have been sold out based on Zombie's fan base). Waiting for the lights to go out in the theater, one thing circled everyone's mind: `I've waited 3 years to see this film.' And so, the lights dimmed, the movie began, and an hour and a half later it was over. So?
Without a doubt, this is one of the best horror movies ever made! There wasn't one part of this entire film that didn't have your full attention. Sure, you could see that this thing was butchered to death to give it its R rating, but still, there was just enough in some scenes to really make any horror fan happy. I also should mention, that this is probably one of, if not the funniest, horror film to date. There are jokes and comedy driven dialogue in almost every scene and some of it was just great, especially the character of Spalding. Whoever said this movie had a low budget was completely wrong too! The makeup and sets were awesome, especially during the last minutes of the film when you get to see, well, I won't ruin it but I do stress that the makeup was out of this world.
Now there are some minor problems that exist. While the film is set in 1977, a lot of the characters were given horrible lines that make them sound like their from the early 90's. The clothes the characters wear are fine, but the way they talk isn't reminiscent of the 70's at all. The film also is laced with cut scenes of weird images that while sometimes serve a purpose to give you background on the story, aren't completely necessary when they flash in every 3 seconds. Some of them are just annoying and meant to add an exploitation aspect to the film. Not a great idea.
To wrap this up, forget what the critics said about it, forget any naysayers of this movie, and judge it for yourself. I went in with a so-so expectation after reading others reviews, and I came out loving it. Any horror fan should at least see this movie once. However, lets all hope Rob Zombie is going to put out an unrated DVD with all the deleted footage.
8 Mile (2002)
Through the eyes of a non-Eminem fan...
Coming home from a long day at work, I planned on retiring to my room to relax and partake in my favorite past time ritual: watching B-movies. Tonight's feature presentation? Spiders 2 starring
well, staring no one that's important, but that's not the point. As one could deduce from the title, the film revolves around giant arachnids constructed from plaster and other molding materials whose sole purpose on earth is to terrorize young nineteen year old couples about to consummate their premarital love. Sound interesting? Moving along, as I stepped through the door to my house, there lie on the dining room table, a rented copy of `8 Mile'. Going upstairs only to find my brother, the renter of this movie, asleep in his bed, I decided not to let his money go to waste on a movie that no one was going to watch. And so began my trip down 8 Mile road
Before I can talk about this movie, two things must be said. Number one, I'm not an Eminem fan. I don't like rap music, not because I'm your average white suburbanite, but because it truly does not appeal to what I like to hear in my music. As for Eminem himself, I think the man is somewhat of a genius; he knows exactly what to say, he knows exactly who to offend, and he definitely knows who is going to take a stand against him (which is what he plans on). This Detroit rapper isn't just a troubled youth from the streets, he's much more; he's got brains. And although being an Eminem fan has nothing to do with being able to enjoy a movie, it does when the context of said movie revolves around Eminem, which leads me to the second thing that needs to be addressed: the basis of this film. We have to make clear that this film really revolves around Eminem's life; it's a semi-biographical piece. The fact is, put Eminem in any feature film as the main character at this point in time and it's going to succeed. However, put Eminem into a feature film discussing his taboo life which is covered by everyone from household kids to senators in Washington, and you've got yourself a blockbuster.
Now that that's out of the way, finally, we arrive at the movie itself. After almost two hours straight consisting of a ritualistic, movie-watching silence and no in-between pausing, the verdict has arrived. Eminem is guilty of an excellent job of debut acting and this movie, which serves as his partner in crime, is found to be truly worth the near two hours that it takes to watch. From start to finish, this film creates such interest in its struggling characters, whether their on the screen for one minute or one hour, that the pace becomes unrelenting regardless of the scene moving at a fast or slow pace. Credit must also be given to the set designer and lighting technician who both created an atmosphere, which could take any six-figure CEO watching this film out of their mansion and into a trailer park. The combination of freestyle rapping set in with the night sky scenery and police sirens in the distance create this ambient affect, which you truly don't get in many well-crafted dramas such as this one. All together, for those who are on the ladder about whether or not to partake in the viewing experience of `8 Mile', I have this to say: take it from a heavy metal listening, horror movie watching, white, middle class suburban college student, this movie will have you mesmerized regardless of social status and leave you feeling inspired to pursue your own dreams of excellence.
