squeezebox Reviews

Putrid Sex Object (2006)

Disgusting shock video or avant garde performance art?

[5/10 · 24 July 2017]

Putrid Sex Object is a two minute long underground shock video which has garnered a reputation along the lines of "2 Girls 1 Cup," "Mr Hands" and dozens of other videos which would have remained in obscurity had the secondary phenomenon of YouTube "reaction videos" not become a thing.

A drag queen wanders down a dark hallway and comes to a room where there is a skinned cow head on the floor. She then goes about pleasuring herself with it and covering herself in its blood. The video ends.

It's difficult to say what the motivation was behind the creation of the video. It's the sort of thing one might anonymously post to the fringes of the internet just to catch deep web creepers off guard, or it might be the sort of video that would be projected behind a band in an East Village punk bar. The actor who portrays the "lonely girl" has stated it was just a job and was never meant as anything more than a bizarre short film.

As far as the film itself goes, I'll go out on a limb (head?) here and say for a two minute video it's pretty atmospheric. Beyond the obvious gross-out factor there is a creepy, unnerving feel to the video which has as much to do with the eerie lighting and weird soundtrack as to what is happening on screen.

Basically, while strong stuff, Putrid Sex Object is far from the most stomach-churning shock video I've seen and is also one of the few that I am willing to call a piece of performance art. It's no worse than anything in John Waters's early films. Definitely worth seeking out for those with an interest in underground cinema.

(Note: I have given it a 5 only because a number or star rating is borderline irrelevant to a piece like this)

After the Ball (2015)

Surprisingly good comedy with good performances

[7/10 · 7 January 2016]

After the Ball is an entertaining little comedy that takes a few elements of Cinderella and uses them to tell the story of a young fashion designer who manages to get a job at her father's design company, only to be ousted by her stepmother and stepsisters. With the encouragement of her aunt and her actor friend, she disguises herself as a young male designer and manages to get hired back at the company where she battles the evil forces out to get her/him, but with newly found self-confidence.

I was expecting nothing from this movie, but my daughter wanted to watch it and it had a rating higher than one star on Netflix, so I figured why not. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. While it's predictable in the extreme, it's genuinely funny and moves along at a good pace, with a solid screenplay and likable characters. I had never heard of Portia Doubleday before watching this movie, but her performance is terrific. She's funny, sympathetic and simply a pleasure to watch.

Don't expect a profound or earth-shattering experience, but if you are in the mood for some lighthearted fun, you could do much worse than After the Ball.

Transylvania 6-5000 (1985)

Dreadful, idiotic comedy that is saved by bizarre, hilarious moments throughout

[6/10 · 14 October 2013]

Transylvania 6-5000 is really quite terrible. It's a juvenile, sophomoric, amateurish comedy that the actors and filmmakers appear to have made up as they went along and then stuck together in the editing room. But the movie is chock full of non sequitur moments that range from bizarre to hilarious.

As the two tabloid journalists who travel to Transylvania to get a story, Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley, Jr make a strange duo. Goldblum's performance is offbeat and funny one minute then uncomfortably flat the next. One gets the feeling he started out having fun but at some point during the production grew bored. On the other hand Begley is great as the dopey, manic reporter who really believes they're going to blow the lid off the Frankenstein legend.

Michael Richards's only direction seems to have been "be weird." He takes his chiropractor character from "Fridays" to unprecedented heights of outlandishness and his unhinged performance is one of the highlights of the movie. Jeffrey Jones, John Byner and Carol Kane are, as always, goofy and fun, as is Joseph Balonga as a mad scientist who only seems to go mad when he physically steps foot in his laboratory. Rounding out the principal cast are Geena Davis as a sexy vampire lady and Teresa Ganzel as Goldblum's love interest. Ganzel appears to be so delighted to be in the movie she never quite manages to do anything except smile giddily.

Rudy De Luca (a far cry from his work with Mel Brooks on Spaceballs) directs the movie like a TV show. It has a Disney Channel blandness to its photography and pacing. Were it not for the aforementioned work by Richards and Begley, Jr this movie would probably be a gargantuan task to sit through. But there is enough oddball humor sprinkled throughout to make it worth watching, though apparently much of the comedy was improvised by the actors, which leaves little credit for De Luca, who seems to be a much better collaborator than solo writer-director.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

I have never wanted to like a movie so much, but...

[6/10 · 23 May 2013]

I cannot put my finger on what turned me off of Perks of Being a Wallflower. I lived in Pittsburgh in the 80s through the 90s, was friends with the other misfits in high school and college and even performed in the cast of The Rocky Horror Picture Show for a couple of years. This movie is pretty much about me and my friends.

The cast all did marvelous work, particularly the three leads who all turn in rich, understated performances. There is some wonderful dialog, even a few lines that I would go so far as to call brilliant (e.g. "we accept the love we think we deserve" and "I feel infinite") and the movie is shot in a creative and cinematic way without ever getting flashy.

And yet I found myself oddly unmoved and disconnected from the characters and their plight. Moments that were supposed to be emotional and poignant came off as trite and tedious to me. Maybe it was because it was really nothing I had not already seen or that I didn't quite believe it. Maybe it's because as an adult I am kind of embarrassed at what a slacker I was at the time and the movie brings back bad memories of that period in my life.

I'm not sure, but whatever it is the movie just never clicked with me. I'm disappointed about that, because I was expecting a really profound experience watching it. Maybe that's it. Maybe I am too close to it to objectively experience it.

Perks of Being a Wallflower has some great things going for it. I really, really wanted to like it, but unfortunately I didn't. I feel compelled to recommend it anyway, as it will probably mean more to others than it did to me.

