Manthorpe Reviews

Zombie (1979)

Average, undeserved reputation

[7/10 · 20 May 2005]

I had to check this out considering all of the raving reviews about the gore factor and the insane zombie action. With movies like this, where the sole intention is to freak you out a bit and make your stomach churn, gore is quite necessary and some films don't give you enough. Today's movies are especially guilty of this mainly because they're more concerned with pleasing a bigger audience. They've got their priorities messed up. We want to see zombies playing volleyball with babies for crying out loud. Or baby baseball using a chainsaw for a bat. What gives?

During my viewing however, I found that I disagree with most of the reviews here. The story, while not grand by any means, is much more present than I was expecting. The gore, while fairly vile, was not even close to what I was expecting. Sure, there are some moments that are pretty satisfying, particularly the way heads are split apart and bullet damage, but ultimately it failed to gross me out...which was the goal here. I wasn't expecting to be scared. There are really only two scenes that go beyond most other movies, one of them being the eyeball scene. I can think of a few films off the top of my head that have easily grossed me out more, or at least equally. I thought this was supposed to be the end-all-be-all of gory flicks? The famous eyeball scene is nothing special, even when taking aged effects into consideration. I will say that the shark scene is pretty impressive. Unless my eyes fooled me, it looks like they used a real live shark for that sequence. If so, I have no earthly idea how they pulled that off. I will say that the make up effects of the zombies are probably the best I've seen. These things look pretty damn real. Very impressive.

Some have praised it for its cinematography. Decent, but nothing spectacular. All in all, I think my opinion comes from the fact that I was expecting too much, mainly because of the reviews here. So, I must say, do not expect to puke bile or anything and you should be satisfied. For me, overall it was average, although I wanted to like it more. It needed more gore and more action in my opinion. On a side note, there are quite a few beautiful women that love to take their clothes off for the camera which is always a plus.

In the end, while entertaining, I think it has a better reputation than it deserves although many will disagree with me.

7/10

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

A film of monolithic proportions.

[10/10 · 5 January 2005]

A review I have put off for far too long....

Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.

Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.

The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.

While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.

Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.

All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.

Very highly recommended.

Cool Hand Luke (1967)

Axl Rose, you cool handed guy...

[8/10 · 4 January 2005]

Featuring a wonderfully heart-warming story about a man who would never conform or give up, "Cool Hand Luke" is a very enjoyable film, although not as great as it's ranking here may suggest. The story, although a simple one, works on the base level but fails to completely overwhelm...me. I realize many enjoy this film and consider it a great one, but for me it was a little too simple for my tastes. Simplicity works when that's all that is needed, but unfortunately it wasn't enough here to be truly "great". But enough of that ruckus, I enjoyed this film quite a bit. It is really good. I'm just trying to talk it down a bit so you won't get your expectations up to an impossible level.

Paul Newman plays his part marvelously, and although it's a simple role, he fills it more than adequately. Essentially, he is Luke and probably had no problems filling the role. Another good acting job comes from George Kennedy, who plays Dragline, the most prevalent supporting character and leader of the prisoners before Luke's arrival. He nailed the Cajun accent for the most part and that is no easy task for anyone outside of Louisiana. And although the prison setting and filler characters are for the most part, not realistic, I enjoyed watching Kennedy interact with Luke. Another enjoyable character is the lead guard, a man who always wears aviator sunglasses and never speaks.

Basically Luke has never been one to follow the rules, and never will be. This attitude has the ability to inspire and enlighten. That's the jist of the story.

My main qualm with the film is the fact that it's somewhat repetitive. It could've been shortened considerably if certain events happened only once. I won't say what these events are, but after the second time I was getting a little annoyed. Another qualm I have is the ending, while good, I feel it could have been better. That is simply my opinion.

All in all a really good film but not a great one, and a little overrated, but don't let that stop you. This could end up being one of your all time favorites. 8/10

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Thank you, thank you very much...