And I suppose that's where the problem with this movie begins, with the pursuit of excellence. Or better yet, Eminem's excellence. Those of us who finished the film thinking that we could stand up to our enemies, burn the bridges we built with our parents, and fight anyone in our way, need to take a look at the big picture. Sure, it's broadcast on national television all the time, stories about how people go from nothing to something and make a life for themselves; Jewel lived in a car, Eminem lived in a trailer park, but the reality is none of us are going to win rap battles, pave a path to Dr. Dre's record label, and get a movie based on our lives. My point is, the inspiration one gets out of this movie, while at first is a nice warm feeling, quickly fades as one realizes that it's impossible to live the life that Eminem has and even more impossible to rise to his level of stardom. It's a dream that honestly, maybe only one or two of us will get to live. It's with that said, that the inspiring feeling one gets out of this picture is false, because none of us will follow Eminem's footsteps.
Otherwise, there's the usual gripes with lots a films: some bad dialogue, some lousy acting, one scene with unnecessary sex talk from Kim Basinger that had absolutely no place in the film and felt very out of context. It was probably added to stress the fact that Em's mom was not a very sophisticated woman, but it ended up delivering the message with poor taste and really just got me to laugh, which also could have been why it was used. On a side note, `Cheddar' of Eminem's posse was also a lazy addition and unpleasant idea. Used mainly to emphasize Em's unique style, this token white character adds a sitcom feel to the drama of the story. Every time he says some dorky `white person' line, I anticipated canned laughter to kick in directly after.
But the biggest problem this movie has is Brittany Murphy's character, Alex. While everyone else in the film is obviously not pleased about his or her situation, be it in the rap world revolving around Detroit, or even Detroit itself, Alex comes along and 8 Mile goes from compelling drama to ghetto `Almost Famous' (That's the best way I can think to describe it, you know, `Almost Famous' with Kate Hudson and Patrick Fugit?) Brittany Murphy plays a dirty Detroit vixen who perfectly mimics Almost Famous' Penny Lane played by Kate Hudson, except this time instead of having Ms. Penny Lane inspire an up and coming journalist with her connections to the rock and roll world, this knock off Penny Lane inspires a rapper by, well, unconventional means. Alex is an unrealistic, unwelcome, and out of place part of this film. She acts like no one in the rest of the group and sticks out like a sore thumb. This is the only part of the film I had major issue with.
Overall, I'm giving `8 Mile' an eight out of ten. I really enjoyed the movie much more than I though I would and have found myself retracting the negative comments I made about it without even viewing it first. Anyone looking for a movie to watch on a night where you have nothing to do can pick up this film and really get into it without getting bored. The pacing is fast, the rap battles are intriguing, and character development proceeds at rapid paces and never lets go. Even if you're not an Eminem fan, if you liked the proceeding descriptions of what this movie has to offer, I'd recommend you at least rent it.
Head of State (2003)
Less funny than "Beverly Hills Ninja" (now that takes skill)
What exactly happened to this movie? Some one as funny as Chris Rock, who is one of comedy's greatest talents, should have been able to write something much better than this. Sure the movie has the typical Rock jokes that we all know and love, but the lack of story telling hurts this picture more than you could imagine.
Within the first 15 minutes, the audience experiances Rock's character going from activist, to candidate, to accepting his position of a so called "politician." There is not one single moment where the movie or Rock slows down and asks, "What exactly am I doing running for office?" Everything is rushed and jokes are thrown at you as if you were too stupid to understand them if they were quitley set in.
