Awesome. This trailer is composed mostly of shots from the first film -- which is a MASTERWORK in trashy filmmaking. No joke. I hope this one lives up to the greatness of the first.
"Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash we have very little reason to be interested in them." - Pauline Kael
Sunday, December 12, 2010
"The Box" - Maria's Take
As a fan of Jean-Paul Sartre, I was horrible offended by this film's constant "No Exit" references. It was as if director Richard Kelly read the play and decided he could tell a similar story better. And by "better," I mean with more aliens and a less coherent story structure.
"The Box," unlike many of the films we review, actually has an interesting starting point. Basically, random individuals are given a box with a button and a choice. They can either not press the button and walk away, or they can press the button, get a million dollars, but kill someone they have never met. There is apparently a Twilight Zone episode using the original Richard Matheson "Button, Button" storyline which I would like to watch for comparison. The basic plot is simple, but under Richard Kelly's sloppy direction and muddled storytelling, the film loses all sense of direction and coherence.
James Marsden is fine, a little hokey in his portrayal of a Mars-obsessed NASA employee, but not offensive. The same cannot be said for Cameron Diaz. Her over the top, yet still painfully wooden performance is so carelessly done that I laugh more than I sympathize at her plight. Her character is so contrived that in every scene she was outshone by another actor, extra or set piece. I have never much cared for Diaz, but now I find her unwatchable.
The true weakness in this film is the direction. Richard Kelly is a one note director. He creates weird, incoherent worlds that lack any semblance of character or story motivation. I know his fans might muse that I just don't get his vision, but I do see what he is trying to accomplish. He wants to beat Darren Aronofsky out for the title of "this generation's David Lynch." He makes movies that appeal to a very small, but very well-voiced section of the film going public. His works speak to a small group of people, and that's just dandy. However, these individuals, much like those who praise Holden Caulfield, criticize me for disliking their film idols. They claim I just couldn't possibly understand. Maybe they are right. I cannot possibly understand how a movie about martians could compare with Jean-Paul Sartre. I cannot possibly understand how the over-written, constantly emoting lines are suppose to make me feel anything other than anger that this film got made in the first place.
This movie is terrible plain and simple. If you are interested in a movie about martians, go watch a movie about martians. Not a stupid piece of cinematic sludge that utilize martians to reflect our own flaws as humans. The lack of subtlety in this movie just astounds me. It underestimates the intelligence of the audience and plays the role of the pretentious friend who always has some pointless factoid to throw into conversation to maintain their holier than thou delusions.
Ultimately, I did not appreciate our time together, Mr. Kelly. Not one bit.
"The Box," unlike many of the films we review, actually has an interesting starting point. Basically, random individuals are given a box with a button and a choice. They can either not press the button and walk away, or they can press the button, get a million dollars, but kill someone they have never met. There is apparently a Twilight Zone episode using the original Richard Matheson "Button, Button" storyline which I would like to watch for comparison. The basic plot is simple, but under Richard Kelly's sloppy direction and muddled storytelling, the film loses all sense of direction and coherence.
James Marsden is fine, a little hokey in his portrayal of a Mars-obsessed NASA employee, but not offensive. The same cannot be said for Cameron Diaz. Her over the top, yet still painfully wooden performance is so carelessly done that I laugh more than I sympathize at her plight. Her character is so contrived that in every scene she was outshone by another actor, extra or set piece. I have never much cared for Diaz, but now I find her unwatchable.
The true weakness in this film is the direction. Richard Kelly is a one note director. He creates weird, incoherent worlds that lack any semblance of character or story motivation. I know his fans might muse that I just don't get his vision, but I do see what he is trying to accomplish. He wants to beat Darren Aronofsky out for the title of "this generation's David Lynch." He makes movies that appeal to a very small, but very well-voiced section of the film going public. His works speak to a small group of people, and that's just dandy. However, these individuals, much like those who praise Holden Caulfield, criticize me for disliking their film idols. They claim I just couldn't possibly understand. Maybe they are right. I cannot possibly understand how a movie about martians could compare with Jean-Paul Sartre. I cannot possibly understand how the over-written, constantly emoting lines are suppose to make me feel anything other than anger that this film got made in the first place.
This movie is terrible plain and simple. If you are interested in a movie about martians, go watch a movie about martians. Not a stupid piece of cinematic sludge that utilize martians to reflect our own flaws as humans. The lack of subtlety in this movie just astounds me. It underestimates the intelligence of the audience and plays the role of the pretentious friend who always has some pointless factoid to throw into conversation to maintain their holier than thou delusions.
Ultimately, I did not appreciate our time together, Mr. Kelly. Not one bit.
"The Box"-- Zach's Take
I think The Box perfectly reveals Richard Kelly (and subsequently Donnie Darko) for what he (and it) really is: a shallow, pretentious, David Lynch wannabe.
He produces deliberately mysterious and nonsensical pieces of cinematic refuse for people who can't be bothered to actually search out real intriguing or thought-provoking films. Like M. Night Shyamalan, he has his devoted following of people who insist that his work is profound , or that "you just don't get it." No, no, I get it. It just sucks. It's cheap, easy, film school-esque attempts at artiness.
However, I don't want this to become a review of over-hyped filmmakers and their fanbase. The film at hand is The Box, an overwrought, self-indulgent mess. The dialog is horrible. The only real entertainment I got out of this film is from laughing hysterically at the exchanges between Cameron Diaz and James Marsden.
The central problem with the film is that things just happen to the characters. They take virtually no initiative themselves. Bizarre things occur for no reason, they say something stupid, and then the next scene comes. There's no real forward momentum to the plot, which is a huge problem with a film that is entirely plot-based. There's no character work done here, no growth, no change. The characters in the film are exactly the same at the beginning as they are at the end. This makes the whole thing feel stagnant, and makes the disappointment of the "mystery" all the more painful. You've been sitting through this thing for two hours, waiting for the payoff of all the silly and preposterous stuff you've seen on screen, with nothing else to care about other than the answers to the questions that the film poses. Which, when they are answered, tell you nothing more than what you most likely already presumed.
Just about the only positive thing I can say about this film is that effect for Frank Langella's facial disfigurement is pretty cool and convincing. Unfortunately, that same effect is done much better for Two-Face in The Dark Knight.
I'd really like to see Richard Kelly make a good film. Now, I know Donnie Darko has its fans, but be honest, when was the last time you sat down to re-watch that film? It's a one-off piece of mild entertainment. Once you see it, do you really feel compelled to revisit it? That certainly is the case with The Box. Lock this thing up, throw away the key, and send it off to Mars from whence it came.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Coming Soon - "The Box"
Luckily, if this gets too awful, I have a button that I can push that will make all the people on the TV go away.
"Mister Wrong" - Maria's Take
At least the title applies. Everything about this movie is just oh so wrong. And yes, before I really deconstruct the magnificent stink of this movie, let's get the pink elephant in the room out there. Yes, this movie stars Ellen DeGeneres as a romantic female lead opposite Bill Pullman. The irony is astounding. Now, moving on...
The casting director should rethink their day job. Not only was the chemistry between Ellen and Bill Pullman just awful, the chemistry between every character was just nonexistent. The only person cast appropriately was the horse leading Ellen into the sunset at the end.
I could spend some time pointing out every stupid cliche that this movie wasted my time with; but, I feel like it would be a better service to humanity to focus on my biggest problem with this movie as a whole. It did not make any damn sense. I don't mean that characters made choices without motive (which they did). This movie lacked any semblance of a cohesive story. This movie would make David Lynch frustrated and confused. "Mullholland Drive" looks like a freaking model of solid, cohesive story structure compared to this piece of shit. (David Lynch confuses me in case that wasn't coming across).
All the confusion really falls upon Bill Pullman's character "Whitman." He is this rich dude who seduces Ellen at a bar. He seems all charming and perfect until she tells him he should feel comfortable enough to be himself. He then starts stalking her, stealing things, and forcing himself into her life. The movie gets weird and creepy about a half hour in, and suddenly the light, rom-com mood shifts pretty drastically into a dark comedy. Well, I use the term "comedy" loosely.
This movie seemed to give up on itself about halfway through. Joan Cusack plays this bizarre ex-girlfriend who really is just a deus ex machina from the writers. This points offers me a nice segue into another concern with this stupid movie. As a former film student, I could hear the screenwriter in every single line. Now, this might seem like a stupid statement, but good lines make people forget they are watching a movie. Good lines are immersive. Not a single line in "Mister Wrong" had depth. Every attempt was so dripping with self-love by the writer that the whole film felt like a bad senior thesis.
I handpicked next week's disaster myself. I watched it before having seen this Ellen DeGeneres jewel. I made the presumptuous declaration that "The Box" was the worst movie I had ever seen. Enter "Mister Wrong."
But don't fret, "The Box" still sucks something terrible. It actually kept me awake one night with its putrescent funk. So, look forward to that!
The casting director should rethink their day job. Not only was the chemistry between Ellen and Bill Pullman just awful, the chemistry between every character was just nonexistent. The only person cast appropriately was the horse leading Ellen into the sunset at the end.
I could spend some time pointing out every stupid cliche that this movie wasted my time with; but, I feel like it would be a better service to humanity to focus on my biggest problem with this movie as a whole. It did not make any damn sense. I don't mean that characters made choices without motive (which they did). This movie lacked any semblance of a cohesive story. This movie would make David Lynch frustrated and confused. "Mullholland Drive" looks like a freaking model of solid, cohesive story structure compared to this piece of shit. (David Lynch confuses me in case that wasn't coming across).
All the confusion really falls upon Bill Pullman's character "Whitman." He is this rich dude who seduces Ellen at a bar. He seems all charming and perfect until she tells him he should feel comfortable enough to be himself. He then starts stalking her, stealing things, and forcing himself into her life. The movie gets weird and creepy about a half hour in, and suddenly the light, rom-com mood shifts pretty drastically into a dark comedy. Well, I use the term "comedy" loosely.
This movie seemed to give up on itself about halfway through. Joan Cusack plays this bizarre ex-girlfriend who really is just a deus ex machina from the writers. This points offers me a nice segue into another concern with this stupid movie. As a former film student, I could hear the screenwriter in every single line. Now, this might seem like a stupid statement, but good lines make people forget they are watching a movie. Good lines are immersive. Not a single line in "Mister Wrong" had depth. Every attempt was so dripping with self-love by the writer that the whole film felt like a bad senior thesis.
I handpicked next week's disaster myself. I watched it before having seen this Ellen DeGeneres jewel. I made the presumptuous declaration that "The Box" was the worst movie I had ever seen. Enter "Mister Wrong."
But don't fret, "The Box" still sucks something terrible. It actually kept me awake one night with its putrescent funk. So, look forward to that!
"Mr. Wrong" - Zach's Take
It starts out rather predictably and formulaic: Ellen DeGeneres' voice over recounts the story of how she met Whitman (Bill Pullman) and ended up in a wedding dress whilst being detained in a Mexican prison (we've all been there). The thing is, the film goes for jokes that are inconsistent with the universe it has set up for us. You see, the film begins as a typical romantic-comedy crapfest, where all the "humor" comes from women complaining about how men suck and what have you. You know, the 90's-style stand-up comic junk.
Except, the thing is, with Mr. Wrong, the cutesy, hacky observational one-liners make Jerry Seinfeld look like Bill Hicks. You can hear the screenwriters smugly smiling themselves as each cringe-inducing line is delivered.
But then, suddenly, the humor shifts towards "wacky" and completely improbable gags and characters that are only "characters" in the most basic sense of the word. Just completely cartoonish and stupid. I'm looking at you, Joan Cusack, and you too, guy who played Bram on Lost.
Aside from the humor of the film, the structure is so twisted and contorted in an attempt to play "gotcha" on the audience that it never makes any sense. When the film introduces Whitman, he is suave, sophisticated, and soft-spoken. Then for no reason whatsoever, he finally decides to be "himself," which is when he starts getting zany and bombastic. Look, I get it. Sort of. I understand that it was a misdirection on behalf of the screenwriters, but it is a hacky, cheap attempt. Plus, we never learn anything about Whitman's character that explains his actions. Why does he feel compelled to pretend to act a certain way when meeting Ellen's character? Why did he leave Joan Cusack's character when she is so clearly perfect for him? Why in Flying Spaghetti Monster's good name is he attracted to Ellen DeGeneres? We're talking about a wealthy, attractive man who lives in San Diego, and he goes for Ellen?!
There's a million things wrong with this movie, and not a single thing right. First mistake: casting Ellen DeGeneres as a leading lady. Look, she was fine on TV or whatever. But who thought she could carry an entire film? She's not an actress, she's a comedian. She can't play anybody but herself.
What I suppose I'm getting at here is that Mr. Wrong isn't just a good example of the mediocrity of 90's mainstream cinema. It's also perfectly illustrative of the 90's as a whole. Idiotic, worthless, and better off to be forgotten by everyone involved.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Coming Soon - "Mr. Wrong"
Again, no trailer. Has the world already forgotten about the cinematic masterstroke known as Mr. Wrong? Is this the untimely end of Milhouse?
But seriously. Look at that poster. Of course, now it has an ironic quality about it, but even before Ellen came out this had to be one of the worst best posters ever created.
"D-War: Dragon Wars" -Maria's Take
That isn't a typo in my title, that is actually the name of the movie. And, for a movie called "Dragon Wars" there was far too much talking and not enough dragon warfare. I'm just sayin' is all.