[9/10 · 4 January 2005]

As far as trying to classify this into any category, BBH-T has got to be one of the hardest to pin down because it's a mix of genres. Part horror, part comedy...with sentimental and reflective aspects. Campbell has starred in horror-comedies before, quite impressively, but none that has a reflective side and a statement. Although most films would have a difficult time with this mixture, it's what makes this one so special....and freakin' hilarious. Kudos to all involved.

Bruce Campbell plays the King of Rock, Elvis Presley, who must team up with fellow nursing home resident, John F. Kennedy, to destroy an evil mummy that's been terrorizing patients. Sounds absolutely ridiculous doesn't it? Well it is, and a good thing too as that is what makes it so enjoyable and is what gives it such a high replay value. Very rarely does such a diverse and particularly odd story come along, but it seems the creators knew what they were doing as they did cast Campbell as the lead, Elvis. Perfect. A long time Bruce Campbell fan, I wouldn't have even imagined he could pull off the King with such believability and humor. His accent is perfect. Campbell is a true joy to watch and justifies the price of admission alone. Ossie Davis plays JFK, another nursing home resident and the King's partner. Although he is a black man, he believes he's the real JFK and was painted by those who wanted to cover this up and make people believe JFK really died in Dallas. Davis plays his part marvelously and has an unexpected chemistry with Campbell. Excellent casting choices.

Aside from having many knee-slapping laughs and completely ridiculous situations that go beyond even my own imagination, BBHT has a deeper meaning and a statement, as strange as it may seem. It's about how we, as a society, push away the elderly and place them in nursing homes out of sight and forget about them. The statement here is that although the elderly of our society are swept under the carpet and forgotten, they are not useless....they can still fight mummies, and get erections. And while many things may be lost, if you're still alive and kicking, not all is lost. And even though there is a deeper meaning involved, the film never takes itself too seriously or forgets its role.

I find myself at a loss for words on this film, mainly because I can't come up with any that could accurately describe how and what it is. It must be seen. What it all boils down to is an instant personal favorite and an automatic addition to my collection. An excellent comedy and film, period.

Very highly recommended, ten-fold for Campbell fans.

It (1990)

An excellently terrifying story, with an awesome first half that is unfortunately marred by the adult acting in the second.

[7/10 · 16 November 2004]

And there you have it. It's such a shame too because the first half of "IT" is story-telling at it's best. Most of the actors in the second half could not act to save their families from imminent doom. Some of this is due to poor casting and some of it could be chalked up to poor direction, but really, I think the people simply can't act so let's go with poor casting. This statement is in exception to John Ritter, Tim Reid, and obviously Tim Curry. The rest are laughable. I've never seen most of them in anything before or anything since, probably because most would not give them a chance at a commercial. The child actors completely blow away the adult cast aside from Curry. Tim Curry's Pennywise is one for the ages. He used to give me nightmares as a kid, as I'm sure he did for many. "Kiss me, fat boy!"

With the acting out of the way, let's move on. The story is based on King's book, which is actually more demented than the movie. No child group sex here, blast. Every thirty years, "It" awakens to feed and is manifested in the form of an evil clown....among other things. While they were kids, the group agreed to come back and destroy "It" thirty years later if they come to find out that they did not kill it and it's still alive. When they realize "It" is not dead, they all come back to Dairy, Maine to reunite and off the beast. Kick start the insanity.

Despite it's acting and scripting flaws, "It" can be downright disturbingly creepy, mainly due to Curry's insane performance. According to IMDb trivia, the cast tried to avoid Curry as much as possible during filming because he was so into character that it flipped everyone out and made them want their blankies. Combine Curry's performance with some clever effects and you have a pretty "scary" movie. Because of the work done in this department, the film triumphs over most of it's flaws. If the acting and script weren't so questionable in the second half, we might have a horror masterpiece on our hands. While not the best in the genre, I highly recommend it, or "It". Just remember that it was made for television. 7/10

"We all float down here....."

Blood Simple (1984)

...not so simple.