Megan Is Missing (2011)

After a rocky start this turns into a very disturbing chiller

[6/10 · 11 February 2013]

Megan is Missing is a very effective and disturbing horror movie. While it could certainly be viewed as a cautionary tale I think that is inadvertent, much like Last House on the Left was a cautionary tale regarding buying drugs or talking to strangers. Here the destructive behavior is falling victim to online predators, and while the movie is far too exploitative to be taken very seriously it does provide a pretty unsettling "what if" scenario.

The movie is seriously flawed in a number of ways. First and foremost is the acting and dialog. While the acting in general isn't flat out awful, the dialog never quite rings true. The actors do their best to try and make the obviously written dialog sound natural and they just can't pull it off. This is a much bigger problem in the first half of the movie when more characters populate the story, but once the movie concentrates more on Amy and Megan, both young actors turn in very moving and effective performances.

Another issue that directly affects the movie's ability to come off as genuine is the fact that, while the footage is supposedly made up of camcorder, cell phone and webcam video, it appears to have all been shot with the same camera. This seriously impairs the authenticity of the footage. Even more bewildering are awkward faux news reports that are not only unconvincing but also act as an attempt to interject satirical humor into the movie and fall uncomfortably flat.

When the movie works, however, it works well. There are quiet moments between Amy and Megan that are quite touching. Amy recording a video diary is also very compelling (and leads to one of the movie's creepiest moments). When shocking photos supposedly showing Megan alive are flashed on screen my heart jumped into my throat, and the last twenty minutes (comprised almost entirely of footage found on Amy's video camera) of the movie is genuinely horrifying.

When it was over, I found myself to be chilled to the bone by this movie despite its serious flaws. I think the actors and director all have talent that just needs to be more focused. Only about half the movie works. But that half is quite effective and makes it worthwhile viewing. Just be warned that when the movie doesn't work it's terrible; when it does work it's terrifying.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

The most expensive low budget Alien rip off ever made

[7/10 · 12 October 2012]

Prometheus is the most expensive low budget Alien rip-off ever made. It's nothing more than Galaxy of Terror or Forbidden World, only with 100 times their budget. I found this movie to be an entertaining piece of blood-drenched schlock disguised as a science fiction epic.

While it has been promoted to some extent as a prequel to Alien, it never seems to be that, if only because the technology on display is far and away more advanced than what is available in the first four Alien movies. It seems just as likely to me that the movie is actually a sequel, taking place decades after the events of the original "quadrilogy." Regardless, my feeling is that Ridley Scott wanted to make another Alien-like movie and did not want to be accused of ripping himself off, therefore added a few ambiguous nods to the original movie to make this at the very least a companion piece to the Alien series.

While there are plenty of the metaphysical ideas introduced in Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection floating around, and while the movie tackles some heavy philosophical themes regarding our origins (not a particularly original concept), it's obvious that Scott's intention is to create a gory freak show, with enough slime, blood, mayhem and creepy crawlies for a dozen horror movies.

That may sound like a criticism, but it isn't. Prometheus is a rich, fast-paced and intriguing thriller and is as entertaining, intense and scary as any other horror movie I've seen in recent years. It just isn't as deep as it's makers would have you believe.

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1978)

This movie is dreadful almost to the point of seeming deliberately so

[1/10 · 10 October 2012]

There are very few movies I've seen that I found so monumentally awful that I felt compelled to watch them again because I was convinced they could not have really been as bad as I thought. I have not yet re-watched Paul Morrissey's Hound of the Baskervilles, but I intend to. Until then, we'll have to go with my initial, head-spinning thoughts on the movie.

To say this adaptation of the classic Arthur Conan Doyle story (screenplay by director Morrissey and co-stars Dudley Moore and Peter Cook) is terrible is an understatement. It is beyond terrible. Other than a few chuckles and maybe one actual laugh the movie is brutally unfunny. The look of the film is drab and unattractive, the pacing is slow and the filmmaking is sloppy and scattershot to the point of seeming downright amateurish.

Moore and Cook, two comic geniuses, enthusiastically dive into their characters but cannot wring any joy or even mild amusement out of the material. The rest of the cast, made up mostly of familiar faces that populated classic British cinema in the 60s and 70s, appear utterly confused, as if they walked on the set and Morrissey just turned on the camera and said "action."

It appears Morrissey is trying to recapture the gleeful irreverence of his Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula but forgot how he managed to accomplish it. The outrageous gore, bizarre characters and non-sequitur dialog juxtaposed against such lush and pastoral settings made for a pair of genuinely idiosyncratic films (which were shot back-to-back).

That same magic never materializes in Hound of the Baskervilles. It is an utterly lifeless movie. The actors' performances are akin to witnessing the death throes of a drowning animal desperately trying to stay afloat. That mixed with the mind-numbingly awful screenplay and leaden direction results in an intensely unpleasant and uncomfortable experience.

Considering Morrissey's roots with Andy Warhol's Factory, one wonders if that were not his intention all along.

Dead Snow (2009)

Disappointing, by-the-numbers zombie flick

[4/10 · 23 May 2011]

I found Dead Snow to be so disappointing because it started out great. I thought it was really atmospheric and intriguing for about a half an hour. Then the zombies showed up and the movie turned into yet another post-Braindead/Evil Dead 2 gorefest.

The movie takes its time letting us get to know the characters and their surroundings and these first scenes are nicely paced and effectively eerie. The movie switches gears abruptly when the zombies attack, leaving behind its refreshingly restrained approach for the more audience-pleasing mixture of over-the-top splatter and armed-to-the-teeth protagonists. Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson did it already. No need to do it again. And again. And again.