Okay, so we are fed this story about a girl with a dragon tattoo...I admit I couldn't make it through those books, but I smell plagiarism. Anyway, there is this Korean legend about two warring dragons and a 20 year old girl will save the world if she sacrifices herself to the good dragon.
And then there is about 45 minutes of pointless storyline. What bugged me was so little of the story had motivation. Things happened, coincidentally and circumstantially, and everything just sort of works out. "Daryl" from "The Office" has a brief but weird cameo as a news cameraman who happens to have access to a government database. This is immensely helpful to his reporter friend, Ethan, who was told when he was a little boy that he must find this girl in order to stop the evil dragon. He learns that the girl is named Sarah and she is in Los Angeles. They find each other way too easily and fall instantly in love. Blech.
Sarah is supposed to be 19, but is the most successful 19 year old I have ever seen. I am 22 and feel like a complete slacker compared to her and her lavish lifestyle. Anyway, the character is incredibly bland and I never cared what really happened to her, as long as dragon warfare was involved.
The last 45 minutes of the movie are actually fun. A giant snake-dragon attacks the U.S. Bank building in downtown L.A. and it is actually pretty exciting. We also get the title dragon war (singular I feel compelled to add). Sarah is sacrificed, but not really killed off because it is one of those "see you in another life" type situations.
So many times Zach and I asked aloud, "How did they get there?" or "Who the hell is that guy?" and we had no answer. The visuals were lazy and the sound was all over the place. I hate movies that make me readjust the volume pretty regularly.
This movie had some interesting qualities but the execution was pretty dreadful. It just bugged me that no one was really affected by the idea that DRAGONS were attacking Los Angeles.
Okay, so we are fed this story about a girl with a dragon tattoo...I admit I couldn't make it through those books, but I smell plagiarism. Anyway, there is this Korean legend about two warring dragons and a 20 year old girl will save the world if she sacrifices herself to the good dragon.
And then there is about 45 minutes of pointless storyline. What bugged me was so little of the story had motivation. Things happened, coincidentally and circumstantially, and everything just sort of works out. "Daryl" from "The Office" has a brief but weird cameo as a news cameraman who happens to have access to a government database. This is immensely helpful to his reporter friend, Ethan, who was told when he was a little boy that he must find this girl in order to stop the evil dragon. He learns that the girl is named Sarah and she is in Los Angeles. They find each other way too easily and fall instantly in love. Blech.
Sarah is supposed to be 19, but is the most successful 19 year old I have ever seen. I am 22 and feel like a complete slacker compared to her and her lavish lifestyle. Anyway, the character is incredibly bland and I never cared what really happened to her, as long as dragon warfare was involved.
The last 45 minutes of the movie are actually fun. A giant snake-dragon attacks the U.S. Bank building in downtown L.A. and it is actually pretty exciting. We also get the title dragon war (singular I feel compelled to add). Sarah is sacrificed, but not really killed off because it is one of those "see you in another life" type situations.
So many times Zach and I asked aloud, "How did they get there?" or "Who the hell is that guy?" and we had no answer. The visuals were lazy and the sound was all over the place. I hate movies that make me readjust the volume pretty regularly.
This movie had some interesting qualities but the execution was pretty dreadful. It just bugged me that no one was really affected by the idea that DRAGONS were attacking Los Angeles.
"D-War: Dragon Wars" - Zach's Take
I think the fact that this film is titled D-War: Dragon Wars reflexively demonstrates everything that it does wrong. What is the point of the "D-War?" Is this one war, or many? After watching the movie, I have no idea. Its Korean-ness doesn't translate well to an American-style blockbuster, resulting in a convoluted, silly, and confusing mess that is sometimes fun.
The biggest issue at the core of the movie is that the plot is bafflingly complex for such a simple premise. We don't need twenty minutes of exposition to tell us why there is a dragon slithering around Los Angeles. We don't need some dumb fable about protectors of humanity sacrificing some girl with a special tattoo to a different dragon that wants to ascend to the heavens. Just tell us that there is a good dragon and a bad dragon. Leave the nonsensical "fate" and "destiny" stuff out of this. The only reason we want to see this movie is to watch a giant mythological creature destroy buildings. The more time you spend on a story about characters whom we don't and will never care for, the more you lose your audience.
But, as I mentioned, there are some enjoyable parts to be had. The effects are mostly cheesy, but there are a few points here and there where the dragons and destruction are convincing. The big chunk in the middle of the film where some evil army of dragon dudes attacks the military is a silly bit of fun. Three helicopter pilots die because of the dragons. And for some reason, all three raise their hands above their heads right before they crash, as if they're going to get less hurt by doing so. Like I said, silly fun.
The production values of the film are slick (relative to the other schlock we've reviewed), but the ineptitude of the script reveals itself to be just standard Sci-Fi channel-esque fare on a bigger budget. There's not enough entertaining bits compared to the plodding expository bits.
Oh yeah, and the worst part about the film? For almost the entire duration, the "dragon" is really just a giant snake. It doesn't have wings or legs or anything, which makes the title that much more confusing.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Coming Soon- "D-War"
Not gonna lie, this looks like fun. But, I guess we'll see how that two minutes of goofy action fits into an hour and half movie. Please, movie gods, don't let this movie be longer than an hour and half...
"Hellblock 13" -Maria's Take
I was trying to think of a classy movie with a number in the title. The best I could come up with was "The Godfather Part II" and that was with Roman numerals. Suffice to say, "Hellblock 13" is the least classy movie with a number in the title.
To say this movie was bad would be like saying "Citizen Kane" is boring. Is it true? Yes. But it also negates the overall genius and point of the work. Of course "Hellblock 13" is terrible, cheesy, and often offensive, but it is so much more than a generic bad horror flick. This movie reuses tired storylines, hired the absolute bottom of the barrel actors, and the set pieces and props were just embarrassing. I actually felt embarrassed for this movie.
Lindsey Lohan would have made this movie better. Go ahead, re-read that sentence. I know this movie was made when Lindsey was still a little kid, but I kept thinking that this was a movie with her name all over it. The lead actress they hired was just so terrible. She was like that girl at your high school who never did a day of theater in her life but believed she had star quality and would make it someday. This girl did have a ton of heart in her performance, she tried so damn hard, but she was just so awful it hurt. She reminded me of a precocious kid that had one big audition and put every last ounce of effort into an off key, tone deaf rendition of "Tomorrow." This girl, actually almost all the actors in this film, took themselves and their ridiculous "Creepshow" ripoff roles so damn seriously it was just painful.
The stories were just so cliche. There were ghost kids seeking revenge on the evil mother who drowned them, a battered wife seeking revenge on an abusive husband that backfires, and a matron saint corpse seeking vengeance and offering protection to those who worship her in what I can only describe as a Bacchanalia. All of these stories are strung together by a serial killer on death row who is trying to get her warden to publish her notebook of creepy tales. The problem is the stories are lame and more annoying than scary. The tales lasted far too long and the payoff was often middling if not altogether deeply disappointing.
Overall, this movie was pretty dreadful. I have my usual complaints, but as a short fiction writer, this one pissed me off royally. I have no patience for bad storytelling, and this was just miserable.
To say this movie was bad would be like saying "Citizen Kane" is boring. Is it true? Yes. But it also negates the overall genius and point of the work. Of course "Hellblock 13" is terrible, cheesy, and often offensive, but it is so much more than a generic bad horror flick. This movie reuses tired storylines, hired the absolute bottom of the barrel actors, and the set pieces and props were just embarrassing. I actually felt embarrassed for this movie.
Lindsey Lohan would have made this movie better. Go ahead, re-read that sentence. I know this movie was made when Lindsey was still a little kid, but I kept thinking that this was a movie with her name all over it. The lead actress they hired was just so terrible. She was like that girl at your high school who never did a day of theater in her life but believed she had star quality and would make it someday. This girl did have a ton of heart in her performance, she tried so damn hard, but she was just so awful it hurt. She reminded me of a precocious kid that had one big audition and put every last ounce of effort into an off key, tone deaf rendition of "Tomorrow." This girl, actually almost all the actors in this film, took themselves and their ridiculous "Creepshow" ripoff roles so damn seriously it was just painful.
The stories were just so cliche. There were ghost kids seeking revenge on the evil mother who drowned them, a battered wife seeking revenge on an abusive husband that backfires, and a matron saint corpse seeking vengeance and offering protection to those who worship her in what I can only describe as a Bacchanalia. All of these stories are strung together by a serial killer on death row who is trying to get her warden to publish her notebook of creepy tales. The problem is the stories are lame and more annoying than scary. The tales lasted far too long and the payoff was often middling if not altogether deeply disappointing.
Overall, this movie was pretty dreadful. I have my usual complaints, but as a short fiction writer, this one pissed me off royally. I have no patience for bad storytelling, and this was just miserable.
"Hellblock 13" -- Zach's Take
You don't know how badly I just wanted to write a one sentence review for this.
It's so inept, so stilted and lifeless, so hammy and pretentious. This is bad even for Troma standards. I don't even know where to begin in tearing this thing apart. It's not so bad it's good -- there's very little entertainment value here.
I suppose the best way to describe this film is if Uwe Boll saw Creepshow and decided he could make the same film on a budget of roughly twelve dollars. What I mean is this is an anthology horror movie where the seams show through in every frame. Cheap, claustrophobic sets. Cheesy make-up and production "design." And sub-community theater level acting. Let's just say there's a reason Gunnar Hansen never spoke a word when he played Leatherface in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I think the biggest sign of incompetence in this film lies within the tone. Whereas Creepshow homaged the EC Comics upon which it was based by being deliberately hokey at parts, Hellblock 13 plays things pretty much straight. There are hints at intentional humor during a particularly boring segment that takes place in a trailer park, but for the most part, this film is actually trying to be scary. It is a spectacular failure.
The only positive thing I can say is that because this film is so poorly conceived, none of the stories presented have any point whatsoever. This means that the film dispatches with characters who we are supposed to be rooting for and connecting with. Which is kind of fun, because you aren't expecting those characters to die. Sadly, as I mentioned, the gore effects are terrible, so when those kills do come, they are supremely disappointing.
There really isn't much more to say than that. Even if this film were the only film left on Netflix Instant Watch that you hadn't seen, it would still not be worth it just to say you've seen them all. Go watch Creepshow, instead.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Coming Soon - "Hellblock 13"
So, yeah. Turns out this movie is so awesome that there are no trailers for it on the internet.
There's the cover for it.
It's a Troma release, so I think it's safe to expect some Powell and Pressburger-style filmmaking.
"The Manitou" - Zach's Take
This is our second reader request, having been recommended to us by DeWayn Marzagalli. He recommended it on the basis of two points: it was one of the worst films he'd ever seen and it features a talented cast that is completely misused.
He's right on both accounts.
It's preposterous, silly, and has no idea what it's trying to say. The film concerns a woman played by Susan Strasberg who develops a tumor on the back of her neck. Her doctors are concerned -- it doesn't feature the same characteristics of a normal tumor. Instead, it resembles something closer to a fetus. We later learn that is is actually a malevolent Indian medicine man, who is attempting to attain the status and power of the great Wichi Manitou (the Indian "God," according to the film). In order to do this, he has to go through the cycle of being reborn through people eight times. This is all explained to us through many scenes of laborious and glacial exposition, which culminates in a painfully boring "showdown" between a reluctant mercenary medicine man (not as badass as it sounds), Tony Curtis, and the aforementioned evil medicine man.
The film is notorious for it's final scenes of trippy, nonsensical visuals (think the "evolutionary" wormhole trip from 2001: A Space Odyssey meets the ending of The Neverending Story). Those minutes were certainly entertaining in a "Were these people serious?" kind of way. The rest of the movie, however, is entirely forgettable and completely inconsistent in tone. For example, the movie starts out rather serious and eerie, but then moves on to Tony Curtis' character (who wears a fake mustache for some reason) giving tarot card readings to elderly women. It's kind of jokey and stupid, I guess in an attempt to lighten up the tone. But it doesn't work. It just makes it feel like it's part of a different film. Also, we're lead to believe that Tony Curtis' character doesn't actually believe in spiritualistic nonsense, but later on he acts in a way that suggests that he does. Essentially, the writers change his character to fit the dramatic needs of the current scene, without any kind of logic or reason for the change.
Also, the movie is kind of racist. That reluctant medicine man I mentioned earlier? He keeps mentioning how inferior the Christian god is and how white man's science is no match for the evil that has taken over Susan Strasberg's neck. Except, in the end, white man's science is EXACTLY what kills the 400-year-old mystic thing. They "channel" all the "energy" from the spirits of the computers in the hospital to destroy the evil spirit (yeah, it's even more stupid than it sounds). And it was all the white guy's idea -- the medicine man never even considered that as a possibility. Yay, white people! Overall, the film is kind of a Native American-styled rip-off of The Exorcist. Same basic structure, just with a lot more overt racism.
The one thing I wholeheartedly enjoyed about this film is how it unsubtly hints at the possibility of a sequel. The good medicine man mentions that they only destroyed the body of the evil medicine man, but the spirit still remains. Duh-duh-duhhhhhh.
It's a shame they never got to make The Mani2. Or, Manitou Fast 2 Furious. Or my favorite, The Manitou Too: Man to Manitou.
"Manitou" -Maria's Take
Um, what?
In my very first blog post I asked what went on in the mind of Tommy Wiseau. I think the final fifteen minutes of this movie answered my question. I do feel like this movie was slightly less awful for me because I knew what to expect. The best way to see "Manitou" is purely; free of any prior knowledge. So, if that is what you intend to do stop reading here.