[9/10 · 15 November 2004]

What I love about "Blood Simple." the most is the intricate detail that the Coen brothers went to to keep you interested as to what is going on and just what will happen next. It's very detailed and technically advanced for a seemingly simple love-story-gone-bad thriller. What's even more enjoyable and ironic about this is the fact that the characters are in the same situation, not one of them knows the entire story and are left to their own assumptions making "Blood Simple." a cut above the rest.

This is definitely not a film you want to walk out on for a bathroom break or to grab a smoke, as you will undoubtedly miss something important. These guys have the subtlety nailed right down to the bullet positions in the revolver, literally, and adding nuances and hints here and there that may seem insignificant at the time, but are not. In addition, the cast is all but perfect, Hedaya, McDormand, and most assuredly M. Emmet Walsh give excellently convincing performances, the standout being Walsh without a doubt. I'm used to seeing him in very minor parts, but here he's more significant and is given the chance to shine.....and shine he does.

I feel one of the film's major attributes would have to be the environment that it establishes. It's just damn creepy, the music adding more to this tone than in most films, but also the thoughtful cinematography. Some of the shots seem to hold forever, igniting the tension. Even without the long duration of certain shots, the atmosphere is further complimented by the focus of certain small events and objects, hinting the viewer. The small Texas town, the murder, the panic, the assumption, the mystery.....culminating up to a dangerous climate and climax. I felt panicked while watching it.

All in all, an insanely clever cult classic worth checking out. Man, my reviews are getting simple due to the fact that I can't write them fast enough.....9/10

Citizen Kane (1941)

Generously, 8/10

[8/10 · 15 November 2004]

For the record, I despise writing reviews for classic films, particularly the old ones. For one, it is impossible for me to write this in perspective to the the time it was released as my parents weren't even born yet, much less myself. Two, it's impossible to enjoy it to it's fullest because of the inherent aging of the techniques and effects used. With that taken into consideration, "Citizen Kane" being a film sixty-three years old, I was immensely impressed with the environmental and makeup effects. It's simple amazing that they were able to do what they did in that time period. I have seen recent low budget movies that don't even hold up to this, and that's sad.

CK set a massive number of precedents when it was released; not only technical precedents, but precedents in the amount of control given directors in that time. Welles basically had full and complete control which was simply unheard of and it seems to have worked to his benefit. However, given the many precedents it set, the film didn't totally and completely impress me, and I have no doubt in my mind that it's a result of my growing up when I did and seeing the films I have seen. Many, many films have used the same techniques since, many that are more entertaining. While I found most of the story and screenplay extremely interesting, it drags it's feet in several places which was distracting. And although the acting performances were fairly impressive, I had serious problems with Dorothy Comingore's performance as Thomas' wife. She didn't convince me. Her performance was forced at times, and simply satisfactory at others. Welles was easily the standout in the acting department, I'll say.

I will also be willing to admit that maybe my expectations were a tad higher than they should have been; me expecting to be blown away. I liked it, I really did, and I have nothing but respect for the precedents it set....especially in comparison to other films made in the same era. It just had problems with entertaining me at times. However, despite my problems with it, I feel "Citizen Kane" is a truly great film, just not one of my favorites. I think most of it's fame comes from it's technical brilliance as opposed to it's entertainment value. With that said, I'll give it 8/10, generously.

Big Fish (2003)

Big Liar

[7/10 · 15 November 2004]

While it's visually stunning and exceptionally filmed, this piece is a little sappy for my tastes although it certainly shows some promise. Being a fan of Burton's previous work, I figured this was worth a look, and while I did enjoy most of the film, especially the visuals and scenery....I had problems with it's sentimentality and the basic underlying story which consists of a pathological liar promoted to a hero. Sure, not all of the stories were complete lies, and I realize that, but I feel the movie was asking me for more than I could give it to succeed.

The appearance of the film and characters within it are truly great to watch, particularly Helena Bonham Carter's witch character. The environments and landscapes are filmed with precision and masterful technique. The overall cast is great, although MacGregor has trouble with his Southern accent. The stories are rather boring but all have a whimsical feel to them, which makes them just bearable. However, it really ruins itself with the vomit inducing ending. If you liked Steel Magnolias, you should love this. I felt dirty. Average at best.