Sure, Bernie Mac is funny and sure Chris Rock is hilarious, but not in this film. The lack of a good script and prior experiance as a film director laid waste to any hope this film had of being a smart, funny comedy. Instead, once the film decides to slow down and examine the characters and situation, one gets the sense of utter boredom and begins to beg the picture to get back on the fast track.
In conclusion, how many times can you run the same "white people act like this, while black people act this joke" joke and laugh, especially when it's done it a PG-13 environment? When you have someone with talent like Chris Rock, it's best to keep him in the HBO standup rutine because that's where he can go all out and truly make people laugh. This excuse for a high school marketed movie just really isn't as funny as Rock can truly be. At least when he did Pootie Tang, it was acceptable that the movie was supposed to be as silly as possible. This one is actually supposed to have somewhat of a story, which just ends up falling flat on it's face. By far, this has to be one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. 1 out of 10
Color Me Blood Red (1965)
The best of the famous "Blood Trilogy"
After seeing the first two installments of the Blood Trilogy, Blood Feast and 2,000 Maniacs, I was a bit skeptical about watching the final film, Color Me Blood Red. It's not that the first two were awful, but by no means can they be considered good either. With that in mind, and the usual conclusion that the third part of trilogies are sometimes "lacking", I put the movie in my DVD player and assumed I'd be stuck counting the seconds go by on my clock.
Could I have been more wrong! This movie is awesome! It's got just the right amount of nonsense and low budget feeling to it, and really pulls out some decent acting abilities from the lead character in the film, our beloved murderer/painter. The way he reacts with the story and physically and mentally decomposes throughout the movie is pretty convincing. The viewer really gets a sense that this is a troubled guy who turns to some sick methods to prove that he truly is a great painter.
With the help of a dorky team of teenagers, that perfectly resemble the generation they exist in, this movie was really able to provide a solid viewing experience. It is with that said, that I declare Color Me Blood Red as the best of the Blood Trilogy. That's not to say the Blood Trilogy wasn't worth the purchase I made (it was interesting to see the origins of gore) but without a doubt, this movie stands alone from the other two. Even if there never was a Blood Trilogy , even with the absence of Blood Feast and 2,000 Maniacs, this movie stands alone as a great example of how story and gore can sometimes mix for the best. And with horror movies these days not understanding that, it's nice to see you can always pull out an old b-movie and enjoy a good story and blood & guts at the same time. Overall, 8 out of 10.
Mutant Hunt (1987)
80's gore at its best, B-Movies at their worst
What in the name of God did I just witness? For anyone who is wondering if they should watch this movie (all 2 of you), leave it on the shelf unless you are planning on becoming a makeup artist. Let me explain. The story goes like this: Some evil woman is in this battle with some evil guy. Why? I don't know. This battle involves mutants/cyborgs. Why? I don't know. A foursome of heroes meet up with each other in hopes to disband the evil mutant army. Why? I don't know. They fight the mutants who seems to keep coming back to life and murdering civilians. Why? I don't know!!!
So here's the scoop: Either I'm an idiot who just didn't pay attention to this movie or this movie has absolutely no plot. This film is nothing more than a string of events strung together with cheesy music that sounds like something out of a homemade porno film and sound effects so bad, that they sound as if they were generated by someone slapping their hand against their knee and breaking some eggs on the kitchen floor.
The only saving grace of this film is the gore and makeup. This horrible picture really shows what the 80's horror genre was capable of when it comes to the blood factor. Some great stuff in here that still leaves me in shock of how it was pulled off, especially the mutant that helps the good guy; some great scenes with him. But otherwise, why bother with this crappy flick? The movie itself gets a 0 out of 10, but because of the gore and good f/x I'm giving it an overall 2/10.
Blood Feast (1963)
No one said the origin of gore had to be interesting...