For the rest of you, this movie is really bizarre. It starts off mundane enough. A woman goes to the doctor with a fetus growing out of her back. (You know, that cliche story). Actually, that I can buy. That part is actually neat, make a movie about a woman carrying a baby on her back. But this movie gets weird, and kind of racist (and by "kind of" I mean "really, really racist"). Tony Curtis is her tarot-card reading ex-boyfriend who comes to her rescue after it has been decided she is actually carrying the reincarnation of an Indian medicine man (whose spirit is called a "manitou") who is fairly intent on killing her and everyone she comes into contact with. Again, I am still not against this movie yet, is it a weird ripoff of "The Exorcist?" Yes, but still, kind of interesting. Tony Curtis brings on another medicine man to counter the fetus one. Then they go into outer space. Yup, you read that right. That's when they lost me.
Did that synopsis confuse you? Don't worry, the movie makes absolutely no sense. Even the little mundane details don't make sense. Burgess Meredith plays this quack anthropologist who initially believes Tony Curtis to be completely nuts but almost instantaneously comes around without any reason. The only way to protect everyone from the "manitou" is to draw a circle around it with sand, but he figures out a way to break through. And lest we forget they fight in space? SPACE!
The ending really bugs me. In college we talked about how horror and sci-fi movies reflect what society is afraid of at the time. This movie is not only representing this weird sort of xenophobia, but also employing the greatness and cure-all of technology. The heroes use computers (who apparently have their own versions of a "Manitou") to override the fetus-Manitou-medicine man and win the soul of the girl back.
I apologize if it sounds like I am rambling, but this movie is so incoherent even trying to explain it becomes confusing. I cannot believe this movie was ever made. It is just a failure on all accounts. It switches tone between dead serious and tongue in cheek in nearly every scene. The acting is fine, but the storyline is so confusing and messy that characters' motives lose any sense of intent.
I feel like the producers had a big idea that just crumbled all around them, and they just gave up about ten minutes in. Burgess Meredith's role was irritating because his lines were completely contradictory and overacted. Tony Curtis was the only actor giving a decent performance, but I cannot begin to believe this is a film he would be proud of.
The music, color scheme, and overall feel of this movie was at odds with itself. It could not decide what it wanted to be, so it became a brown mess of 70s haircuts, polyester and subtle racism.
I was confused, irritated and boggled. I was relieved when it was over. I don't understand how this film got financed, or how it attracted a fairly prestigious group of actors. The setting in San Francisco was a needless expense that the filmmaker relied far too heavily on. Instead, he could have used that money to buy a script with a shred of coherent story structure.
Long story short, I did not understand this movie at all. I could try and analyze it as some reflection of the social conflict of new versus old, modern versus ancient, or some other academic bullshit, but it does not matter. The movie was just bad. It hurt to watch. It was an absolutely perfect recommendation for this blog. Thank you, Mr. Marzagalli.
In my very first blog post I asked what went on in the mind of Tommy Wiseau. I think the final fifteen minutes of this movie answered my question. I do feel like this movie was slightly less awful for me because I knew what to expect. The best way to see "Manitou" is purely; free of any prior knowledge. So, if that is what you intend to do stop reading here.
For the rest of you, this movie is really bizarre. It starts off mundane enough. A woman goes to the doctor with a fetus growing out of her back. (You know, that cliche story). Actually, that I can buy. That part is actually neat, make a movie about a woman carrying a baby on her back. But this movie gets weird, and kind of racist (and by "kind of" I mean "really, really racist"). Tony Curtis is her tarot-card reading ex-boyfriend who comes to her rescue after it has been decided she is actually carrying the reincarnation of an Indian medicine man (whose spirit is called a "manitou") who is fairly intent on killing her and everyone she comes into contact with. Again, I am still not against this movie yet, is it a weird ripoff of "The Exorcist?" Yes, but still, kind of interesting. Tony Curtis brings on another medicine man to counter the fetus one. Then they go into outer space. Yup, you read that right. That's when they lost me.
Did that synopsis confuse you? Don't worry, the movie makes absolutely no sense. Even the little mundane details don't make sense. Burgess Meredith plays this quack anthropologist who initially believes Tony Curtis to be completely nuts but almost instantaneously comes around without any reason. The only way to protect everyone from the "manitou" is to draw a circle around it with sand, but he figures out a way to break through. And lest we forget they fight in space? SPACE!
The ending really bugs me. In college we talked about how horror and sci-fi movies reflect what society is afraid of at the time. This movie is not only representing this weird sort of xenophobia, but also employing the greatness and cure-all of technology. The heroes use computers (who apparently have their own versions of a "Manitou") to override the fetus-Manitou-medicine man and win the soul of the girl back.
I apologize if it sounds like I am rambling, but this movie is so incoherent even trying to explain it becomes confusing. I cannot believe this movie was ever made. It is just a failure on all accounts. It switches tone between dead serious and tongue in cheek in nearly every scene. The acting is fine, but the storyline is so confusing and messy that characters' motives lose any sense of intent.
I feel like the producers had a big idea that just crumbled all around them, and they just gave up about ten minutes in. Burgess Meredith's role was irritating because his lines were completely contradictory and overacted. Tony Curtis was the only actor giving a decent performance, but I cannot begin to believe this is a film he would be proud of.
The music, color scheme, and overall feel of this movie was at odds with itself. It could not decide what it wanted to be, so it became a brown mess of 70s haircuts, polyester and subtle racism.
I was confused, irritated and boggled. I was relieved when it was over. I don't understand how this film got financed, or how it attracted a fairly prestigious group of actors. The setting in San Francisco was a needless expense that the filmmaker relied far too heavily on. Instead, he could have used that money to buy a script with a shred of coherent story structure.
Long story short, I did not understand this movie at all. I could try and analyze it as some reflection of the social conflict of new versus old, modern versus ancient, or some other academic bullshit, but it does not matter. The movie was just bad. It hurt to watch. It was an absolutely perfect recommendation for this blog. Thank you, Mr. Marzagalli.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Coming Soon - The Manitou
Uh...huh.
Burgess Meredith looks like Col. Sanders in this film. I can't wait.
"Child's Play 3" -- Zach's Take
I'll be straightforward and honest: I really enjoy Child's Play 3. In fact, I like all of the Chucky movies. Sure, they're incredibly silly and not scary in the slightest -- but they are so much fun.
See, Chucky is the kind of the character that Freddy Krueger morphed into. The wise-cracking serial killer who you don't take seriously. But Chucky's character is more consistent, as he was a smartass spewing one-liners since the first film.
To be clear: Child's Play 3 is not a good movie. But it is a good time (mostly). A big part of that is Brad Dourif's vocal performance. He's funny but also kind of sinister. You're totally rooting for Chucky the whole time, and that's not just because all the other characters behave like idiots. He's just kind of a cool dude, except, of course for all the voodoo and soul stealing and killing people stuff.
Actually, I think the only person here who is having more fun than Brad Dourif is Andrew Robinson, who plays a military barber obsessed with a perfect haircut. He just hams it up perfectly; never over-doing it and never under-playing it. Honestly, a whole movie could have been centered around his character -- he's just a bizarre delight to watch.
Also, the direction is actually kind of great. This was Lost veteran Jack Bender's first feature film, but he films what could have been very banal stuff in a stylish way, never really letting anything get boring (until the third act, but that's not entirely his fault). He relishes in the tight, claustrophobic framings that help bring out the oddity and weirdness that this movie exudes.
However, as I mentioned, only two-thirds of this film is actually fun. The last act of the film derails as the climax shifts away from the military school and into a lame carnival ride. Really, it doesn't make a whole lot sense (thematically or logically) to have it take place at a carnival, and feels very forced.
Also, the movie doesn't always go far enough. Chucky at one point switches out paint bullets in guns that are to be used in a war game with real live ammunition. The payoff isn't as great as it could be, as only one person actually dies from this when a whole platoon of soldiers fire at each other, but as a gag, it works well enough.
Overall, maybe this isn't the worst Child's Play movie. It's got enough teeth when it needs to, but considering this is the film that preceded Bride of Chucky, you can see the foundation of humor that was absent in the previous films. This is the first film on our site that I wholeheartedly recommend to the rare horror fan who hasn't already seen it. Just don't expect it to resolve itself all that well.
"Child's Play 3"- Maria's Take
Before I begin, I feel obligated to note that this was the last in a horror movie marathon Zach and I watched on Halloween. We screened many of our favorite films and ended on this. Had we not just watched "Psycho," "Halloween," "Behind the Mask," and "Hatchet," this film would've been really fun and incredibly watchable; however, after watching Leslie Vernon and Victor Crowley slash the (and I quote Leslie here) "poop" out of some teenagers, a Chucky movie just did not do a whole lot for me.
I have never really enjoyed the Chucky movies. I think it probably goes back to my intense fear of clowns (ironically from a movie having little to do with clowns, if you are lucky, I might feel compelled to tackle that film: one which scarred me for life). But, hell, we aren't here to psychoanalyze my fears.
Right, Chucky.
This movie was fine. I liked Jack Bender (yeah, that guy who directed several episodes of Lost directed this 3rd installment of a lesser franchise...paying his dues I guess) setting most of the movie in a military school. It felt natural and the characters were really interesting and many were actually pretty well developed. It did bother me, however, that the film moved rather dramatically to a carnival, that did NOT feel logical in the slightest.
The things I usually bitch about: entertainment value, plot, acting, were all actually pretty decent in this movie. I think my biggest problem was this film felt incredibly anticlimactic. In every classic horror flick there is this huge showdown between man and beast. There was a weak attempt at a showdown, but all it reminded me was this movie is about a killer toy. I understand the futility of arguing logic in a horror movie, but this really bugged me. HE IS A DOLL. I get that he has a brain, I get that he has weapons, I even get that he has a wit that would make the best action heroes blush; but, what really irks me is that he is a toy. Rip him apart! I call shenanigans.
Overall, comparatively, the movie was okay. Would I watch it again? Probably not. Also, 2 kids die in this movie. 2 KIDS die, and it is never really addressed after the fact. I give them kudos for having the balls to break the cardinal rule, but let's get some military school style comeuppance...again, really just anticlimactic...kind of like this blog post.
The end.
I have never really enjoyed the Chucky movies. I think it probably goes back to my intense fear of clowns (ironically from a movie having little to do with clowns, if you are lucky, I might feel compelled to tackle that film: one which scarred me for life). But, hell, we aren't here to psychoanalyze my fears.
Right, Chucky.
This movie was fine. I liked Jack Bender (yeah, that guy who directed several episodes of Lost directed this 3rd installment of a lesser franchise...paying his dues I guess) setting most of the movie in a military school. It felt natural and the characters were really interesting and many were actually pretty well developed. It did bother me, however, that the film moved rather dramatically to a carnival, that did NOT feel logical in the slightest.
The things I usually bitch about: entertainment value, plot, acting, were all actually pretty decent in this movie. I think my biggest problem was this film felt incredibly anticlimactic. In every classic horror flick there is this huge showdown between man and beast. There was a weak attempt at a showdown, but all it reminded me was this movie is about a killer toy. I understand the futility of arguing logic in a horror movie, but this really bugged me. HE IS A DOLL. I get that he has a brain, I get that he has weapons, I even get that he has a wit that would make the best action heroes blush; but, what really irks me is that he is a toy. Rip him apart! I call shenanigans.
Overall, comparatively, the movie was okay. Would I watch it again? Probably not. Also, 2 kids die in this movie. 2 KIDS die, and it is never really addressed after the fact. I give them kudos for having the balls to break the cardinal rule, but let's get some military school style comeuppance...again, really just anticlimactic...kind of like this blog post.
The end.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Coming Soon - "Child's Play 3"
This is the first film we've reviewed that I HAVEN'T dreaded watching. What does that say about my (lack of) taste?
"Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation" - Zach's Take
You know how at the end of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre Leatherface twirls around aimlessly, awkwardly flinging the chainsaw around at the air, almost doing a weird little kooky dance?
That always soured the film for me. I thought it was over-the-top and silly. It kind of took me out of the film and ruined the verisimilitude that the it had managed to create up until that point.
Now imagine that last shot, but extended for 90-minutes.
Writer/director Kim Henkel (who wrote the original) returns to offer up what he calls "the real sequel" to the first one. Which is interesting, considering this is essentially a re-tread of the original, with pretty much nothing interesting to add and certainly no new take on the material. Teenagers get stranded. Leatherface knocks out one of them, hangs up the other on a meat hook, and chases the final girl with a chainsaw for a little bit. Then the main girl gets caught and is forced to endure a psycho family dinner. Girl escapes, chased by Leatherface. Cue kooky dance. Roll credits.
Just about the only difference is that the teenagers get stranded in the woods (which look nothing like Texas) instead of the remote and desolate plains like in the first film. The new scenery takes any of the creepiness out of the proceedings; how many horror flicks have you seen set in the woods? Probably a little less than fifteen million.
Ultimately, this film feels like some failed art-house director's take on the original. There's a lot of intentional ambiguity, hammy over-acting posing as social criticism, and a scarcity of any sense of pacing or tension. Shots linger for far too long and expose the silliness of the events unfolding on screen. The tone is far too preposterous to be scary, and far too deranged and "edgy" to be campy.
Take, for example, the cameo that ties this film to the original: at the end, Renee Zelwegger's character sees a girl being hauled off on a gurney. The role is credited to "Anonymous." It's actually Marilyn Burns who played Sally in the original film. Or also consider that Leatherface is portrayed as having some kind of gender identity disorder. The film is full of these lame and half-baked "twists" on the original. Deep, man. Deep.