Instead of atmosphere, we get buckets of blood. Instead of style, we get increasingly elaborate ways for people to die. Instead of suspense, we get the usual loud noises and bursts of music.

So much could have been with the scenario (not that the idea of zombie Nazis is new in the first place), but it's obvious the filmmakers chose to use the story as nothing more than a clothesline for a series of gory set-pieces. Gore simply doesn't do it for me anymore. And that's about all Dead Snow has to offer.

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

I Spit on Your Remake (Because it SUCKS)

[1/10 · 8 April 2011]

The ONLY positive thing that can be said about the remake of I Spit on Your Grave is that it has made me realize how good the original is. I never liked Meir Zarchi's rape-revenge shocker, but I now can appreciate it for the gritty, basic thriller that it is. Remakes are almost always pointless, but in horror cinema, remakes are an opportunity new filmmakers to polish, upgrade and outdo the original. In attempting this, director Steven Monroe has more or less made a movie which lives up to the unfair negative press the original received. In other words, it is a movie which is misogynistic, exploitative and far sleazier than the the original.

Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) is an independent young woman who has rented a cabin in the wilderness to write a book. She gets unwanted attention from the local rednecks who eventually attack and rape her. After enduring several hours of sexual assault, she wanders off, lays low for a while, then takes violent, poetic revenge on her attackers in various gruesome ways.

Sounds pretty similar to the original plot-wise. So what are the significant differences that make this movie so horrendously awful? First, the character of Jennifer is turned from an average, likable young woman into a smoking hot model who also happens to be kind of a bitch. I found the character to be pretty obnoxious. It doesn't mean she deserves what happens to her, but making me not like her made it that much harder to care about her.

Secondly, the rape scenes, while not outright glorifying the rapes, are far more exploitative than the scenes in the original. My biggest gripe about them is the attempt to make sure Butler always looks attractive before, during and after the rape scenes. In the original, Camille Keaton looked like she'd been run over by a truck. Despite being completely naked there was nothing sexy about her appearance whatsoever. On the other hand, Monroe makes sure there's not TOO much dirt and blood on Butler's face and body, as he wants to make sure she still looks at least a LITTLE sexy. There's a conspicuous effort to get as many shots of her ass on screen as possible - and to make sure it always looks cute.

Third, the ridiculous revenge scenes. Here's where the movie basically stops being a remake of I Spit on Your Grave and becomes a rip off of SAW. Apparently being raped and beaten has shocked Jennifer into suddenly becoming an expert in the engineering of Medieval torture devices. Whereas she seduced and killed her attackers in somewhat plausible ways in the original (except maybe for the over-the-top outboard motor disembowelment), here her revenge is pure fantasy. She sets up absurdly elaborate mechanisms to torture and eventually kill her attackers. And the movie is so eager to hurry up and get to the third act bloodbath it leaves inexcusable pot holes unresolved.

I Spit on Your Grave UNRATED (as it is proudly titled) is not just one of the worst remakes I've seen, it's one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. It's a waste of time and energy for all involved including the audience. Once again, in their attempt to make the "sickest movie ever made," a group of filmmakers have succeeded only in making a movie that is trite, boring and stupid.

Skip it.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

If you like being scared, you'll love it. If you don't like being scared, you won't.

[8/10 · 14 December 2010]

I really, really liked Paranormal Activity, but I tend to like this kind of movie. I know that there was a something of a backlash against this movie, as there was with The Blair Witch Project, and I think that it has to do with two things: the enormous return on investment and the refusal to go along for the ride.

The first is pretty easy to understand. Even I as an aspiring filmmaker am kicking myself for not coming up with the idea (as I did when I first saw Blair Witch). Someone making a movie for $10,000 or $15,000 and going on to make tens of millions of dollars as a result can frustrate anyone and some viewers allow those sour grapes to ruin the movie for them.

The second reason is more hard to understand: refusing to go along with it. In other words, some people a) can't get lost in the story and suspend their disbelief and b) simply don't want to be scared. I don't mean they're afraid to be scared; I mean they don't want to allow themselves to be scared. They hear that a movie is scary or disturbing and they have a desire to take the wind out of its sails be watching it and then boasting how trite and boring they found it. It's sort of an ego boost: THAT didn't scare ME.

I've now seen decades of horror movies and can honestly say that only a handful have really truly frightened me. Night of the Living Dead, Jaws, The Shining and the aforementioned The Blair Witch Project all had at least a few scenes which scared the crap out of me (The Shining has a palpably terrifying atmosphere from beginning to end).

In the past ten years or so, I can only say that a couple of movies got under my skin. Session 9 I found to be a genuinely creepy movie with a few heart-in-my-throat moments, and David Lynch's Inland Empire, thought perhaps not a straight horror movie, had a few moments that were the first to make me jump out of my seat in years.

You can imagine my delight, therefore, when I found myself jumping and actually being SCARED while watching Paranormal Activity. A very simple, well-made horror movie that works because it leaves so much to your imagination. Instead of throwing a barrage of gruesome CGI imagery at you, the movie creates a truly creepy atmosphere through sound, the occasional inanimate object moving and, most of all, the effective performances of the cast.

While the acting has a touch of the histrionic theatricality that most Hollywood performers display these days (something which Blair Witch avoided completely), the sense of fear and heartache is completely believable. Katie Featherston's terror is tangible and later, when frustration, anger and guilt join the cocktail of emotions, her final emotional breakdown (which is only briefly shown) is heart-breaking. This then makes her suddenly calm and tranquil demeanor toward the end all the more bizarre and unsettling. And Micah Sloat's alpha male smugness in the face of this unseen intruder is perfectly juxtaposed with his fleeting moments of real fear.