I saw the box set for the Blood Trilogy (Blood Feast, 2,000 Maniacs, Color Me Blood Red) on the shelf of the Best Buy that I work at. I got an awesome employee discount on the retail price of the set and decided to take it home and watch it. I love horror movies and B-films and was interested to see the origin of gore (or so the box said)
So here I am writing about Blood Feast, supposedly one of the first, if not the first, gore movie ever made. Now, while horror movies in the 60's were mainly monster films like Frankenstein and so forth, I suppose you could call this a breathe of fresh air for the genre. But one thing: it's a bad movie. The plot is there, and the acting is so-so, but this 67 min. film is going to feel like forever. Here's the thing people need to remember about this film: Just because you can show gore, doesn't make the movie effective or interesting.
Yes, the gore was good and the blood and everything was staged quite well. But the story, while intact, was lacking. I can see that if this was set out to be an full out exploitation film how it might garner a pardon for the lack of plot, but since it's mainly a stab at a different type of horror flick, I don't give it as much credit as others. In closing, interesting to see where gore films started, but a bit boring never-the-less. 3 out of 10.
Head Hunter (2002)
While big budget doesn't make the movie...
While a big budget doesn't necessarily mean the movie itself will be worth the time to see, it always helps to have a bit of cash in hand to at least cover things such as, oh I don't know, LIGHTING?!
I like to think of myself as a bit of a mogul when it comes to B-Movies and horror films. I've seen a hell of a lot; everything for famous flicks like the Friday the 13th series to low budget Troma and, my personal favorite, Full Moon movies. But nothing can quite prepare you for this one. A movie shot with what has to be absolutely no budget. I swear, maybe a couple of hundred went into this, but that's about it.
Starting from the opening shot of the Dead-Alive Productions logo, you know you're in for a treat. But let's skip the obnoxious criticism and get right to the point.
The trailer for this movie is really good. The White Zombie track along with the back-story of the Killer (In 1983 he killed 13 people, in 1984 he was sentenced to life, Today, he escaped) really gets you interested. It's only when you begin to watch the movie that you realize it's not what you thought. Little story about the killer is reveled which is really unfortunate, since that was the strong point of the film for me. If I would have known about who that murderer actually was, I might have been kept more interested. But instead, some dude is thrown a knife and a mask and told to imitate Jason Voorhees.
While the story isn't that bad, and the ending is pretty nifty, the biggest pet peeve I have with this film is the camera. I've seen some pretty bad films in my day (read my review of Plutonium Baby) but at least with those films, I could see what was going on. Because this entire film was shot with a handheld camera you buy from P.C. Richards, and half the film takes place in the dark, it's impossible to make out what's going on; even listening to the dialogue doesn't help. The story is there, but I might as well of been blind! And the sound itself doesn't help at all to move the story along. The same background music plays over and over for the extent of the film, never once changing to `tension' or `suspense.' Really lacking and sloppy.
To wrap this up, it's not an awful film. Credit should be given to the director who wrote, directed, and starred in his flick. But the camera, along with some really bad casting choices (I gather their wasn't much of a group to chose from though) really ruined it. On a side note, I bought this on DVD. Don't expect any extras but the trailer. The print is horrendous like I said, the disc does carry a 5.1 track, but its pure crap, especially the bass. Overall, I gave this one a 5/10.
Plutonium Baby (1987)
Troma strikes again! Is any happy about that?
Ah yes, Troma. Nothing quite says pure garbage like a Troma film. Whether it is The Toxic Avenger, or Sergeant Kabuki Man, you can always expect the worst from this rag-tag group of filmmakers. And nothing proves that statement more than this movie.
Plutonium Baby is really 2 movies in one. You see the movie is broken up into 2 parts: 1 part takes place where the campers discover the plutonium outcast, and the other part takes place when they take him back to New York with them. While the first part offers a bit more than the second, neither is worth your time. Sure, there are one or two decent deaths, and the makeup on Danny's sister is not bad at all. Like many other good B-Movies, this one has it's moments. Only, this movie's moments make up maybe 1 minute of this 85-minute picture.