To sum up: the film aims to have it all, swinging awkwardly from campy to serious and everywhere in between.
In other words, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation is the weird little kooky dance of horror cinema.
"Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation" - Maria's Take
Oh God! Leatherface is particularly terrifying and disgusting in this movie! That face! Those dead eyes! That blank expression! Ugh, it's just terrible!
Oh wait, that's Renee Zellweger.
The worst thing about this movie is that Matthew McConaughey is the best part. I'm not sure where the thought process was behind any moment of this film. I have never been so frustrated and confused at a movie in my life. Not only does it fall back on every standard cliche married to the horror genre, but it also relies on shock rather than tension for appeal.
I mentioned about halfway through the movie that it felt as if a twelve year old boy had seen one horror movie and decided to make his own. There are some ideas that could potentially be interesting. Vilmer's girlfriend is a great basis for an original character, but the writing and plotting is so painfully incoherent that her character becomes flat and convenient.
The ending was so sloppy and unclear I turned to the internet in order to try and get some semblance of an explanation. There are theories out there declaring this film to be a deconstruction of the horror genre, or art house answers to the commercial franchises; however, I think everyone just needs to make peace with the fact that this movie was just awful. Had this been something deeper than it was, it hid the real story a little too well. I can understand some of the theories, and a part of me would like to jump on board. Unfortunately, if this movie were trying to be clever it just (forgive the pun) masked itself behind too much incomprehensible bullshit to have any redeeming value.
It isn't that I didn't "get" the movie. I think there are several readings one might potentially find, but I didn't want to "get" it. I absolutely hate movies that try to be more than they are. One cannot slap a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" logo on a film and then not provide gore, grime and thrills. This movie had very little gore, the grime was cheap and ineffective and the thrills were overshadowed by the countless times I was left feeling irritated.
This film is a monumental failure. Whether it was actually trying to be a fun, chainsaw-killing slasher movie, or an artsy schmartsy, self-deprecating genre critique, it failed. "Scream" deconstructed the horror genre and was still fun, watchable, and not too far up its own ass.
And, in the same vein of "Scream," there are certain rules one must consider when trying to make an American horror film:
1. You can't be smug. You will instantly alienate yourself from an audience, and will end up alone in your own "brilliance." People go to see horror films, especially franchise films, for guts and cheap jump-scares. You don't expect Saw 18 (or whatever one we are on) to be some sort of existential artwork. You expect Achilles Tendon-slices, and needle machines.
2. You have to know your audience. Unless you have been living under a rock, you must have heard about a new movie called "Human Centipede." A crazy doctor decides to sew 3 people together with one digestive system...just take a minute...got the mental image? Yeah, you're welcome. Why does this movie exist? Because people are gross. They like gross things. Why are they making Saw movies every October? Because people like torture porn. Why do they make more Twilight movies? Because people are disgusting.
3. Know the franchise. This has been the problem with all this month's movies. Each and every movie the producers keep trying to mix up or "re-imagine" (shudder) these old horror stand-bys. You go to a "Halloween" movie expecting Michael Myers. What no Michael Myers? Fail. You go to a "Nightmare on Elm Street Movie" to watch Freddy kill oversexed teenagers. Kill off Freddy? Fail. You go to see "Friday the 13th" to see Jason Vorhees take some counslers out with his machete. Jason's gone? FAIL! Get what I'm saying?
This movie was bad. It was painful. I dislike the way it made me think highly of Matthew McConaughey. The Leatherface movies will always be weird. I mean, he likes to wear other peoples' faces as masks. However, where the second one, (with the incomparable Bill Moseley) is really weird but tongue-in-cheek, this one was painful and frustrating.
Oh wait, that's Renee Zellweger.
The worst thing about this movie is that Matthew McConaughey is the best part. I'm not sure where the thought process was behind any moment of this film. I have never been so frustrated and confused at a movie in my life. Not only does it fall back on every standard cliche married to the horror genre, but it also relies on shock rather than tension for appeal.
I mentioned about halfway through the movie that it felt as if a twelve year old boy had seen one horror movie and decided to make his own. There are some ideas that could potentially be interesting. Vilmer's girlfriend is a great basis for an original character, but the writing and plotting is so painfully incoherent that her character becomes flat and convenient.
The ending was so sloppy and unclear I turned to the internet in order to try and get some semblance of an explanation. There are theories out there declaring this film to be a deconstruction of the horror genre, or art house answers to the commercial franchises; however, I think everyone just needs to make peace with the fact that this movie was just awful. Had this been something deeper than it was, it hid the real story a little too well. I can understand some of the theories, and a part of me would like to jump on board. Unfortunately, if this movie were trying to be clever it just (forgive the pun) masked itself behind too much incomprehensible bullshit to have any redeeming value.
It isn't that I didn't "get" the movie. I think there are several readings one might potentially find, but I didn't want to "get" it. I absolutely hate movies that try to be more than they are. One cannot slap a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" logo on a film and then not provide gore, grime and thrills. This movie had very little gore, the grime was cheap and ineffective and the thrills were overshadowed by the countless times I was left feeling irritated.
This film is a monumental failure. Whether it was actually trying to be a fun, chainsaw-killing slasher movie, or an artsy schmartsy, self-deprecating genre critique, it failed. "Scream" deconstructed the horror genre and was still fun, watchable, and not too far up its own ass.
And, in the same vein of "Scream," there are certain rules one must consider when trying to make an American horror film:
1. You can't be smug. You will instantly alienate yourself from an audience, and will end up alone in your own "brilliance." People go to see horror films, especially franchise films, for guts and cheap jump-scares. You don't expect Saw 18 (or whatever one we are on) to be some sort of existential artwork. You expect Achilles Tendon-slices, and needle machines.
2. You have to know your audience. Unless you have been living under a rock, you must have heard about a new movie called "Human Centipede." A crazy doctor decides to sew 3 people together with one digestive system...just take a minute...got the mental image? Yeah, you're welcome. Why does this movie exist? Because people are gross. They like gross things. Why are they making Saw movies every October? Because people like torture porn. Why do they make more Twilight movies? Because people are disgusting.
3. Know the franchise. This has been the problem with all this month's movies. Each and every movie the producers keep trying to mix up or "re-imagine" (shudder) these old horror stand-bys. You go to a "Halloween" movie expecting Michael Myers. What no Michael Myers? Fail. You go to a "Nightmare on Elm Street Movie" to watch Freddy kill oversexed teenagers. Kill off Freddy? Fail. You go to see "Friday the 13th" to see Jason Vorhees take some counslers out with his machete. Jason's gone? FAIL! Get what I'm saying?
This movie was bad. It was painful. I dislike the way it made me think highly of Matthew McConaughey. The Leatherface movies will always be weird. I mean, he likes to wear other peoples' faces as masks. However, where the second one, (with the incomparable Bill Moseley) is really weird but tongue-in-cheek, this one was painful and frustrating.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Coming Soon - "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation"
Best. Tagline. Ever.
Matthew McConaughey AND Renee Zellweger?!
This is going to suck. Hard.
"Friday the 13th: A New Beginning" - Zach's Take
"A New Beginning," indeed.
What is is about horror franchise producers and trying to fix what ain't broke? Who thought that having a film where some dude dresses up as Jason as some lame twist would be better than actually having Jason?
I know I just spoiled the film for people who haven't seen Friday the 13th: A New Beginning, but it is undoubtedly the nadir of all of the major horror franchises. Just absolutely worthless. Remember that Nightmare on Elm Street sequel where Freddy didn't actually appear? No? That's because, as awful as those films became, they knew not to take out the one selling point of the whole series.
Now, some of you may be pointing out that they did the same thing for Halloween III: Season of the Witch, and I didn't rail that film nearly as hard as I am on this one. But there's a big difference between that film and this one: they didn't sell it as a Michael Meyers flick. The cover of F13:ANB clearly shows Jason's iconic mask with the subtitle A New Beginning emblazoned across it.
This demonstrates to me that despite the producer's claims that they wanted "to take the franchise in a new direction," they would not do so without first misleading people into thinking they were about to watch a Jason film. Shameless, spineless, jerkwad tactics. Also known as Marketing 101.
Aside from the massive blunder right out of the gate, is there anything redeeming about this film?
The answer is a resounding "No."
The kills are boring and completely forgettable, the script and pacing painfully dull, and the film betrays the first commandment of horror filmmaking: Thou shall not include obnoxious child characters. When kids are in a horror flick, if they need to be at all, they need to be good actors and the certainly cannot ever get grating. The reason why kid characters cannot be obnoxious and adult characters can be is simple: kids cannot be killed in horror films. It's sort of the unspoken rule. When we see the stock "jerk" character, we know that the character is doomed, and we can cheer for his demise. But not so with the snotty kids. They have to survive the film. Lousy cultural mores. People (obviously) are okay to be killed. Animals, fine (it serves to show how inhuman the killer is) but kids? Nope.
Corey Feldman is just fine in Friday the 13th: The Final Friday because he was a pretty good child actor and his character isn't in it all that much. Apparently, he was initially scheduled to star in this film, but was contractually obligated to appear in the The Goonies instead. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because not only is he the best part about The Goonies, but he could not have saved this mess if he had tried.
Fortunately for us, A New Beginning proved simply to be the beginning of the end of a Jason-less Friday film. The character was wonderfully resurrected in an homage to Frankenstein in what I consider the best of the Friday sequels (excluding Freddy vs. Jason, of course). But this? This is lazy, hack-ish money-grabbing. Avoid it.
"Friday the 13th Part 5" - Maria's Take
No. Just no.
Jason Vorhees is the man (zombie? monster? entity?) that made me love slasher movies. He is a legend and a kick-ass bad guy. He's been drowned, lit on fire, shot, hanged, punched, kicked, etc. and yet, he lives.
Oh wait, no he doesn't.
Part 4 of the series is called "The Final Chapter," and yet we have a Part 5? Well, Jason has a way of surviving, so that's doable...I'm so pumped to see how he is resurrected and zombified! Hold on a second, that hockey mask doesn't look like the iconic one that good ol' Jason wears! Something is amiss.
To steal the slogan from "Suspira's" trailer: "The only thing lamer than the last 15 minutes of this movie are the first 77..." In case you haven't already deduced, Jason Vorhees is not in this film. Don't worry, it's not really a spoiler. IMDB summarizes: "While Jason lies unconscious, a local man decides to use Jason's old M.O. and wreaks havoc at a halfway house for troubled teens."
I think the original plan was actually pretty decent. Tommy Jarvis, played brilliantly in the fourth film by Corey Feldman, is now suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, and is released into a halfway house. Unfortunately, John Shepherd, this film's Tommy Jarvis has neither the acting chops of a young Corey Feldman, nor the likability. Instead, he is whiny, annoying, and forgettable. Jarvis keeps having flashes of Jason, in mirrors, in hallways, etc. So when the kids at the halfway house wind up brutally murdered, Jarvis of course believes Jason has risen from the dead and is seeking his very specific style of revenge. Had this been the case, the movie would have been watchable. Unfortunately, the killer is a copycat. I won't spoil the end, but the only think more stupid than the identity of the killer is the motive.
So much of this movie is not only forgettable, but the little moments that do stick out are unforgivable. There are no aspects of the "Friday the 13th" franchise left (aside from Jarvis' character and the fore-mentioned copycat hockey mask). There is no Crystal Lake, there are no stock characters, rather, as with "Halloween 3," the franchise was attempting something different, and failed miserably.
However, having said all that, this film has a few funny moments, but the kills are dumb and the storyline is painful.
The 6th film of the series is like an apology for this load of crap. It gets back to the roots of the franchise. Go watch that one, or the fourth one, or ANY other film in the series...just don't waste your time on this garbage.
Jason Vorhees is the man (zombie? monster? entity?) that made me love slasher movies. He is a legend and a kick-ass bad guy. He's been drowned, lit on fire, shot, hanged, punched, kicked, etc. and yet, he lives.
Oh wait, no he doesn't.
Part 4 of the series is called "The Final Chapter," and yet we have a Part 5? Well, Jason has a way of surviving, so that's doable...I'm so pumped to see how he is resurrected and zombified! Hold on a second, that hockey mask doesn't look like the iconic one that good ol' Jason wears! Something is amiss.
To steal the slogan from "Suspira's" trailer: "The only thing lamer than the last 15 minutes of this movie are the first 77..." In case you haven't already deduced, Jason Vorhees is not in this film. Don't worry, it's not really a spoiler. IMDB summarizes: "While Jason lies unconscious, a local man decides to use Jason's old M.O. and wreaks havoc at a halfway house for troubled teens."
I think the original plan was actually pretty decent. Tommy Jarvis, played brilliantly in the fourth film by Corey Feldman, is now suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, and is released into a halfway house. Unfortunately, John Shepherd, this film's Tommy Jarvis has neither the acting chops of a young Corey Feldman, nor the likability. Instead, he is whiny, annoying, and forgettable. Jarvis keeps having flashes of Jason, in mirrors, in hallways, etc. So when the kids at the halfway house wind up brutally murdered, Jarvis of course believes Jason has risen from the dead and is seeking his very specific style of revenge. Had this been the case, the movie would have been watchable. Unfortunately, the killer is a copycat. I won't spoil the end, but the only think more stupid than the identity of the killer is the motive.
So much of this movie is not only forgettable, but the little moments that do stick out are unforgivable. There are no aspects of the "Friday the 13th" franchise left (aside from Jarvis' character and the fore-mentioned copycat hockey mask). There is no Crystal Lake, there are no stock characters, rather, as with "Halloween 3," the franchise was attempting something different, and failed miserably.