Waiting for Guffman (1996)

waiting for the ending

[5/10 · 15 November 2004]

Being a fan of most of Guest's films, I found myself quite surprised and a little guilty for not enjoying this film. I didn't necessarily have high expectations for it, but I did expect it to make me laugh. For me, the only thing I found myself waiting for was the laughs. Thirty minutes into it I thought I might turn it off, but I trekked on to see if it picked up. It didn't. I have no problem with mocumentaries, and actually enjoy quite many of them, but this one just fell flat on it's face. All it is, is annoying people being annoying. I suppose it's intended to be humorous but I found it simply annoying, sometimes painfully. Maybe some of this can be attributed to the fact that I was expecting more of a film and less of a mocumentary. It's format, even for mocks, became quite tedious. There were too many interviews. The film's major flaw is that it takes what might be slightly funny in the beginning and just repeats it into infinity. If you've seen the first 20 minutes, you've seen the entire film. It's not that it's not funny, it's just not funny enough.

I will admit though, even if I didn't enjoy it, it's amazing to think that a movie can be made with literally no script and all improvisation. I do not doubt the talent of the actors involved, the film just might have benefited from some form of an outline and possibly better editing. Those who have said that if you like Spinal Tap, you like this film....not true. I love Spinal Tap but just couldn't get into this one. I'll never watch it again.

The Prophecy (1995)

War of the winged ones.

[7/10 · 15 November 2004]

"The Prophecy" is yet another vehicle in which Walken can do what he does best, be evil. As he can do it as almost no one can (Gary Oldman can smoke him in the evil department), his presence here is enough to make it an enjoyable experience. Very quotable. I rented this for a Halloween movie marathon this year and it failed to disappoint. An interesting point to take note of is the fact that three actors from "Pulp Fiction" make an appearance here. Eric Stoltz is fairly convincing in his role as one of the good angels, Simon. Also, Viggo Mortensen plays an excellently slick Lucifer complete with a Gothic gimp sidekick. If there is a personified devil, he must be Mortensen.

The concept of a second war in Heaven fought over the fact that humans have souls is fairly amusing. Angels opening up cans on each other has never been so cool. The idea is for Gabriel (Walken) to find the blackest soul on Earth to win the second war in Heaven, which he started, but there are others who are trying to get to it first to prevent his victory. There are also a few tinges of humor thrown in there and there, mostly from Walken. Dark humor at it's best. I must admit though, without Walken this is a below average to average form of entertainment....however, since he is such a joy to watch, it chalks itself up to the average to slightly above average level. A must see for Walken fans. I suppose 7/10 would be quite right.

Pet Sematary (1989)

Sometimes they come back.

[6/10 · 15 November 2004]

Herman Munster spills the beans on an ancient Indian burial ground and opens up the gates for dead and rotting loved ones to come back from the dead. This is a fairly simple film, so I'll keep the review that way. Like most cheap horror films, many of the important aspects to make a good film are overlooked and rushed to get to the money shots as soon as possible. This is all too apparent here in Pet Semetary. While it does have some decent spooks and scares, the bad acting and complete implausibility of certain actions and situations take away from the good parts. However, some of the good scares are decent enough to give the film a reputation, particularly the sick woman scene. Everyone has at least heard of the disgusting woman in PS, which says something; the scares here can be pretty decent. I particularly enjoyed watching a young Miko Hughes. He's a very good actor for being so young. Too bad a toddler can act better than the rest of the cast, otherwise we might have something really good here. It's not that the film is bad, it's just average. While it won't change your life or how you view movies, PS will provide at some good entertainment for a short period in your life...and possibly a few laughs.

A View to a Kill (1985)

Dance...into the FIYA!!!

[6/10 · 13 November 2004]

As most Bond films, this one is without a doubt cheesy, clichéd, and is riddled with puns, but given the '80's atmosphere and music, I simply love it...as a comedy. The mere introduction alone with the women in florescent Zink sunblock dancing in ultraviolet light is enough to justify the price of admission. It must be seen to be believed...not to mention the Duran Duran theme song, "A View to a Kill", which epitomizes the era. An admitted childhood pleasure.