Here's the problem with Plutonium Baby: this movie must have been thought up as an idea, never meant to be produced into a script. Someone must have said, `Hey, how about we do a movie about a kid mutated by radioactive waste?' And then someone else came along and said, `Nah, that wouldn't work.' And so, the idea was probably scraped off of someone's shoe, presented to a couple of people, and became a film. Only most films use scripts. This one is so atrocious with its dialogue that it has to have been improvised at least 75% of the way through. Plutonium Baby has no real story to latch onto, no real characters with any sense of human intellect, and nothing to keep you interested.
In conclusion, please, do not support Troma and go out and even rent this movie. Leave it on the shelf. If your looking for a real horror/B-Movie, do yourself a favor and rent anything by Full Moon Studios when they were in partnership with Paramount Pictures. Full Moon and Paramount put out I think 35 films together and most of them are real good, if you're into Horror/B-Movies. Troma should take a lessen from Full Moon on how to do it right. Since I can't rate these films with anything below 1, Plutonium baby gets a 1/10.
The Chilling (1989)
As least the box art looks cool...
The combination of Dan Haggerty (Elves) and Linda Blair (Exorcist) is enough to make any horror fan excited about this movie. And once you see the cover art to this film of a frozen zombie coming out of their cryogenic chamber, you'll think you were in B-Movie Horror Heaven. At least that's the way I approached this film. But boy, was I in for a shock
I love horror movies. I love B-Movies as well. Nothing makes my day more than a cheesy little film about zombies, monsters, murderers, that sort of thing. But to say that this movie was lacking, is an understatement. This movie was pure trash. You'd think the zombies would look somewhat like what the cover-art of the box displays, but instead, you get actors with masks that are clearly sold at any Halloween display counter. Furthermore, the script is beyond pitiful. Our main character, Joseph, suffers the loss of his wife and son and seeks solace in the warm-hearted Mary, played by Blair. Not once do you see any sign of sadness or discomfort on the part of Joseph's character. Instead, we see the head of the cryogenic labs, a man named Dr. Miller, eager to get the dead bodies and experiment with their organs. There is no emotion or anything to make you believe you should give a damn about anyone in this film.
All and all, very disappointing. All the elements to make a great horror film were there. You had your zombies, your decent actors, and your story. But the lack of good writing and little if any sense of direction screwed this one up royally. Overall, 4 out of 10
The Alpha Incident (1978)
Night of the Living dead gone sour
If ever there was a movie worthy of criticism, the Alpha Incident is it. Borrowing heavily from Night of the Living Dead, this film is a complete bust. The story keeps the viewer somewhat interested, and the characters aren't that terrible, but nothing could save this film from its blatant, rip-off ending.
Here's the scoop. A couple of average white collar types come into contact with an unknown substance (I gather that's the sci-fi part IMDB makes mention to, because other wise this movie is pure drama) and must remain cooped up in a train station, without sleep in order to survive. Each character is unique and different, but unfortunately, not very interesting. You have your smart mouth, your damsel in distress, your play-it-cool man, the nervous/shy guy, and of course, the complete moron. That may be the only saving grace to this film, the complete moron named `Hank.' Hank is a really funny character and is the only one who kept my attention, only because he's so innocent and dumb. Notables? The film has one, count it, one scene of true gore, but at least it's a goodie.
I recommend leaving this one on the shelf if you're looking for a sci-fi film, because this really isn't a science fiction piece. Sure the cover art on the box might make you think it is, but looks can be deceiving. However, I still give this one a 4 out of 10 for it's classic portrayal of characters. The way the actors talk and move within their parts is perfect. The smart mouth always laughing, the damsel always worried; it's something out of a comic book gone wrong. Anyway, unless you want to see what an impact Night of the Living Dead truly had, don't bother with this.
Bride of Chucky (1998)
weakest of the series, but better than the average horror movie
Yikes! What happened here!? Actually, there is a good explanation for this mediocre addition to the Child's Play legacy, if I may be so bold to call it a legacy. While BOC isn't the worst horror film ever to come along, it certainly is not the best. Here's how it breaks down.