However, having said all that, this film has a few funny moments, but the kills are dumb and the storyline is painful.
The 6th film of the series is like an apology for this load of crap. It gets back to the roots of the franchise. Go watch that one, or the fourth one, or ANY other film in the series...just don't waste your time on this garbage.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Coming Soon - "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning"
This is without a doubt the most disappointing film on our schedule for October. Maybe of all time.
Movie Exec #1: I've got it! We'll make another Friday the 13th, but instead of actually including Jason, we'll just have some guy be the killer. Then, lead the audience to believe it was Jason the whole time! What a twist! The fans will love it!
Movie Exec #2: Inspired choice! People love the films because of the skillful plotting, the great characterization, and the artful direction! They won't care if the killer is actually Jason or not!
"Freddy's Dead" - Maria's Take
It's Freddy, bitch.
The best thing about any later "Nightmare" film is Freddy Krueger's developed personality. Robert Englund plays Freddy with such attitude, that every word out of his mouth is either remarkably offensive or just plain hilarious.
Partly to accurately describe this film and mostly because we just adore it, Zach and I indulged in "Freddy vs. Jason." By watching that film, "Freddy's Dead" becomes easier to critique. Like I stated, Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger is just so fun to watch, calling any of his appearances "bad" seems almost a slasher movie sacrilege. However, when compared to the masterpiece that is "Freddy vs. Jason," it is easier to nitpick.
The makeup is terrible. Freddy looks like he stuck various shades of Play-Doh to his face. The storyline is confusing, the characters are annoying, and the kills are lame (and lacking). The character of Freddy is given a rushed backstory that only raises more questions, and I found myself offering up mental suggestions of what SHOULD have happened with Freddy's ultimate "death." (Keep in kind, this is #6 in a series of 8).
It always bugs me when the writers get lazy with the setup. Freddy Krueger's ability to kill people in their dreams is absolutely genius and insanely terrifying. Unfortunately, unlike in many of the other films, the dream kills in this film aren't fantastic enough. Breckin Meyer dies in a video game...it's just stupid...well, not as stupid as his hair.
Certainly there are some great one liners, and there are some legitimately creepy parts, but overall, many of the ideas get overused, and Freddy is severely underused. Where in other films, there was this sense of impending doom every time a new scene began because it was hard to tell if the character was in the safety of the real world or being lulled to their death in a dream, in this film, there is a basic setup that always alerts the audience when a specific character is dreaming. It's frustrating.
There are many slasher movies far worse than this, but I'd label this one as "mediocre."
The next movie in the franchise is "New Nightmare" which is a very cool, meta film. Other than the incomparable "Freddy vs. Jason," the 7th film is my favorite in the franchise. I'd definitely encourage anyone who has yet to see it to take a couple of hours and indulge.
The best thing about any later "Nightmare" film is Freddy Krueger's developed personality. Robert Englund plays Freddy with such attitude, that every word out of his mouth is either remarkably offensive or just plain hilarious.
Partly to accurately describe this film and mostly because we just adore it, Zach and I indulged in "Freddy vs. Jason." By watching that film, "Freddy's Dead" becomes easier to critique. Like I stated, Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger is just so fun to watch, calling any of his appearances "bad" seems almost a slasher movie sacrilege. However, when compared to the masterpiece that is "Freddy vs. Jason," it is easier to nitpick.
The makeup is terrible. Freddy looks like he stuck various shades of Play-Doh to his face. The storyline is confusing, the characters are annoying, and the kills are lame (and lacking). The character of Freddy is given a rushed backstory that only raises more questions, and I found myself offering up mental suggestions of what SHOULD have happened with Freddy's ultimate "death." (Keep in kind, this is #6 in a series of 8).
It always bugs me when the writers get lazy with the setup. Freddy Krueger's ability to kill people in their dreams is absolutely genius and insanely terrifying. Unfortunately, unlike in many of the other films, the dream kills in this film aren't fantastic enough. Breckin Meyer dies in a video game...it's just stupid...well, not as stupid as his hair.
Certainly there are some great one liners, and there are some legitimately creepy parts, but overall, many of the ideas get overused, and Freddy is severely underused. Where in other films, there was this sense of impending doom every time a new scene began because it was hard to tell if the character was in the safety of the real world or being lulled to their death in a dream, in this film, there is a basic setup that always alerts the audience when a specific character is dreaming. It's frustrating.
There are many slasher movies far worse than this, but I'd label this one as "mediocre."
The next movie in the franchise is "New Nightmare" which is a very cool, meta film. Other than the incomparable "Freddy vs. Jason," the 7th film is my favorite in the franchise. I'd definitely encourage anyone who has yet to see it to take a couple of hours and indulge.
"Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare" - Zach's Take
Let's get this clear right at the start: they really should have stopped at A Nightmare on Elm Street. Though it's not a perfect film, a lot of the ideas (and most of the execution) in Wes Craven's original flick are really interesting and fresh, even to this day. That's especially true after seeing the hideous remake (man, that's becoming a theme on this blog) which actually made me appreciate the original all the more.
However, since they didn't stop, we were graced with five direct sequels, two ancillary sequels, and the aforementioned cinematic war crime of the remake. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was originally claimed to be Freddy's swan song (as the name suggests) but who knows how sincere New Line's Bob Shaye was at that proclamation, considering Wes Craven's New Nightmare followed only three years later. But taken as the "true" finale to Krueger's legacy, Freddy's Dead disappoints.
Let's start with what we all go to slasher films to see: the body count. What's the tally for Freddy's Dead? Surely, as the final entry to the series, the producers wanted to really go out with a bang. Give Freddy reason to believe he would succeed forever by having him slash his way through swaths of victims.
Final body count: four.
Yep. Four. That includes Freddy.
Now, the Nightmare films were never about body counts. Instead, they focused on unique and clever means to kill their victims: sucked into a bed, ligaments pulled out and used as puppet strings, even bursting through someone's chest. So maybe instead of focusing on quantity for this film, they decided to go with quality, right? Sound reasoning. You should be a movie producer! But that's exactly what the filmmakers didn't do. They are by far the lamest and most boring deaths in the entire franchise. Breckin Meyer (yeah, that guy) falls down the stairs into a pit. Another guy falls on the ground. A deaf kid's head explodes from sound waves. Yeah, I know that last one is pretty cool, but that should have been one out of many.
That aside, the plotting of the film is at once economical (read: it cuts out the usual bullshit, pardon the parlance) and utterly idiotic. The two main characters never even initially learn who Freddy is, they go from being completely unaware of his existence to tracking down his child. There's no moment of disbelief or skepticism. Which is a problem from a storytelling perspective, but from the viewpoint of a seasoned horror film fan, I appreciate not having to see characters learn who Freddy is for a sixth time.
The real problem with the film is that it kind of flirts with some neat ideas, but it is so utterly shallow that your interest is never piqued. Conceptually, the town of Springwood going completely insane from every single child being murdered by Freddy is really cool and would make a great backdrop for the story. Unfortunately, that idea is never really explored and is only used as a plot device to awkwardly convey information to the main characters.
I know I'm tearing this film apart (deservedly so) but I do have to mention how much I adore Robert Englund in the role. Even though the Nightmare sequels only served to make Freddy less and less scary, he's still a fun character to watch. Englund is an extremely gifted physical comedian, and he is consistently funny in this movie. He makes the whole experience bearable. Unfortunately, the movie as a whole is such a sad, clumsy affair.
Ultimately, Freddy's Dead is for fans only. It also does extreme disservice to the fan's loyalty, feeling like a rushed hack job completely undeserving of the character. Luckily, we were given a truly fun and perfect send off to the character in 2003's Freddy vs. Jason. If you're looking for some good, slasher-y fun, definitely watch that instead.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Coming Soon - "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare"
Again, we're discounting the truly terrible remake in favor of worst of the original franchise.
"Ooh, scary! Freddy's dressed up like the Wicked Witch! Gah!!! He's playing Nintendo! This might be too spooky for me."
"Halloween 3: Season of the Witch" - Zach's Take
Here at CFP, we're taking a look at the worst entries in the major horror franchises in celebration of Halloween.
To start things off, Maria and I decided to check out what is actually only arguably the worst of the Halloween franchise. I say "arguably" because this one actually isn't all that bad, but also, because we're not counting the truly reprehensible Rob Zombie remakes. They're so terrible, they don't even count. And yes, I'm aware of how awful the latter Halloween films are, but at least they have Michael Meyers in them. Even if they do mistakenly attempt to shed light on his "origins." Shudder.
Halloween 3: Season of the Witch has a bad reputation amongst horror fans, mainly due to the fact that it doesn't feature Michael Meyers. The producers opted (unsuccessfully) to steer the Halloween franchise into something resembling an anthology, where each new entry would tell a different story and be completely separate from the previous films. A noble goal, to be sure. But definitely not executed all that well.
You see, Halloween 3 isn't terrible. I mean, it has a preposterous plot, a script that moves at a snail's pace, and a severe lack of suspense and scares. But there's no Michael Meyers, dammit!
The story concerns an alcoholic doctor (played mantastically by the manly Tom Atkins) who discovers a conspiracy revolving around a successful Halloween mask company (Silver Shamrock) with the intent to turn kids' faces into snakes and locusts. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even when it is painfully spelled out for us by the main baddie Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy). See, he's a CEO who practices wicthcraft, and by stealing a rock from Stonehenge and channeling its power with silicon chips that fire lasers he's going to get rid of Halloween forever.
Uh huh.
Really, the plot is stupid, but the movie does boast some awesome make-up effects and an excellent score by John Carpenter. Those computer chips that fire lasers I mentioned above? Yeah, some obnoxious woman gets her face blown apart by one and snakes and bugs crawl out of the entry wound. It's pretty cool. There's also a beheading that a robot dude does with his bare hands.
The problem is that there just isn't enough of the cool stuff to balance out the slow pacing. In a movie that so unabashedly revels in its own preposterous tendencies, you'd think the producers would have seen fit to thrown in some more stuff for the gorehounds.
The one thing that I will always take away from Halloween 3 (besides Tom Atkins' bare butt, ohhh yeah!) is the annoyingly addictive Silver Shamrock theme song. It's simple, but I'll be damned if it isn't catchy.
Eight more days till Halloween, Halloween, Halloween!
Eight more days till Halloween, Sil-ver Shamrock!
"Halloween 3: Season of the Witch"
I feel like this movie has an unfair reputation. I didn't love it, but I certainly had an an enjoyable time singing along to the silly "Silver Shamrock" jingle. I can understand why so many people detest this movie. You see "Halloween" on a movie title, you expect Michael Myers. That's fair, but what isn't fair is how quick people are to jump to the conclusion that this movie is nothing more than garbage.
The premise is actually pretty cool. Innocent kids are obliviously buying "Silver Shamrock" Halloween masks--which are, in fact, pretty damn cool. After a guy mysteriously dies in his hospital, Dr. Tom Adkins goes on a quest to uncover what the reasoning was behind the homicide, and why the dead man had a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask clasped in his hand. Tom Adkins and the dead guy's daughter travel to a small Northern California town to find out the dark secrets of "Silver Shamrock."
You might have noticed I name "Silver Shamrock" several times. The company has the catchiest damn jingle ever to exist on the face of the planet. Zach connected it to the "Willy Wonka, Willy Wonka, the Amazing Chocolatier" song from the 2005 version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Fatory." To be fair, it does have a similar rhythm, but the Silver Shamrock song is more fun. You might think that I am going off on an irrelevant tangent, but actually the song plays a major role in the film.
The acting is standard for a mediocre horror movie, and Tom Adkins has a truly impressive mustache. I think what might be the biggest criticism of this movie is just that it was never scary. We watched "Candyman" the other night and that movie has some legitimate scares. This film felt like a movie they would riff on MST3K. But, to be fair, I liked it. I thought it was fun. So many of the movies we review turn out to be boring. This movie, however, is just another 80s horror movie. I think it would have received a better reception from the general public had the producers not stamped "Halloween" into its title, invoking preconceived expectations from its audience.
I like the original theory behind the "Halloween" series. The idea of various Halloween-themed stories is a neat idea. But, of all the franchises, this has always been my least favorite. I love Freddy and Jason, Michael Myers has always been third on my list. Had the producers done something more in the vein of an anthology movie, like "Creepshow," "The Twilight Zone Movie," and more recently "Trick or Treat," I think I would have been more receptive to Michael Myers. So is this film really the worst of the franchise?
No.
The award for worst "Halloween" film goes to those god-awful Rob Zombie remakes. However, is this the worst of the original franchise?
Maybe.
I have an appreciation for the first "Halloween" film, I like that it is slightly smarter than the sex and gore fest that riddles the Freddy and Jason movies. I love "Halloween" for what it pioneered. However, having said that, I can't sit down and watch "Halloween" the way I can "Friday the 13th" or "Nightmare on Elm Street."
Halloween III isn't bad, it just isn't what the audience wanted. The story is ridiculous, but every horror movie story is ridiculous.
Overall, I think this movie was fun, and I will probably watch it again. After all:
How is that not the most amazing song ever?
The premise is actually pretty cool. Innocent kids are obliviously buying "Silver Shamrock" Halloween masks--which are, in fact, pretty damn cool. After a guy mysteriously dies in his hospital, Dr. Tom Adkins goes on a quest to uncover what the reasoning was behind the homicide, and why the dead man had a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask clasped in his hand. Tom Adkins and the dead guy's daughter travel to a small Northern California town to find out the dark secrets of "Silver Shamrock."