I like the fact that Micah never believes that they are truly in danger. I also think it's somewhat touching that no matter how angry or frustrated he gets with Katie, he is still ready to bolt to her rescue every time she calls to him. He truly loves and cares about her, which makes the conclusion of the movie all the more tragic. I should mention that Katie Fetherston should go down in horror history as one of the all-time best cinematic screamers! There is only one thing about the movie that I can really criticize: no matter how bad things get, they continue to sleep with the lights off. Simply from a believability standpoint, I would think that by a certain point, they would be far too unnerved to sleep in the dark.

But, I admit, that's nit-picking. Paranormal Activity will go down as one of the scariest movies I've seen in a while. I highly recommend it for horror fans who truly want to be scared and are willing to let their guard down and let the movie in.

Survival of the Dead (2009)

Not bad, not good, not really much of anything

[5/10 · 29 November 2010]

I was one of LAND OF THE DEAD's biggest fans. I was thrilled that George Romero had a new entry in the "Dead" series and even more so that he had a major studio releasing it worldwide. The movie lacked the out-of-the-mainstream edge and effortless wit of the previous movies, but it was still refreshing to see a horror movie with subtext and satire rather than just a brainless gorefest.

Unfortunately, Romero's new notoriety gave him the means to restart the "Dead" series and he unleashed the intelligent but mind-numbingly boring DIARY OF THE DEAD. He made some good points and got decent performances from his cast, but the movie made the heavy-handedness of LAND OF THE DEAD seem laid back. If DAY OF THE DEAD was a little on the talky side, then DIARY OF THE DEAD was shamelessly preachy.

With his latest entry in the "new Dead" series, SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, he improves a little bit on DIARY, if only because SURVIVAL zips along at such a fast pace it never really has the chance to become boring. But the relentless pontification of the characters and the use of the zombie plague as nothing more than a backdrop for a sociological study weigh the movie down and keep it from really taking off.

Other than some embarrassing CGI gore effects toward the beginning, there is little in SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD that is flat out awful. As always with Romero's "Dead" movies, it's intelligent, topical and compelling. Unfortunately, it lacks wit, charm and humanity. The characters are pretty much two-dimensional caricatures about whom we don't care very much. In the first two movies, we got to know Ben, Barbara, the Coopers, Flyboy, Peter, Fran and Roger. We could relate to them as people; they were never just pawns with no purpose other than to move the story along.

And I think that's the problem Romero has been having lately. He is intent on filling his movies with satirical and political content but has lost the finesse (or the desire) he once had to weave it into the story. Instead of being a scary, thrilling or entertaining horror movie, it seems more like the self-righteous ranting of an angry old man. And that is more depressing than the classic finale of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

Troll 2 (1990)

So bad it's... bad. Really, really bad.

[1/10 · 12 November 2010]

Every once in a while a special kind of bad movie appears that falls into the "so-bad-it's-good" subgenre of B-movies. There are plenty of B-movies that are entertaining due to the fact that their badness itself makes them interesting. The Godmonster of Indian Flats, The Robot Vs. the Aztec Mummy, The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed Up Zombies, Blood Feast and of course the immortal Plan 9 From Outer Space are all low budget disasters that are as fascinating as they are terrible.

And it's not just low budget drive-in fare that fall into this category. Hollywood has produced more than its share of gargantuan exercises in laughable awfulness: Valley of the Dolls, Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Michael Cimino's psychotic remake of The Desperate Hours, and even Richard Rush's unfortunate return to the director's chair, the bewildering Color of Night.

All these movies have something special in common. They're not just bad; they're insane. They're the work of a demented genius whose grandiose ideas of how to make an entertaining movie got lost in translation and resulted in the glorious mess that now spills across the screen. And for many fans, the infamous Troll 2 falls into this category.

Not me, however. No frigging way.

Troll 2 is mind-numbing. It is undoubtedly one of the worst movies ever made. I agree with that. Unlike the movies listed above, however, there is no joy to be found. Other than a few admittedly weird moments, Troll 2 is a movie completely devoid of entertainment value. The moronic dialog, juvenile acting, incoherent story, pedestrian direction, pathetic special effects and irritating music swallow up the few chuckle-worthy tidbits in a black hole of banality.

I tried to watch Troll 2 first not knowing of its cult following. Having found the original Troll moderately entertaining, I figured the second one would be another amusing little schlock fest. Needless to say, I was aghast at how dreadful it was. I watched it to the end only out of pure morbid curiosity. When it was over, I popped it out of the VCR, returned it to the video store and made a mental note to never watch it again. Hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? Then I heard there was a Rocky Horror-like cult following that held festivals and attended theatrical screenings of the movie. I thought maybe I had missed something, so I went out and plopped down $10 for the double feature DVD of Troll and Troll 2. While Troll was the same oddball slice of cheese I recalled, watching Troll 2 again opened my eyes up to the true nature of the movie: it is even worse than I remembered. I recall finding it to be a terrible but harmless little movie that I had no interest in ever bothering with again.

But watching it a second time I was shocked at how offensive the movie is. Not because of the subject matter or gore, but because of the filmmakers' obvious contempt for their audience. This is a movie that tries to cash in on the success of Gremlins (and its subsequent low budget rip-offs) without bothering to put any effort at all into making it the least bit interesting or entertaining. The undeniably bizarre feel to the movie is not intentional on the part of the filmmakers, but the result of a perfect storm of bad writing, acting, directing and special effects.