First of all, there are some good things with this film. It pays homage to other great horror films in hilarious ways, much to the effect of Batman Forever actually, if you remember the scene in the prison where all of the prisoner's personal belongings are being stored. Second of all, I love the way chucky keeps getting reinvented. The great thing about the Child's Play series is how they keep up with the overall story. Unlike Friday the 13th, which just gave up on how they should keep bringing Jason back to life, Child's Play always offers a reasonable and somewhat believable explanation why the good guy doll comes back to murder. Plus, Chucky looks really wicked in this film. I felt that with #3, he looked too much like an animated puppet, and with this one, he was completely fixed. There are also some cool death scenes, which are always welcome. But I'm afraid humor and death, while being key to a horror movies success, is not always the answer. A little thing arises called `plot' which this movie completely ignores.
Follow the timeline back to the original Child's Play. Serial Killer Charles `Chucky' Lee Ray was aged in his late thirties early forties I'd say. And since no exact date was ever given in the film, for arguments sake, since the movie was made in 1988, lets say the events in the movie were also taking place in 1988. Lets also assume that Charles was 40 years old. As we all know, Andy Barkley is 6. Now fast-forward to Child's Play 2. Andy is about the same age, so Chucky is as well, so he's still 40 years old. Then in Child's Play 3, Andy is 16. so add 10 years on to Chucky's life and that makes him 50. Bride of Chucky takes place 10 years after Child's Play 3 so now Chucky is 60. Tiffany, Chucky's girlfriend, has been waiting to get her hands on the doll because back in Child's Play 1, even though we never saw her, she was Chuck's main squeeze. But Tiffany is only in her late 20's! So let's say she's about 28. Subtract her current age, 28, from the timeline years of events , 20, and presto! That would mean while she was going out with Chucky back in Childs Play, she was only 8 years old!!! Can you say `makes no sense'?
As one could see, flaws galore! There's a scene where Chucky and his doll bride are sitting together in the mobile home talking, and this is really where it hit me that the series was dying. Between the aging Chucky doll and the new Tiffany doll, which looks like a Puppet Master reject, it became obvious how silly it looked! Aside from that, this movie suffers mainly from 90's pop/goth culture; Heavy Metal music with Chucky head banging? Come on! And further more, while there are some cool new death scenes, Chucky is an 80's character. I wouldn't want to see Pinhead put up a gun and kill people!! I want to see his signature chains! I don't want Michael Myers to all of a sudden use a flamethrower, I want to see his trademark knife. Chucky is supposed to stab, strangle, and shoot his way to victory, not blow up cars and set booby traps with nails! Child's Play belongs in the 80's and should never have been modernized to fit current day culture.
Overall, it's better than some of the stuff that comes direct to video and gets shoved in the horror section at the video rental store. But it does happen to be the weakest of the series. Overall, on the horror movie scale, 5 out of 10.
Shark Attack 2 (2000)
One of the better B Movies
Along came this movie with a guy named Casper Van Diem called `Shark Attack'; a cheesy, bad acted little B Movie that in my opinion, was fun to watch. Sure it wasn't a staple in the genre of horror/mystery, but it was entertaining none the less. Along comes Shark Attack 2, and I eagerly anticipate the viewing of another B Movie involving creatures of the sea. So how does it stack up to the first?
In order to appreciate this film you must do at least two things. One, know what makes a B Movie fun: Some bad lines, no name faces who do a decent job of acting (overacting or taking the role seriously kills it), and cheese. What do I mean by cheese? Low budget F/X, stock footage, CG that looks like it was generated from a third grade classroom. If you can appreciate what a B movie does and what it consists of, you're on your way. And two, you have to realize that you must lower expectations. Good B movies such as this one, Octopus, Shark Attack 1, and others don't have a budget even close to other great sea movies like Jaws. And these movies know not to take themselves as serious film pieces. They exist so fans of horror and B Movies can enjoy an hour and a half out of their life. So having that said
Shark Attack 2 was excellent. One of the better low budget films I have seen in a while. There were great puppets that looked nothing like real sharks, computer generated sharks that like something off of cartoon network, and some stock footage to boot! Acting was at its prime and far better than the first Shark Attack. These actors and actresses didn't overact or anything, they were perfect for the roles. And there was even a Steve Irwin type character to add some extra humor. I thoroughly enjoyed this film.