You might have noticed I name "Silver Shamrock" several times. The company has the catchiest damn jingle ever to exist on the face of the planet. Zach connected it to the "Willy Wonka, Willy Wonka, the Amazing Chocolatier" song from the 2005 version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Fatory." To be fair, it does have a similar rhythm, but the Silver Shamrock song is more fun. You might think that I am going off on an irrelevant tangent, but actually the song plays a major role in the film.
The acting is standard for a mediocre horror movie, and Tom Adkins has a truly impressive mustache. I think what might be the biggest criticism of this movie is just that it was never scary. We watched "Candyman" the other night and that movie has some legitimate scares. This film felt like a movie they would riff on MST3K. But, to be fair, I liked it. I thought it was fun. So many of the movies we review turn out to be boring. This movie, however, is just another 80s horror movie. I think it would have received a better reception from the general public had the producers not stamped "Halloween" into its title, invoking preconceived expectations from its audience.
I like the original theory behind the "Halloween" series. The idea of various Halloween-themed stories is a neat idea. But, of all the franchises, this has always been my least favorite. I love Freddy and Jason, Michael Myers has always been third on my list. Had the producers done something more in the vein of an anthology movie, like "Creepshow," "The Twilight Zone Movie," and more recently "Trick or Treat," I think I would have been more receptive to Michael Myers. So is this film really the worst of the franchise?
No.
The award for worst "Halloween" film goes to those god-awful Rob Zombie remakes. However, is this the worst of the original franchise?
Maybe.
I have an appreciation for the first "Halloween" film, I like that it is slightly smarter than the sex and gore fest that riddles the Freddy and Jason movies. I love "Halloween" for what it pioneered. However, having said that, I can't sit down and watch "Halloween" the way I can "Friday the 13th" or "Nightmare on Elm Street."
Halloween III isn't bad, it just isn't what the audience wanted. The story is ridiculous, but every horror movie story is ridiculous.
Overall, I think this movie was fun, and I will probably watch it again. After all:
How is that not the most amazing song ever?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Coming Soon - "Halloween 3: Season of the Witch"
The whole month of October, Zach and I will be identifying the "worst of the franchise." First up, Halloween 3.
"Nothing But Trouble" - Maria's Take
What do The Brave Little Toaster, Meet the Feebles, and Nothing But Trouble all have in common?
All three films have left me feeling dirty, confused, and disgusted.
I am used to bad films. I can enjoy bad films. Nothing But Trouble is so far beyond a bad film I can't begin to describe it. When Zach and I moved in together, we combined our film collections. I noticed Zach owned not one, but two copies of this trash. Had I watched it before the joining of our collections, it might have been a deal breaker. This movie is one of the worst things I have ever seen.
The makeup is kind of cool. That is the one positive note I can make. I thought I had lost all possible respect for Demi Moore when she shacked up with Kelso, but alas, along came Nothing But Trouble. I think the casting is what really makes me angry. Here we have some of the greatest comedic personalities of our time: John Candy, Dan Aykroyd, and Chevy Chase, and not one of them is ever funny. The funniest thing about this movie is the random appearance by 2 Pac. And that isn't so much funny as in "haha" but funny as in bizarre.
I guess bizarre would be a decent word to describe this train wreck. It was just weird. Nothing made sense, there was little motive for any of the action, and I hated myself a little bit more each and every minute the movie progressed. There are some easy gags that might appeal to prepubescent boys, but I don't know if I'd want them wasting their time. I would feel immense guilt allowing anyone I know to voluntarily watch this film. I felt bad allowing our 7 month old kitten to watch this movie and she does not have rational thought.
Maybe that's it, maybe you have to be somehow separated from any sense of rationale to enjoy this film. Maybe I have just been hardened by the normal drivel emerging from Hollywood these days to really appreciate utter dog shit.
The story is pointless to summarize, because no matter how you break it down, there is no sense to be made. Chevy Chase was alright. His role called for a guy sort of bewildered and confused at the events unfolding around him. I think they just filmed him onset--unaware the cameras were rolling.
Ultimately, I downright hated this film. It bugs me to use the word "hate" in connection with anything John Candy was a part of because I loved that guy. I hate the fact that he spent a few months of his painfully short life making this piece of garbage. I would rather he have made Cool Runnings 2 than this crappy movie.
I was planning on making a pun on the title, but I don't think the movie even deserves that.
All three films have left me feeling dirty, confused, and disgusted.
I am used to bad films. I can enjoy bad films. Nothing But Trouble is so far beyond a bad film I can't begin to describe it. When Zach and I moved in together, we combined our film collections. I noticed Zach owned not one, but two copies of this trash. Had I watched it before the joining of our collections, it might have been a deal breaker. This movie is one of the worst things I have ever seen.
The makeup is kind of cool. That is the one positive note I can make. I thought I had lost all possible respect for Demi Moore when she shacked up with Kelso, but alas, along came Nothing But Trouble. I think the casting is what really makes me angry. Here we have some of the greatest comedic personalities of our time: John Candy, Dan Aykroyd, and Chevy Chase, and not one of them is ever funny. The funniest thing about this movie is the random appearance by 2 Pac. And that isn't so much funny as in "haha" but funny as in bizarre.
I guess bizarre would be a decent word to describe this train wreck. It was just weird. Nothing made sense, there was little motive for any of the action, and I hated myself a little bit more each and every minute the movie progressed. There are some easy gags that might appeal to prepubescent boys, but I don't know if I'd want them wasting their time. I would feel immense guilt allowing anyone I know to voluntarily watch this film. I felt bad allowing our 7 month old kitten to watch this movie and she does not have rational thought.
Maybe that's it, maybe you have to be somehow separated from any sense of rationale to enjoy this film. Maybe I have just been hardened by the normal drivel emerging from Hollywood these days to really appreciate utter dog shit.
The story is pointless to summarize, because no matter how you break it down, there is no sense to be made. Chevy Chase was alright. His role called for a guy sort of bewildered and confused at the events unfolding around him. I think they just filmed him onset--unaware the cameras were rolling.
Ultimately, I downright hated this film. It bugs me to use the word "hate" in connection with anything John Candy was a part of because I loved that guy. I hate the fact that he spent a few months of his painfully short life making this piece of garbage. I would rather he have made Cool Runnings 2 than this crappy movie.
I was planning on making a pun on the title, but I don't think the movie even deserves that.
"Nothing But Trouble" - Zach's Take
So it's come to this. Nothing But Trouble.
When a film does so much wrong and so very little right, where does one begin in reviewing it?
Nothing But Trouble is perhaps one of the most unpleasant cinematic experiences of all time. Forget Saw, or Hostel, or A Serbian Film. Nevermind any of the 70's and 80's exploitation "classics" like The Last House on the Left, Cannibal Holocaust or I Spit on Your Grave. Nothing But Trouble is a truly grueling experiment in the endurance and perseverance of the audience. It mercilessly and humorlessly aims to torture the viewers in a sadistic display of grime and filth.
Did I mention that it aims to be a comedy?
The story of the film is quite simple. Chris (Chevy Chase) and Diane (Demi Moore) set out for Atlantic City from New York in attempt to do something or rather and meet some guy who neither person likes for reasons that are only semi-explained. Through a series of mishaps (and dumb character decisions) the two end up in a creepy house in Valkenvania, New Jersey. Some stuff happens, none of which is entertaining or remotely funny, and then the movie ends. Oh yeah, and the Justice of the Peace's nose looks like a penis.
That's how I imagine Dan Aykroyd pitched this picture.
This film marks both the debut and departure of Dan Aykroyd as a director. I suspect that after Ghostbusters II succeeded at the box office, someone in Hollywood felt that Aykroyd deserved a chance to bring his unrestrained vision to the lowly masses. That person was clearly a sadist, because the few people who saw this film (it bombed at the box office, understandably) paid dearly. In fact, I have one friend who mentioned to me that the only girl who ever cheated on him was the one whom he took to see Nothing But Trouble on their first date.
The biggest issue with Nothing But Trouble is that there are no jokes in the film. When I described it as humorless, I wasn't exaggerating. The height of the wit on display here is the fact that the judge has a penis nose. That's it. Every scene is just full of obnoxious shouting and aggravatingly stupid decision-making. This film might've worked if there happened to be more than just lowbrow junk. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some uptight prig. I love a good fart joke. But if the humor is going to eschew cleverness in favor of lowest common denominator type stuff, then at least make an attempt to challenge the audience. South Park does it. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia does it. Even with their gross-out humor, they always have a point to make. I can kind of see the hint of indictment of the U.S. justice system going on here, but it never delves deep enough and it certainly is never funny.
The last infuriating thing about Nothing But Trouble is the sheer waste of talent on display. Aykroyd, Chevy Chase, John Candy. Hell, even The Thing and Jurassic Park cinematographer Dean Cundey are doing essentially nothing worthwhile. The only somewhat-decent thing is the make-up effects, which are done pretty well. But they're certainly nothing that hasn't been done before or better in other films.
Little known fact: hip hop group Digital Underground appear as themselves and waste our time with an interminably-long music sequence for no reason relevant to the plot. Know who was a member of Digital Underground? Tupac Shakur. Now I think we know the real reason behind his murder...
As always, leave your thoughts in the comments below or email us at cinematicfacepalm@gmail.com
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Coming Soon - "Nothing But Trouble"
Our "Box Office Blunders" series is coming to end with the pinnacle of Hollywood mistakes.
Full disclosure: at one point in recent history, I owned not one but two copies of this movie on DVD.
Spoiler alert: I still have one. You can't give this movie away.
"Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" - Maria's Take
Okay, first of all, the title is misleading. "Ballistic" seems to indicate some crazy focus on guns. There was certainly a lot of gunfire in the movie, but not nearly enough to warrant an inclusion in the title. Also, there was one fight between the title characters, but they ultimately join forces. Having said all of that, I can't think of a proper title for this movie. The plot, characters, even the locations were so muddled there was nothing coherent enough to form a title.
This movie also included the most boring motorcycle chase I have ever seen. The two stunt people looked so uneasy on the bikes, their top speed was maybe 35. A wood-paneled station wagon sped passed them. It was pretty great though, because they had some epic techno music blasting during the chase, so it just made the scene all the more ridiculous.
I think my biggest problem with this film was just how confusing the story became. It started off simple enough, a young boy, Michael, was implanted with some piece of technology that could potentially kill him. Sever, played dreadfully by Lucy Liu, extracts the technology and protects the boy. Ecks, played by the always mediocre Antonio Banderas, is trying to find his wife. He is told Sever carries the necessary information to find his long lost love, and so he hunts down Sever. Alright, I got that part. However, it is at this point in the screenwriting process that the writer decided to start including action film cliches. So, Ecks learns that Michael is his son and the evil Gant has married his wife. Ecks and Sever then team up. My problem with the majority of the plot revolves around Sever's lack of character. We learn she was a mother whose child was taken, but we never understand why she is so set on saving Michael. Gant is the one who took her family away, and I venture to guess she is just set on revenge, but the characters are so weak it becomes hard to place some of the ideas together.
This movie was most likely written for an audience happy with big explosions and hot, half naked women. I understand that I might not be the target audience for this movie. However, this movie isn't fun like the first Transformers movie and it isn't hilariously over the top like...well, other action flicks (I must admit here, action movies really aren't my favorite, so it is hard for me to provide examples). This movie plays out like a sub-par video game.
In conclusion, when a production company hires a guy named Kaos (pronounced like "chaos" not "Laos"--an embarrassing mistake I made), you can't expect Hitchcock levels of film-making, hell, you can't expect Michael Bay levels of film-making. This movie was just bad. Don't watch it.
This movie also included the most boring motorcycle chase I have ever seen. The two stunt people looked so uneasy on the bikes, their top speed was maybe 35. A wood-paneled station wagon sped passed them. It was pretty great though, because they had some epic techno music blasting during the chase, so it just made the scene all the more ridiculous.
I think my biggest problem with this film was just how confusing the story became. It started off simple enough, a young boy, Michael, was implanted with some piece of technology that could potentially kill him. Sever, played dreadfully by Lucy Liu, extracts the technology and protects the boy. Ecks, played by the always mediocre Antonio Banderas, is trying to find his wife. He is told Sever carries the necessary information to find his long lost love, and so he hunts down Sever. Alright, I got that part. However, it is at this point in the screenwriting process that the writer decided to start including action film cliches. So, Ecks learns that Michael is his son and the evil Gant has married his wife. Ecks and Sever then team up. My problem with the majority of the plot revolves around Sever's lack of character. We learn she was a mother whose child was taken, but we never understand why she is so set on saving Michael. Gant is the one who took her family away, and I venture to guess she is just set on revenge, but the characters are so weak it becomes hard to place some of the ideas together.
This movie was most likely written for an audience happy with big explosions and hot, half naked women. I understand that I might not be the target audience for this movie. However, this movie isn't fun like the first Transformers movie and it isn't hilariously over the top like...well, other action flicks (I must admit here, action movies really aren't my favorite, so it is hard for me to provide examples). This movie plays out like a sub-par video game.
In conclusion, when a production company hires a guy named Kaos (pronounced like "chaos" not "Laos"--an embarrassing mistake I made), you can't expect Hitchcock levels of film-making, hell, you can't expect Michael Bay levels of film-making. This movie was just bad. Don't watch it.
"Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" - Zach's Take
A resounding meh.