There's none of the earnestness of Ed Wood, none of the enthusiasm of H.G. Lewis, none of the misplaced zeal of Ray Dennis Steckler that made their movies so entertaining; just the half-assed efforts of some lazy, inept hacks trying to make a quick buck.

Troll 2 sucks.

Tumbleweeds (1999)

Great, surprising little movie with top notch performances

[9/10 · 20 October 2010]

I saw Tumbleweeds accidentally. My wife and I walked into the WRONG theater! We decided to stay and watch it when we realized the movie we had wanted to see had already started. Great decision.

There's nothing mind-blowing or amazing about Tumbleweeds, and there doesn't have to be. It's a simple movie about people trying to get through life as it throws predictable and not so predictable obstacles in their way. Great performances, a truthful screenplay and several unexpected twists in the story kept me thoroughly engrossed for the entire movie.

At one point, when I thought the movie was going to take a tragic turn, I felt as much tension and suspense as I have while watching a good thriller. A unique movie, well worth 90 minutes of your time.

Women Behind Bars (1975)

Above average Jess Franco trash (a relative statement)

[5/10 · 8 September 2010]

Women in Prison is infamous director Jess Franco's third, well, "women-in-prison" movie, following 99 Women and Barbed Wire Dolls. While it is by no means a good movie (no single film should have this many zoom shots), it is entertaining enough and moves along fast enough to never get boring.

Lina Romay plays a woman who's lover robs what he believes is a loot of jewels from a docked boat. When he arrives back at the restaurant they own, he discovers that the case he stole is empty. Romay shoots him, then calls the police and turns herself in.

What follows is standard W.I.P. fare. Romay has a lesbian tryst with her cellmate, nude women are whipped and tortured and the warden demands sexual favors from the prisoners. While it is strictly by-the-numbers for this type of movie, most of these scenes zip by at a good pace and there's no shortage of bare breasts and buttocks on display. Romay is slightly out of shape, which adds a touch of realism to her character, though most likely unintentionally.

Romay manages to escape and is surprised to be greeted with an unexpected getaway car (driven by director Jess Franco, in one of his many supporting roles). She finally meets up with her partner in crime and it is revealed that the whole thing was a set-up and he had the jewels all along. One thing that is never explained is why Romay's going to the prison was ever part of the plan! Regardless, logic and coherence are not things I am too worried about when watching a movie like this. It delivers what the title implies and at the compact running time of 80 minutes never really gets a chance to become tedious. Recommended for fans of the director or the subgenre. All others needn't bother.

Avatar (2009)

Fun, exciting CGI-fest; turn your brain off and enjoy the ride

[7/10 · 8 September 2010]

I missed James Cameron's Avatar during its initial theatrical run, but managed to catch it in IMAX 3D on the last night of the extended edition's re-release. I wasn't all that excited to see it, to be perfectly honest, but I really wanted to experience it on the big screen and in 3D instead of watching it on TV.

Pretty much everything I had heard about this movie was right on the money. It's more or less a futuristic remake of Dances With Wolves, with a little Starship Troopers, Pocahontas and James Cameron's own Aliens thrown in. In fact, Avatar is, in a way, Aliens in reverse, with the Marines the bad guys and the aliens the good guys. There's even a scene in which the evil Colonel, strapped into a huge robotic suit, fights a giant alien monster. The scene is lifted right from the finale of Aliens.

However, despite the derivative plot, cardboard characters and cliché-riddled screenplay, Avatar is extremely entertaining and exciting. It is undeniably a visually stunning movie. Seeing it in the theater reminded me of the first time I saw Star Wars, Dune and the aforementioned Starship Troopers. The movie is a visual smörgåsbord.

Cameron is an extremely talented and nuanced director and he never lets the frame become overloaded with stuff. No matter how much is happening on the screen at any given moment, he manages to choreograph and direct it all so that it never becomes disorienting. Unlike Michael Bay and Peter Jackson, Cameron seems to prefer his audience to actually SEE what is happening, instead of throwing a bunch of shaky camera movements, rapid editing and flying debris in the audience's face.

The performances are all quite good. The actors play their roles with just enough over-the-top energy that it suits the massiveness of the movie, without becoming campy or trite. Cameron's screenplay is functional at best. He gets us from one point to another quickly and efficiently without ever stumbling in any significant way, but the dialog and characters are not particularly compelling. Even the subplot regarding Sam Worthington's brother being killed is glossed over without Worthington's character so much as batting an eye at the death of his sibling. The plot point is there for no reason other than to explain why Worthington has the ability to control his avatar, and once that has been established, it is more or less forgotten except for one or two throwaway lines of dialog. That pretty much sums up Cameron's attitude toward most of the motivational aspects of the script: explain it quickly and let's move on to the next action sequence.

The effects are quite good, and while the Na'vi are obviously CGI-created, they have enough soul to convince us that they are living, breathing beings. Personally, I found the intricate facial movements of the Na'vi to be kind of creepy at first, enough to be mildly distracting. It took a while to get used to, but I finally did.

I have not yet seen Avatar on TV. With less scope to carry the movie along, it will be interesting to see how well it holds up more on its visual style, story and characters than its sheer hugeness.

I'm not a big Cameron fan. I still think his best movie is the original Terminator. Aliens is a close second, but I think the rest of his movies are bloated and uneven. I don't think he's made an all-out bad movie (though The Abyss comes close), but he often gets lost in the spectacle and neglects the story and characters. Avatar is in the middle for me. It isn't great, but it's pretty good and Cameron manages to deliver a huge explosion of eye-candy without ever losing control of it. That is no small feat.