On a B-Movie scale, this movie gets a 10 out of 10. Anyone who loves cheesy films will want this DVD to own.
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
You have to be Punch Drunk to like this one folks...
What is it about movies like this that send critics into a frenzy? Is it the fact that parts of the movie are strung together with this weird kaleidoscope effect, which makes only the slightest of sense? Am I supposed to be impressed by bright colors having no place in a sequence of shots? In the confusion of the characters movements, Punch Drunk Love wants you to think that it's telling you something important. `Here I am, trying to be strange and darkly funny and because it doesn't work all that well, your going to like me.' Not this critic
Punch Drunk Love falls victim to it's own characters, which becomes the main flaw. At first, Adam Sandler's character Barry is so intriguing with the way he acts and moves, but after about 20 minutes, you find yourself plotting exactly what he's going to do next! It becomes overly repetitive and predictable. Emily Watson mumbles her lines through almost all of her scenes, and I'm supposed to think, `I can't understand what she's saying, therefore it must be smart!' No! It's movies like this that are meant to brainwash other viewers into thinking they're watching a masterpiece, when it fact, they're watching a bunch of fluff strung together.
What exactly was Paul Anderson aiming for with this one? Eccentric characters with troubled lives? It almost seemed as if he was mixing Tom Cruise's Vanilla Sky depression ridden main characters with Wes Anderson's dark comedy and eccentricity. Except, here's the problem. Vanilla Sky was awful and no one can touch Wes Anderson! Wes Anderson is an amazing director with a vision a bit clearer than Paul's. And this kaleidoscope effect? A David Lynch-type move that found itself out of place in trying to woo an audience into thinking it was being clever.
Worth a look for some funny parts, but not worth the 9 bucks to go to the theatre. Rent this one. 6 out of 10
The Supernaturals (1986)
Supernaturals Super-sucks! NOT a horror movie
To start off, I'd like to know where some one got the idea to label this under "horror"...this is anything but horror! However, it is "horror-ble" The acting sucks, the script must have been written by a wookie, and the special effects are below cheesy, they're worse them some of the stuff full moon studios produces. To anyone interested in renting or watching this film, let me make this abundently clear to you: There are only 5 minutes worth of zombies in this film which really have nothing to do with the story or plot, or lack there of. There is less than 1 minute of gore in this monstrosity too. And most importantly, this isn't even horror! It's really a romantic drama with some added sprinkling of quick makeup and blood, which like I said, is less than 5 minutes of the film. If you're looking for zombies, I suggest moving on to a real movie like Day of the Dead. But for the love of god, don't bother with this stinker. Unfortunately, I cannot give this movie a negative number, so it gets a 1.
Shark Attack (1999)
Don't believe the other reviews!
Listen, people are giving this movie bad word of mouth for no reason! If you are a fan of cheesy Movies or think you are, you could find this disapointing. But if you are seriously into bad cheesy movies, bottom of the barrel bad films with stock footage, bad acting, and fake gore, than this movie is for you! Awesome shark stock footage that has no place in the actual movie being reused over and over, horrible acting by Casper Van Diem, no tense moments in a thriller labled movie...basically everything you want in a cheesy rip off. So people, stop rating this movie as if it should be taken seriously. It SHOULD be taken as a joke! If you can do that and lower your expectations like I did, you'll have a good time laughing your ass off at this film! On a B-Movie scale, I give it a 7 out of 10. Don't rate this movie on an actual scale comparing it to serious films. Rate it on a B-Movie scale