That's all this movie elicits from me. It's just mediocre in the truest sense of the word. Not a single thing about the film is interesting in the least. Terrible, poorly-paced script. Bland performances. Stale action scenes. I'm sure I've said this is a previous review, but it bears repeating. When it comes to action movies, the story doesn't always have to be clever or hell, even make sense. But if you're gonna skimp on some aspect of the movie, then you have to make up for it in the action scenes. And naturally, this movie's action scenes are poorly conceived and not the least bit thrilling. But what do you expect when the director's name is "Kaos?"
Ugh.
That really sums up the movie right there. "Directed by Kaos." And surprise! A guy named "Kaos" has an affinity for really terrible techno/house/electronica music, so he decided to put it in his stupid movie! Sorry buddy, just because you enjoy boring, repetitive drivel doesn't mean you should throw it in your action scenes.
This movie might have been successful if it were released eight or nine years earlier. This has mid-90's action movie written all over it. The plot is incredibly derivative and even the one-liners are facepalm-inducing. This movie is exactly what the average studio exec thinks the American public wants. Thank the flying spaghetti monster that they rejected this tripe and instead opted for something more artistic and thought-provoking.
As always, leave your thoughts in the comments section below or email us with your suggestions at cinematicfacepalm@gmail.com!
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Coming Soon - "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever"
Hey, it's that "Grant's like me; he's a digger" guy from Jurassic Park! Oh man, Jurassic Park is a great film. I like the dinosaurs. And the score. And the Jeff Goldblum.
Damnit, now I wanna watch Jurassic Park! Why did we have to start a site about watching bad movies?
"Ishtar" - Maria's Take
Okay, so it wasn't that bad.
Granted, it wasn't very good either. I went into this movie expecting absolute garbage. For years, I have been told this movie is pretty much unwatchable. And, after about 20 minutes of Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty proving that they cannot sing and have no chemistry as a comedic duo, I would agree. However, about halfway through the film there are some entertaining scenes. I think those individuals who say this film is awful have probably never suffered through the likes of "Cutthroat Island" or "Miss Conception."
Usually I complain about how bored I was throughout the duration of these movies, however, this one kept my attention and actually had me laughing. I think both Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman are wonderful actors, but I don't think this was the proper genre for the two. Attempting to homage the Bing Crosby and Bob Hope "Road to..." movies of the 40s and 50s, "Ishtar" places two painfully ordinary individuals in the middle of an African land war (hilarious!). The difference is, in the famous "Road to..." films, audiences knew what they were getting into from the get-go. Hope and Crosby were famous personalities, not Oscar friendly actors more suited for high drama or artful comedies (you know, like "Tootsie). Also, in the "Road to..." films, there was a very specific straight character and a well defined clown. In "Ishtar" the roles get muddled, and it sometimes feels like Beatty and Hoffman are both trying too hard to show off their comedic panache.
However, I did actually enjoy some of this film. The auctioneer scene with Hoffman pretending to know every dialect was fun and I enjoyed the whole "blind camel" bit. Unfortunately, the writers and director of the film focused on the wrong aspects of the plot. Setting them up as terrible though ambitious musicians is fine, and I think the ending, although absolutely ridiculous, could work more effectively if it was not drawn out for a lengthy and unnecessary bit of time. The first 20 or so minutes of this movie felt disconnected and irrelevant to the rest of the film. I understand that the filmmakers were attempting to create the exposition for their ultimate punchline, but it was the part of the film that dragged rather mercilessly and, I'm certain, lost a large percentage of their potential audience.
Overall, of all the films reviewed thus far, I have to admit (much to my own chagrin) that I enjoyed this one the most. Perhaps it is my love for Dustin Hoffman, but I really didn't hate this movie. I agree that it does, many times, try way too hard, but compared to some of the awful things that get released today (how many "Resident Evil" movies does Paul W.S. Anderson really need to make?) "Ishtar" is simply a mediocre Hollywood film with surprisingly good actors.
Granted, it wasn't very good either. I went into this movie expecting absolute garbage. For years, I have been told this movie is pretty much unwatchable. And, after about 20 minutes of Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty proving that they cannot sing and have no chemistry as a comedic duo, I would agree. However, about halfway through the film there are some entertaining scenes. I think those individuals who say this film is awful have probably never suffered through the likes of "Cutthroat Island" or "Miss Conception."
Usually I complain about how bored I was throughout the duration of these movies, however, this one kept my attention and actually had me laughing. I think both Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman are wonderful actors, but I don't think this was the proper genre for the two. Attempting to homage the Bing Crosby and Bob Hope "Road to..." movies of the 40s and 50s, "Ishtar" places two painfully ordinary individuals in the middle of an African land war (hilarious!). The difference is, in the famous "Road to..." films, audiences knew what they were getting into from the get-go. Hope and Crosby were famous personalities, not Oscar friendly actors more suited for high drama or artful comedies (you know, like "Tootsie). Also, in the "Road to..." films, there was a very specific straight character and a well defined clown. In "Ishtar" the roles get muddled, and it sometimes feels like Beatty and Hoffman are both trying too hard to show off their comedic panache.
However, I did actually enjoy some of this film. The auctioneer scene with Hoffman pretending to know every dialect was fun and I enjoyed the whole "blind camel" bit. Unfortunately, the writers and director of the film focused on the wrong aspects of the plot. Setting them up as terrible though ambitious musicians is fine, and I think the ending, although absolutely ridiculous, could work more effectively if it was not drawn out for a lengthy and unnecessary bit of time. The first 20 or so minutes of this movie felt disconnected and irrelevant to the rest of the film. I understand that the filmmakers were attempting to create the exposition for their ultimate punchline, but it was the part of the film that dragged rather mercilessly and, I'm certain, lost a large percentage of their potential audience.
Overall, of all the films reviewed thus far, I have to admit (much to my own chagrin) that I enjoyed this one the most. Perhaps it is my love for Dustin Hoffman, but I really didn't hate this movie. I agree that it does, many times, try way too hard, but compared to some of the awful things that get released today (how many "Resident Evil" movies does Paul W.S. Anderson really need to make?) "Ishtar" is simply a mediocre Hollywood film with surprisingly good actors.
"Ishtar" - Zach's Take
Ishtar's reputation is that of one of the worst films ever made. A colossal failure. A staggering display of ineptitude.
I can't say that I necessarily agree with that sentiment, but it is mostly terrible. The acting is fine. But that's about it.
Really, the fault of the film comes down squarely to Writer/Director Elaine May. Basically, the script is atrociously structured. The first act mostly consists Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty singing terrible songs in a desperate attempt to get laughs from the audience. Those laughs never come. We get it, they're terrible singers. Can we learn something about their characters so that we care about them? No? Why Not? Because Elaine May couldn't be bothered to flesh out their characters beyond the fact that they're bad singers? Oh, okay. Let's just have another insufferable scene of the two guys singing terribly until suddenly we are thrown into the Middle East and introduced to a stupid plot revolving around an ancient map and a power struggle between the CIA and communists.
Ugh.
The only time this movie even slightly amused me was when a blind camel comes into play. Even then, I was laughing at how ridiculously derpy camels are, not the scene itself. Seriously, look:
"HURF DURF I'M A CAMEL!! ISHTAR IS AN UNDERRATED CLASSIC!"
Okay, where was I? Oh yeah, this movie isn't the worst picture ever made, not by a long shot. But it is a pretty terrible Hollywood movie, with very few redeeming qualities. It's also one of the laziest big budget movies I've ever seen. There was clearly very little thought put into any aspect of it. Considering the talent involved, I guess I understand why it's been so mercilessly eviscerated by critics and the public. After seeing it, I can't really be bothered to defend it.
As always, leave your thoughts in the comments below or email us with suggestions at cinematicfacepalm@blogspot.com
Monday, September 6, 2010
Coming Soon - Ishtar
"Cutthroat Island" - Maria's Take
Pirates, treasure, exploding ships, cutlasses, scene-stealing monkeys; never would I have imagined a movie jam-packed with all of these things could ever be so painfully boring. Starring the usually charismatic and likable Geena Davis and Matthew Modine, "Cutthroat Island" succeeded with sucking these two actors dry of any personality. The script was abysmal, the acting was stilted and poorly directed, the sound editing was obnoxiously uneven, the special effects and makeup were sloppy, and the sets were cheesy.
Hmm, I wonder why this movie bombed?!
The plot is so cliche it is barely worth mentioning. Morgan, portrayed lazily by Geena Davis, is a lady pirate searching for her late father's treasure. She happens upon William Shaw (according to Zach--I heard him called "Sean"),played by Matthew Modine, some sort of thief-liar-slave, whom she buys and falls in love with. They are racing against Frank Langella's character, one whose name I missed, who also wants the treasure--basically because they needed an antagonist. Good wins out, blah, blah, blah.
My biggest issue with this film was the writers didn't even try to write dialogue authentic for the time period. Actually, to be fair, little of this movie's production reflected the mid 17th century. The jokes were mostly visual and usually consisted of either a kick in the groin or the monkey (who is, inexplicably, either mentioned or seen in every shot) thinking he's people. One of the British soldiers looks remarkably like Louis XIV, which doesn't begin to make sense, and the other characters look straight out of the Dark Ages.
This movie failed for a great number of reasons: it was painfully tedious, the story took far too long to resolve itself, the characters were boring or generic at best, and most noticeably, the filmmakers tried way too hard. This film tried to be eveything, a romance, an action flick, a costume drama, a comedy; and yet it failed at every one. Ultimately, it was a boring 2 plus hours of cinematic disaster that dragged a couple of likable actors down with its sinking ship.
On the bright side, this is EXACTLY the type of film Zach and I created this blog to review. It is Hollywood at it's most cringe-worthy, and to that I say cheers to you, Mr. Bigshot Producer, I hope that 140 million dollar loss feels really good right about now.
Hmm, I wonder why this movie bombed?!
The plot is so cliche it is barely worth mentioning. Morgan, portrayed lazily by Geena Davis, is a lady pirate searching for her late father's treasure. She happens upon William Shaw (according to Zach--I heard him called "Sean"),played by Matthew Modine, some sort of thief-liar-slave, whom she buys and falls in love with. They are racing against Frank Langella's character, one whose name I missed, who also wants the treasure--basically because they needed an antagonist. Good wins out, blah, blah, blah.
My biggest issue with this film was the writers didn't even try to write dialogue authentic for the time period. Actually, to be fair, little of this movie's production reflected the mid 17th century. The jokes were mostly visual and usually consisted of either a kick in the groin or the monkey (who is, inexplicably, either mentioned or seen in every shot) thinking he's people. One of the British soldiers looks remarkably like Louis XIV, which doesn't begin to make sense, and the other characters look straight out of the Dark Ages.
This movie failed for a great number of reasons: it was painfully tedious, the story took far too long to resolve itself, the characters were boring or generic at best, and most noticeably, the filmmakers tried way too hard. This film tried to be eveything, a romance, an action flick, a costume drama, a comedy; and yet it failed at every one. Ultimately, it was a boring 2 plus hours of cinematic disaster that dragged a couple of likable actors down with its sinking ship.
On the bright side, this is EXACTLY the type of film Zach and I created this blog to review. It is Hollywood at it's most cringe-worthy, and to that I say cheers to you, Mr. Bigshot Producer, I hope that 140 million dollar loss feels really good right about now.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
"Cutthroat Island" - Zach's Take
Before watching Cutthroat Island, I was afraid that I might actually enjoy the film. I feared that it would be better than its reputation would lead one to believe. It couldn't be as bad as people say, no. It must be unfairly maligned! And if it wasn't so terrible, it has no place on our blog.
Unfortunately, I was wrong.
It's a miserable, plodding, cliche-ridden borefest. When the producers set out to make this film, it's clear that they wanted to make something akin to the Errol Flynn swashbuckling adventure films. What they forgot was the adventure and swashbuckling. Sure, there's lots of swordplay in this film, but none of it is exciting or remotely interesting because a.) the characters are absolutely one-note, and b.)the choreography is extremely stagey and tame. Not to mention, no less than 57% per cent of this movie is in slow motion. Director Renny Harlin inexplicably decides to switch between slow motion and normal shots for the majority of the movie's action sequences. There's no rhythm, no intention. The slow motion is never used to build the tension or suspense. It kinda just comes out of nowhere. At times, it feels like the slo-mo shots were an accident, but the producers realized they were already $100 million in the hole and couldn't go back to do reshoots.
Unfortunately, I was wrong.
It's a miserable, plodding, cliche-ridden borefest. When the producers set out to make this film, it's clear that they wanted to make something akin to the Errol Flynn swashbuckling adventure films. What they forgot was the adventure and swashbuckling. Sure, there's lots of swordplay in this film, but none of it is exciting or remotely interesting because a.) the characters are absolutely one-note, and b.)the choreography is extremely stagey and tame. Not to mention, no less than 57% per cent of this movie is in slow motion. Director Renny Harlin inexplicably decides to switch between slow motion and normal shots for the majority of the movie's action sequences. There's no rhythm, no intention. The slow motion is never used to build the tension or suspense. It kinda just comes out of nowhere. At times, it feels like the slo-mo shots were an accident, but the producers realized they were already $100 million in the hole and couldn't go back to do reshoots.
What I'm getting at is this movie, which focuses almost exclusively on action, can't even get the action scenes right. I mean, if you're going to ignore characterization, humor, and quick-plotting in exchange for lots of sword fights, then at least make the fights fun!
There's no single fault in this movie. It's the product of a million astoundingly awful decisions. Terrible script. Boring direction. Zero chemistry between Matthew Modine and Geena Davis. And that goddamned monkey the producers decided to throw in to appeal to children for comic relief.