The Grim Reaper (1980)

Boring movie enlivened by a handful of moments

[3/10 · 5 September 2010]

Joe D'Amato's Antropophagus (as it is titled on screen) is a movie I had heard of for years as being one of the sickest ever made. Needless to say, I had to see it for myself. I kind of wish I hadn't, as the movie is so dull and stupid the near legendary reputation it had is now obliterated.

A group of people travel to a Greek island for a vacation and find it deserted. They are eventually picked off one by one by a cannibalistic psycho (George Eastman). That's it. Oh well, plot is not something I necessarily look for in an Italian gut-muncher, but even the least demanding fan has his or her limits. How many scenes of characters walking around can one take? How much banality must one sit through to get to the next gore sequence?

Two scenes gave this movie it's notoriety. The first and most infamous scene involves the cannibal monster removing a pregnant woman's unborn baby and eating it. This scene is more of a straight-up gross-out than a truly effective horror moment, though the setting (a dimly lit crypt) gives it a creepy atmosphere. The second is the finale in which the monster eats his own intestines. This, however, falls short of being truly as repulsive as it sounds, because all the guy does is stick the guts in his mouth and keel over dead. I was waiting for him to gulp down a mouthful and see it ooze from the open wound in his belly.

The gore scenes deliver, and the movie has a few moments that boast an effectively seedy atmosphere, but that leaves you with seventy-five minutes of not much, including wooden performances, bad dubbing and inane dialog. Tisa Farrow's mind-numbing performance makes her acting in Zombie look manic by comparison.

Basically, fast forward to the scenes involving George Eastman as "The Grim Reaper" or "The Beast" or whatever he's called as they're pretty much the only ones that are the least bit interesting. I'm a Joe D'Amato fan, but even I cannot defend much about this truly terrible movie.

Grotesque (2009)

Yet another "shocking" torture movie. Whoop-dee-doo.

[1/10 · 24 August 2010]

Oh boy. Another torture movie.

Take HOSTEL, remove the story, amp up the nastiness and gore and you've got GROTESQUE. Yes, this movie is disgusting. Yes, it is often painful to watch. The effects are excellent. The mood is grim. The performances are convincing.

SO WHAT? Is there ANYTHING new here? Is there any point beyond being "the sickest movie ever made?" When FLOWERS OF FLESH AND BLOOD came out twenty years ago, it was unexpected. The mysteriousness regarding its origins and the weird and seedy atmosphere helped make it an infamous underground horror movie. GROTESQUE is too slickly made to appear to be a snuff movie. Any semblance of "is this real" is dashed by the professional photography.

Torture movies have become commonplace and have lost virtually all their notoriety. Now they're just boring. Perhaps to a non-horror fan GROTESQUE might be the most horrifying thing they've ever seen. But what non-horror fan would seek out or watch the movie? GROTESQUE is a big, big bore. Yet another pointless freakshow that horror geeks can boast about having seen. "Oh my God, man. The dude cuts this chick's nipples off. It's brutal, man." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever.

Mo' Money (1992)

Dreadful, mean-spirited movie

[1/10 · 7 July 2010]

MO' MONEY might have possibly been able to get away with its mean-spirited, homophobic and tasteless atmosphere if it were witty or clever or perhaps even funny. But it is none of the above. It's a moronic, nasty comedy by a moronic, nasty comedian who wants to drag everyone but himself through the mud.

Damon Wayans is one of those comedians who will tell a joke at anyone's expense but his own. His arrogance and meanness is palpable through every moment of this brutally unfunny comedy (which he wrote). He takes a potentially solid story and wastes it as nothing more than a vanity project for himself. As for the humor, he sticks to lampooning handicapped people and homosexuals (especially those with AIDS, which he seems to think is a real laugh riot).

His performance is also unbearable. Apparently wanting to show a slightly more serious side of his persona, he does this by playing every scene with the same blank expression on his face, except for a few moments when he feels the need to mug it up with his smug, self-indulgent smirk.

The other Wayans brothers have proved themselves willing to be the butt of their own jokes. It was once said the first person a good comedian has to be able to laugh at is himself. If Damon Wayans ever learned that lesson, it was definitely after he made MO' MONEY.

Let Sleeping Corpses Lie (1974)

Not the classic it's reputation would suggest

[5/10 · 17 June 2010]

THE LIVING DEAD AT MANCHESTER MORGUE (aka "Don't Open the Window" and "Let Sleeping Corpses Lie") is a slow, boring movie that is enlivened by some shocking gore (still effective by today's standards) and a few genuinely creepy moments. Unfortunately, that's about all this movie has to offer, and most of what falls in between the shocks is pretty banal.

An experimental device that is supposed to use high frequency sounds to combat crop-killing pests turns out to have an unanticipated side-effect: it brings dead people back to life. The plot is obviously nothing more than a rehash of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, just not as scary and far gorier.

That is the movie's main claim to fame: it's the first direct rip-off of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Many of the movie's defenders say it is a precursor to the Italian gut-munchers of the the late 70s and early 80s when really it's just NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD in color. It has its moments, including a few scenes charged with a primal horror, but it never manages to maintain a scary or intense atmosphere. It delivers a good scare or an effective gross-out, then goes back to being a dull movie about people we don't care about.

It's worth a look for zombie movie fans, but its inconsistent atmosphere, slow pace and dull characters will probably disappoint first-time viewers for whom its reputation precedes it.

Aquamarine (2006)

Above average tween schlock with plenty of genuine laughs

[7/10 · 8 June 2010]

I have to admit I liked AQUAMARINE quite a bit. My three year old is obsessed with mermaids, so it seemed like a good movie for her. There's a bit of risqué humor in it and a few mild four letter words, but for the most part it's a funny, unpredictable and fairly intelligent comedy. That it has such a low IMDb score is surprising to me.

