Change Your Image
Roeg_Film_Goer
Reviews
Dark Floors (2008)
Well-presented, otherwise hackneyed, Silent Hill imitator
Saw this last night. I would have to say, having seen it, that "Silent Hill" has now officially become a film genre, with Dark Floors and Re-Cycle constituting its two contributors/imitators - which is okay, with me. I really like the idea of hellish parallel dimensions existing concurrently with normalcy, and hideous monsters stalking them. Even as a jaded horror movie goer, Silent Hill caught me with its atmosphere, intensity, and phantasmagorical monsters. So make more in that mold, I say.
Dark Floors' plot has already been pretty well-summarized, as well as its similarities to Silent Hill, so I'll just add my own observations. In terms of Lighting and Art Direction, Dark Floors sets a VERY high mark. In fact, while other elements were failing to work, the genuine feeling of dread the environments created kept me involved.
And what doesn't work? The monsters are certainly not a big success - at least, nowhere near on the level of Silent Hill. I kind of liked the screaming witch, but the others, yes, did look rather Norse, and besides that not very well or completely imagined. Where they are thematic - as in the case of a creature that has left a corpse decaying into sand, and which appears out of a sand storm - they are neither imaginative in their kills nor consistent: when the sand creature gets a hold of some guy, he simply pulls out his heart! Very "Jason" or "Michael Meyers;" NOT very "sand creature." Also, this has no sand-disintegrating effect on the victim.
The writing is also rather hackneyed, at least in terms of dialogue. I also found it a tension- sucker how casually characters made conversation, as when one of the protagonists is trying to bash down a wall with a sledgehammer in a staircase where it is a well-established fact that monsters roam, and he takes a LOOONG pause to ask a nurse if she has any kids. Just as unlikely are the performances, which betray little concern or fear by the characters at the hellish alternate reality they have found themselves in. I don't know about you, but making the SLIGHTEST sound in that haunted hospital would set my teeth on edge. Yet again, characters seem utterly unconcerned about their environment, or when they talk.
Also, Dark Floors? I SUPPOSE that gets an idea across, but I can tell you in terms of style that's not going to win any points.
All of these things are detractors from what, again, is VERY suspensefully presented.
I should mention that, in terms of scripting, there WERE some neat ideas that made use of spatial and temporal loops - those elements, I felt added a great deal.
---Spoiler--- Like other people, I also don't get the ending. So the girl switched crayons; it STILL appears as though everything is going to repeat itself, and I'm not even remotely clear on what the significance of it was supposed to be in the first place. No, I just don't get it. Nonsense. ---Spoiler---
Still better than "Boo," another well-lit, well-shot hospital of horrors, that looks like it's going to be an original take on The Grudge and then bellyflops on horror clichés and TERRIBLE writing. Also, rather more enjoyable than Re-Cycle, which I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Recommended.
Thor il conquistatore (1983)
about Thor...
I like how Thor is a retarded rapist whose only friend is a misogynistic mystic who turns into an owl, doesn't offer help when it's needed, and likes to watch. Wait, I don't like that at all!
Seriously, I pride myself on having seen almost every sword and sorcery movie made in the 80's. Even knowing in advance how bad this movie was supposed to be, it went down pretty hard. Fortunately, I had good company - we've climbed a lot of z-movie Everests before. Even Deathstalker IV was better. To go outside of sword and sorcery, even Star Knight or Nukie compare favorably to Thor.
The only 80's sword and sorcery movies that may be worse are: Princess Warrior, Time Barbarians, and Wizards Of The Demon Sword (1991). I haven't seen these to confirm for myself, but as one of them is supposedly shot on video (and is REALLY bad to begin with), another is a Fred Olen Ray film, and two of them are of the "Barbarian in L.A." type, I'm betting any time spent as an audience with these would be pretty gruesome.
The other IMDb reviewers have this film exactly right. It's miserable. Absolutely unmotivated, and engaging only where it offends or is too seizure-inducingly stupid. (incidentally, the first line I wrote accurately summarizes EVERYTHING in Thor).
There ARE some funny moments. My favorite is when Thor's mystic/mentor produces an - uh, is it all right if I call it an equine? - and explains to him that "this is a creature that will not be called a horse for several centuries," or something to that effect. This, of course, means that if you WANTED to call it a horse in the meantime during the intervening centuries, you'd be stuck.
It doesn't stop being moronic there, though; Thor proceeds to use the horse to, uh........impress his enemies? All he does is ride it up and down a field while his enemies watch; doesn't so much as brandish his sword. Eventually, they flee. I'm sure in the script it said "Thor's enemies, having never seen a horse before, flee in terror." Yeah. That's not really conveyed. But then, not much is in "Thor." My friend and I marveled at its shortcomings.
Recommended for barbarian completists and bad movie fetishists only.