The movie has one ambition that is kind of admirable, and that's making a female the protagonist as well as the major player in all the fights. There's a real shortage of decent female action heroes. Sadly, Geena Davis is the actress called in to possess the dry-cool wit and physicality required for the role. Look, Geena Davis is fine most of the time. She does what's required of her in The Fly, she's not bad in Beetlejuice, and she's not terrible in A League of their Own. But she is terrible in this. I'm sorry, but she does not strike me as a badass pirate chick.
There's no single fault in this movie. It's the product of a million astoundingly awful decisions. Terrible script. Boring direction. Zero chemistry between Matthew Modine and Geena Davis. And that goddamned monkey the producers decided to throw in to appeal to children for comic relief.
The movie has one ambition that is kind of admirable, and that's making a female the protagonist as well as the major player in all the fights. There's a real shortage of decent female action heroes. Sadly, Geena Davis is the actress called in to possess the dry-cool wit and physicality required for the role. Look, Geena Davis is fine most of the time. She does what's required of her in The Fly, she's not bad in Beetlejuice, and she's not terrible in A League of their Own. But she is terrible in this. I'm sorry, but she does not strike me as a badass pirate chick.
Don't even get me started on Matthew Modine.
All-in-all, this was painful to sit through. I love big, dumb fun as much as the next moviegoer, but this movie is just a bloated, moronic chore. It's also one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. Sometimes, only sometimes, the American public gets it right. Thankfully, this one got buried out to sea.
As always , leave your thoughts in the comments below or email us at cinematicfacepalm@gmail.com
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Coming Soon - "Cutthroat Island"!
Geena Davis and Matthew Modine! This movie must've made a killing!
Oh, right.
Geena Davis now does quickly cancelled TV shows, and Matthew Modine was in "Funky Monkey."
"Miss Conception" - Zach's Take
Miss Conception makes a great case for forced sterilization.
There's your poster quote, right there.
Seriously, I know I'm not the target demographic for this type of film, but I can at least recognize when they are well-made (such as Love Actually) or at least funny (again, Love Actually) but this is just a mess. The comedic timing is always off, jokes that might have worked in more capable hands fall completely and utterly flat. The characters are the worst kind of people; selfish, vapid, irresponsible, simply impossible to care about. I sat there, watching this junk, wondering why the filmmakers thought that I should care that this terrible human being wants to reproduce. The first thing we see Heather Graham's character do is push her boyfriend out of bed because she doesn't want to get up to answer the phone. Which is a perfect illustration of her character I suppose, but that doesn't make me want to follow her around for an hour and a half.
What's more, she's also terribly shallow. Her sole ambition in life is to have a child. Putting aside society's tendency to romanticize having children, should that be anyone's singular pursuit? Especially when the only reason for having the child is simply because time is almost up, not because of a strong desire to start a family.
Now, I may be over-analyzing this movie (I am) but I really want to stress just how stupid it really is. Heather Graham's character orders semen over the internet and almost impregnates herself with it. She doesn't even go to a sperm bank. Instead, she gets the stuff delivered right to her door. How does she know that its coming from a reputable source and not just some dude in his basement? The only reason why she doesn't go through with it is because her mother surprises her with a birthday cake and she shoots it out of the syringe in shock. Should we really be rooting for a person who is so desperate to get pregnant that she will get sperm online?
Aside from the awful script, the director clearly had no idea what kind of movie he wanted to make. One moment it feels like its attempting to be a drama, the next, a romantic comedy. But it never quite feels right because its shot like an episode of CSI. Super-saturated, blown-out. It really is a truly ugly film. Both in terms of the cinematography and the message conveyed.
I've already spent too much energy on this stupid, stupid film . Let's just leave it at the fact that this production recursively demonstrates why some people should never reproduce: the kid might grow up and make a movie like Miss Conception.
As always, leave your thoughts in the comments below or send us an email at cinematicfacepalm@gmail.com
"Miss Conception" - Maria's Take
Okay, when the one passable character's single redeeming quality is that he doesn't sleep with his secretary, there's trouble.
In this bland, generic romantic comedy, Heather Graham plays Georgie, a woman who, after her boyfriend's sister has a baby, inexplicably feels her own biological clock ticking and goes on a pathetically desperate plight to procreate. Her documentary filmmaker boyfriend, Zak (ugh), does not share her sudden onset obsession with babies, and the two part ways.
Georgie becomes increasingly more desperate to have a baby after some French fertility guy (I don't think he was a doctor) tells her she has only one egg left in her ovaries. Georgie drags her two token sidekicks--a partygirl (Clem) and a gay costume designer (Justin), along for the ride.
Then this movie gets stupid.
Georgie tries everything from seducing her coworkers to harshly demanding Justin to provide his seed. Ultimately, Zak comes back from Ireland and the two reconcile and Georgie miraculously gets pregnant.
This movie personifies the double standard. Georgie and Clem objectify every man they see as little more than a potential sperm donor. They are even inexplicably cruel to Justin, when, under the insane pressure thrust upon his by his female cohorts, he does not provide Georgie with a sample. If this movie were reversed, feminist groups would be up in arms about the objectification of women. I think all objectification is wrong, male or female, but hey, what do I know?
The aesthetics of this movie are atrocious. The lighting is terrible; Heather Graham is often washed out. The cinematography is dreadful; the angles are weird and many of the shots try too hard to convey some sort of art school look, but it clashes with the tone of the film.
With Heather Graham carrying this film, the acting is obviously bad. However, the character of Zak is played well enough. It feels like a role that had Colin Firth as an inspiration, but a budget of zero. Overall this film played like a poor man's "Bridget Jones," which, let's just face it, is a poor man's "Pride and Prejudice."
This movie was painful to say the least, it never found its footing, and I was bored through most of it.
Next week, Zach and I begin a month of film flops! From "Cutthroat Island" to "Ishtar," we will document Hollywood's most famous foibles.
In this bland, generic romantic comedy, Heather Graham plays Georgie, a woman who, after her boyfriend's sister has a baby, inexplicably feels her own biological clock ticking and goes on a pathetically desperate plight to procreate. Her documentary filmmaker boyfriend, Zak (ugh), does not share her sudden onset obsession with babies, and the two part ways.
Georgie becomes increasingly more desperate to have a baby after some French fertility guy (I don't think he was a doctor) tells her she has only one egg left in her ovaries. Georgie drags her two token sidekicks--a partygirl (Clem) and a gay costume designer (Justin), along for the ride.
Then this movie gets stupid.
Georgie tries everything from seducing her coworkers to harshly demanding Justin to provide his seed. Ultimately, Zak comes back from Ireland and the two reconcile and Georgie miraculously gets pregnant.
This movie personifies the double standard. Georgie and Clem objectify every man they see as little more than a potential sperm donor. They are even inexplicably cruel to Justin, when, under the insane pressure thrust upon his by his female cohorts, he does not provide Georgie with a sample. If this movie were reversed, feminist groups would be up in arms about the objectification of women. I think all objectification is wrong, male or female, but hey, what do I know?
The aesthetics of this movie are atrocious. The lighting is terrible; Heather Graham is often washed out. The cinematography is dreadful; the angles are weird and many of the shots try too hard to convey some sort of art school look, but it clashes with the tone of the film.
With Heather Graham carrying this film, the acting is obviously bad. However, the character of Zak is played well enough. It feels like a role that had Colin Firth as an inspiration, but a budget of zero. Overall this film played like a poor man's "Bridget Jones," which, let's just face it, is a poor man's "Pride and Prejudice."
This movie was painful to say the least, it never found its footing, and I was bored through most of it.
Next week, Zach and I begin a month of film flops! From "Cutthroat Island" to "Ishtar," we will document Hollywood's most famous foibles.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Coming Soon: "Miss Conception"
Our first film that features an (arguably) actual Hollywood star! Yes, Heather Graham demonstrates her incredible range and depth by putting on a British accent for no good reason!
"Let God Be the Judge" - Maria's take
One time, in high school, I was timing a competitive theater production. Some poor kid forgot his line and proceeded to stand in silence, fists clenched, for no less than 15 minutes (remember, I had a stopwatch in front of me). I thought that was the worst theatrical calamity I would ever witness.
How wrong I was.
"Let God be the Judge" is nothing more than a filmed stage production; the director even showed us the audience prior to and just following the movie. As a former stage actor this really bugged me. Theater is not meant to be filmed, and all this piece of visual garbage did was prove why. I never felt any connection to the characters, the actors' performances were over-the-top and obnoxious at times, and the angles were poorly filmed because the choreographed blocking corresponded to the work as a stage picture, not as a movie scene. I think the most blatant theatrical blasphemy (see what I did there) occurred when, as the cinematographer--and I use that term very, very loosely--zoomed in for a closeup, the actors' scripts were obviously on display. The guy playing the judge (who was credited as "Gabriel," though that would contradict the title of this piece of cinematic trash) was actually following along with his finger. I tried to give this film's technical issues a little slack, but the more I watched, the angrier I became. I couldn't understand why the director felt compelled to turn this into a publicly released DVD. If he wanted to get his message across to a wider audience, I think it would be more beneficial to take the show on tour. Or, if his heart was really set on making this a movie, he should have done away with the "audience" element and hired a more seasoned cinematographer.
Technical problems aside, this movie offended every moral and virtuous bone in my body. Not only does the film's overstated message--judge not lest ye be judged--contradict itself time after time, the film preaches against homosexuality; it subtly hints that statutory rape is a more forgivable offense in Jesus' eyes. I try to refrain from obscenities on this blog, but I really have to call bullshit on this whole insane moral standing. I am not about to get on my soapbox, but I just have a major problem with this in my own moral opinion. Ladies and gentlemen, can we just move into the 21st century?
The film tries to add a lightheartedness that muddles the tone. A Tyler Perry reminiscent character makes a mockery of this already stupid story. The lead character steals a car, gets convicted of statutory rape, etc. and remains widely considered to be a good person. Nothing about this film seems particularly "Christian."
I think the thing that really bugged me about this film was just the "holier than thou" attitude conveyed throughout the majority of the story. The writing hits the viewer over the head with this idea that we are all too judgmental. Okay, fine. However, instead of holding up Christian teachings and values, a guy who did some pretty low things gets pretty easily forgiven. Where is the justice? What good is setting this work in a courtroom if there is ultimately very little justice?
Overall, this film as a movie is fine--it would work better as a play, but the acting was overall slightly above mediocre, and the sets were pretty nice for what I imagine was a small budget. However, much like "C Me Dance" this film gave me some insight. Christian exploitation films are fine, most are harmless. However, this film was offensive. It preached hate toward other communities of people, which I don't think is ever okay. I am all for freedom of speech, but I feel like the right is abused when people try and encourage hate. I think it lessens whatever message one is trying to get across. Hatred turns people off, and eventually, no one wants to listen any more.
How wrong I was.
"Let God be the Judge" is nothing more than a filmed stage production; the director even showed us the audience prior to and just following the movie. As a former stage actor this really bugged me. Theater is not meant to be filmed, and all this piece of visual garbage did was prove why. I never felt any connection to the characters, the actors' performances were over-the-top and obnoxious at times, and the angles were poorly filmed because the choreographed blocking corresponded to the work as a stage picture, not as a movie scene. I think the most blatant theatrical blasphemy (see what I did there) occurred when, as the cinematographer--and I use that term very, very loosely--zoomed in for a closeup, the actors' scripts were obviously on display. The guy playing the judge (who was credited as "Gabriel," though that would contradict the title of this piece of cinematic trash) was actually following along with his finger. I tried to give this film's technical issues a little slack, but the more I watched, the angrier I became. I couldn't understand why the director felt compelled to turn this into a publicly released DVD. If he wanted to get his message across to a wider audience, I think it would be more beneficial to take the show on tour. Or, if his heart was really set on making this a movie, he should have done away with the "audience" element and hired a more seasoned cinematographer.
Technical problems aside, this movie offended every moral and virtuous bone in my body. Not only does the film's overstated message--judge not lest ye be judged--contradict itself time after time, the film preaches against homosexuality; it subtly hints that statutory rape is a more forgivable offense in Jesus' eyes. I try to refrain from obscenities on this blog, but I really have to call bullshit on this whole insane moral standing. I am not about to get on my soapbox, but I just have a major problem with this in my own moral opinion. Ladies and gentlemen, can we just move into the 21st century?
The film tries to add a lightheartedness that muddles the tone. A Tyler Perry reminiscent character makes a mockery of this already stupid story. The lead character steals a car, gets convicted of statutory rape, etc. and remains widely considered to be a good person. Nothing about this film seems particularly "Christian."
I think the thing that really bugged me about this film was just the "holier than thou" attitude conveyed throughout the majority of the story. The writing hits the viewer over the head with this idea that we are all too judgmental. Okay, fine. However, instead of holding up Christian teachings and values, a guy who did some pretty low things gets pretty easily forgiven. Where is the justice? What good is setting this work in a courtroom if there is ultimately very little justice?
Overall, this film as a movie is fine--it would work better as a play, but the acting was overall slightly above mediocre, and the sets were pretty nice for what I imagine was a small budget. However, much like "C Me Dance" this film gave me some insight. Christian exploitation films are fine, most are harmless. However, this film was offensive. It preached hate toward other communities of people, which I don't think is ever okay. I am all for freedom of speech, but I feel like the right is abused when people try and encourage hate. I think it lessens whatever message one is trying to get across. Hatred turns people off, and eventually, no one wants to listen any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)