While the movie is decidedly for older kids, most of the relatively mature subject matter went over my daughter's head. I'm sure some parents were uncomfortable at the notion of a naked girl showing off her newly discovered buttocks (even if they are blocked from view) or Emma Roberts expressing dissatisfaction with her undeveloped breasts, but my feeling is that parents are way too sensitive about the amount of sex and nudity to which their children are exposed. I thought the movie handled these moments realistically and discreetly.

The humor has a nice sarcastic bite to it to temper the more sugary moments. There's some good, unforced slapstick, surprisingly witty dialog and enthusiastic performances all around. I also like the fact that the whole movie has a fantastic, dream-like feel to it. It makes it feel like a true modern-day fairy tale.

While it is no SPLASH, it's still a fun little movie that I think I could watch again at my daughter's request. Finding a kids' movie that isn't brain dead is rare; then again, you could say that about quite a lot of Hollywood's output, kids' movie or not.

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1957)

Far from the worst movie ever made!

[5/10 · 24 August 2009]

It is almost impossible to give a star rating to PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It is truly a bad, bad movie with terrible performances, ridiculous sets, horrid special effects and glaring continuity errors abound. On the other hand, it is far more interesting and entertaining than many "better" movies and the demented genius and unbridled passion of Ed Wood shines through every moment.

PLAN 9 is often referred to as "the worst movie ever made." Well, it isn't. Not by a long shot. I think any fan of B-movies can list several off the top of their heads that are worse than this one (how about ROBOT MONSTER, NIGHT OF 1000 CATS or CURSE OF THE SWAMP CREATURE for starters). What is different about so many other "bad" movies, however, is the fact that most of them weren't even trying to be good. They were made to fill a vacancy in a theater program and had little in the way of artistic or social ambitions. They were pure exploitation and served no purpose other than to keep patrons in the theater for an extra 90 minutes to boost sales at the concession stand.

Ed Wood desperately wanted to fill his work with subtext and sociological relevance. He wanted his movies to be thought-provoking. He also hung out with a lot of very offbeat counter culture people, many of whom wound up as cast and crew members on his movies, which led to their being that much more bizarre.

Ed Wood was a terrible director. A terrible writer, too. He had no real connections, no money and no talent. Yet he managed to make six feature films in the space of ten years, five of which were theatrically released and a few of which even made a decent profit. That is a testament to his passion for cinema. The man never gave up.

PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, to me, is one of the most inspirational movies ever made.

Borat (2006)

An extended Tom Green Show Skit with very few laughs

[4/10 · 16 July 2009]

I simply don't get BORAT. I didn't find it offensive or shocking, though it did it's damnedest to be both. I also didn't find it very funny. I chuckled occasionally and laughed out loud two or three times, but other than that I found the movie to be boring, repetitive and irritatingly sophomoric.

It seems like I watched a very different movie than all the people who called it "original, edgy, intelligent" or any other such adjective. I found it to be yet another base, uninspired movie the makers of which are under the impression that simply being tasteless and gross is in itself funny. The whole concept was nothing more than an extended Tom Green Show skit, just raunchier and admittedly more outrageous.

The only scene in the entire movie that made me laugh heartily was the scene in which kids run up to Borat's ice cream truck, unaware that there is a bear inside that he has bought as a guard dog. The bear roars at the kids who run away screaming. The scene is funny as hell, and it's a purely slapstick moment with no hint of nastiness. Imagine that? Similarly, the only really funny scenes are the more innocuous jokes such as Borat discovering his partner working as an Oliver Hardy look-alike in Hollywood or the pair mistakenly believing that their hosts at a bed & breakfast have transformed into cockroaches. Other than an undeniably funny nude wrestling match, the more tasteless "jokes" fall flat.

The most interesting thing about BORAT is that most of the people in it were unaware that the movie was a mockumentary, believing "Borat" to be a real person. This leads to many people revealing a very ugly side of themselves (which, along with the prospect of making some money, led to many lawsuits against the filmmakers), such as a coordinator at a rodeo commending Borat's homeland's treatment of homosexuality as an offense punishable by death.

Overall, BORAT is simply not very funny. It's too long, loses steam very early on and then just keeps going. Yeah, it has its moments, but I don't believe Sasha Baron Cohen to be the comic genius that many are calling him. He's funny, he's clever, he's certainly fearless. But he doesn't know when to quit. That's a problem with quite a bit of Hollywood product these days, regardless of genre. Cohen probably thinks one cannot take things too far. I suppose that's subjective, because I definitely think there is such a thing as too much.

Rats: Night of Terror (1984)

The first half is lots of fun, the second half not so much

[3/10 · 1 June 2009]

The first half of Bruno Mattei's RATS: NIGHT OF TERROR has a certain energetic wackiness and some genuinely bizarre moments which help to keep the movie entertaining despite the fact that it's completely awful. Unfortunately, that energy burns out after about forty minutes, and the remaining hour or so drags like an extermination infomercial.

In the distant future, a band of punk Mad Max-like bikers seek refuge in a boarded up building in a deserted urban area. They notice a lot of rats creeping around, but don't seem too concerned about them. After finding some non-perishable rations and some comfy beds to rest in, the group decides to hold up for a while and catch their breath before moving on. Unfortunately for them the rats have other ideas and pick off the gang members one by one.

There is a surprising amount of restraint gore-wise in the depiction of the rats' victims. Other than a few chewed-beyond-recognition corpses, the blood and guts are pretty much kept to a minimum. There is a bit of nudity provided by two apparently uninhibited cast members who seem all too happy to show off every inch of their male and female anatomy, but otherwise it's all very tame for a Italian exploitation movie. With just a little more editing, it probably could have been released with a PG rating (along with YOR - THE HUNTER FROM THE FUTURE and STARCRASH).

Overall, the first half or so will hold bad movie buffs' attention. The second half is pretty much endless scenes of the group wandering around the building, turning on each other or being attacked by the rats (sometimes real rats, sometimes guinea pigs made up to look like rats and sometimes plastic rats being dragged along the floor on a sheet). The "Twilight Zone"-ish ending will leave those who bother to sit through the whole thing underwhelmed.

If nothing else, it gives Spaghetti Splatter fans a rare glimpse of Ottaviano Dell'Acqua without his iconic ZOMBIE make-up.

Mother of Tears (2007)

Reprehensibly bad, one of Argento's worst movies and a pitiful wrap up to the "Three Mothers" trilogy

[1/10 · 30 April 2009]

MOTHER OF TEARS sucks. It's one of the worst movies I've seen in years. The fact that it was made by Dario Argento surprises me despite the fact that Argento has made more than his fair share of stinkers.

Sure, there are a few decent moments. A demon screaming into a phone until his jaw is impossibly extended is a creepy image, Sara descending a staircase into "Hell" is atmospheric and Argento delivers one good jolt with the old "did I really wake up or am I still dreaming" gag. But these scattered effective moments are crushed underneath a movie that looks like it was shot by a fanboy trying to make a movie like Dario Argento.

Asia Argento, who is a decent actress, is embarrassingly bad here. Her performance is so wooden and monotone she looks like just showing up to the set everyday was enough of a chore. Most other performances are lousy as well. The dependable Udo Kier fares the best in the role of a priest who shows up just long enough to spout out a few convoluted lines of dialog which connect this movie to SUSPIRIA and INFERNO before being hacked to death.

And that brings up the already infamous gore. MOTHER OF TEARS is likely to forever have a place in horror history as "one of the goriest movies ever made," but that honor is obligatory at best. Yeah, there are several outlandishly gruesome set-pieces, but they are all taken to such an extreme that they become ridiculous rather than horrifying. A woman being disemboweled and then choked with her own intestines is unintentionally funny, more like Peter Jackson's work in DEAD ALIVE than the surreal horror of SUSPIRIA. The scene is also not helped by the fact that the "intestines" look more like industrial extension cords than actual innards (even more so in an equally absurd moment in which a woman's intestines are being sucked out through her anus).

A monkey which serves as a familiar to the Mother is sort of creepy at first, but when it kept showing up and screeching it started to grate on my nerves. Even more irritating is Sara's mother's ghost, who repeatedly materializes to give her advice, even after telling her it's the last time she'll be doing so. The special effect used to place her in front of Sara is so bad it was hard not to chuckle every time. Unfortunately the unintentional humor that may have made these scenes amusing is killed by the excruciating banality of their dialog.

Worst of all, however, is the Mother herself. Turns out the "Queen of All Evil" is a runway model with fake boobs. She's about as scary as Paris Hilton. Maybe this is why the only witches who show up to honor her are the ones who wear ten pounds of make-up and have no fashion sense. For a secret society these ladies sure haven't nailed down the art of inconspicuousness. Argento apparently thinks all witches dress like Madonna circa 1985. And I expected it to take just slightly more to vanquish the Mother than to simply throw her T-shirt on the fire.

If this was just a random movie, with no connection to two of the most unique and surreal horror movies ever made, then MOTHER OF TEARS might be fun in a PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE sort of way. As the final entry in an intended trilogy, however, this movie is inexcusably awful.

Iron Man (2008)

Very disappointing; good effects and two good performances aren't enough

[5/10 · 11 March 2009]

I really do not like CGI. I think 90% of the time it looks cheap and phony, an opinion which is exacerbated by the fact that those "cheap" effects cost tens of millions of dollars. So I was pleasantly surprised when I found myself enjoying the effects in IRON MAN. Unfortunately, the special effects were one of the only things I did enjoy about this boring, uneven movie.

As they almost always are, Robert Downey, Jr and Jeff Bridges are both excellent in their roles. Downey brings a genuine "flawed hero" pathos to his character, and Bridges is admirably malevolent as the money and power hungry villain, a reflection of what Downey would have become if his hint of a conscience hadn't finally woke him up.

The Iron Man suit is a joy to behold every time it's on screen. The opening escape scene in the makeshift suit and the final battle are both superbly thrilling action sequences.

Unfortunately, what lumbers along in between these scenes is largely a big bore. The screenplay is a mess, with some ridiculous lapses in logic (even comic book logic) and lousy dialog. The tone of the movie repeatedly switches from realistic and gritty to cartoonish and campy, but with no style or finesse to make the transitions work. And several scenes seem to be incomplete, as if pages of dialog were reduced to a few awkward lines.

Two key supporting performances are so bad it's amazing they didn't wind up on the cutting room floor. Terrence Howard is wooden and appears completely bored with his role as Downey's military buddy. I personally am not surprised Aat his being recast by Don Cheadle in the sequel. Gwyneth Paltrow is simply bewildering as Downey's assistant, playing the part of a woman who somehow keeps this billionaire weapons designer's existence in order as a nervous, dim-witted bubble head. She joins Katie Holmes and Kate Bosworth in the "normally good actresses who for some reason turn in lousy performances in superhero movies" club.

There's a lot to like about IRON MAN, but there's more to dislike. I doubt I'll be racing to the multiplex for IRON MAN 2. Then again, we have a new screenwriter and at least one better actor. Maybe getting rid of some dead weight will help.