As a film, basically it fails. However, given the insanely over the top puns and situations, this film is unintentionally filled with laughs that make it one of the best inadvertent comedies of all time. It's completely ridiculous, but it's fun. Not to mention the fact that rapists can be cured simply by watching this film and witnessing a snarling Grace Jones in a thong. Not one of Bond's best bags.

And really, who can hate a movie featuring Chris Walken as the antagonist? He plays his part marvelously, much better than the rest of the cast.

All in all, a typical Bond film...but probably the funniest.

Legend (1985)

A childhood favorite.

[6/10 · 13 November 2004]

For me, this film is some sort of a guilty pleasure as I first saw it at a young age while growing up and remember enjoying it immensely. Upon viewing it again very recently, while I realize it's not that great of a film, it's not necessarily a bad one. Also, given the extremely different material compared to his previous work, it is simply mind-boggling to think that the same director also created "Alien" and "Bladerunner".

The film fails for being simply, how do I put it.....gay, particularly in the beginning. The romance scenes are way over the top to the point that it's hard to imagine Scott watching this film without feeling some form of embarrassment. During several moments during the beginning sequences, I thought an overly-eager elf of some kind would bust out of the woods, bend Tom Cruise over a log and mount him....much to his enjoyment. That's how gay the beginning is. The acting isn't necessarily terrible, the direction is simply off. More than needed to set the rest of the film up. As it moves further it gets better, especially the end which is why I like this film and don't bash it into oblivion.

If there's one single redeeming quality for all of those who feel this movie is bad, they would have to admit that the Lord of Darkness played marvelously by Tim Curry is simply amazing. Quite bluntly, the very best personification of any devil or Satan ever put on film; the epitome of such. It's enough to give one chills. Marvelous costume and makeup job. However, without this, there's not much here other than a little kid movie with decent costumes and some impressive imagery. 6/10

Starsky & Hutch (2004)

Another Ben Stiller movie...

[6/10 · 3 October 2004]

Let's face it, how many times is Stiller going to do the same role over and over before they realize it doesn't work? That's the thing, although we've seen him play the same character about five million times in that last few years, and in many a film that weren't that great, it's still funny. No epic films, yes, but they're all pretty much worth watching. Anyone with insanely intense mannerisms and quirks combined with autistic knome-troll disease is funny. He'd be fun to keep in a box in your bedroom and then let him lose when you have a party or just have some friends over. He'd be great for that.

There's nothing terribly new here, another Ben Stiller flick with the same crap we've seen before, however, it does have it's moments. I particularly enjoyed Owen Wilson here, probably because I can finally look at him and not just see his nose. What's up with that honker anyway? There seemed to be quite a bit of natural chemistry between Stiller and Wilson. Vince Vaughn also plays himself here, and as always, is fun and enjoyable to watch. And I'll take Juliette Lewis any way I can get her. Snoop Dogg, hmmm. He can't really act, but he earned a few points with me here for some reason. Maybe it was the fact that he was able to get over himself for a minute or two and actually submit to getting bitch-slapped on film. That was totally unexpected but I liked it. Respeck.

The film itself is fairly corny but is what is to be expected from a spoof. I particularly enjoyed the car and Stiller's obsessive compulsive behavior surrounding it. Nice driving scenes too. OK, there's no need for an in depth analysis. Parts of it suck and parts of it are funny. It's not a classic, but it's not a turd either. If you like Stiller, Wilson or Vaughn you should find some interesting things herein...even if it's just a very slightly above average comedy.

Evil Dead II (1987)

It's all about the chainsaw...

[10/10 · 28 September 2004]

Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell come back to the woods to try and capture what made the prequel so great, and almost succeed. I prefer it's predecessor, but that is not to say this is not a good film. The reason is not because this is an inferior film, they're just very different. The original had vomit-inducing ultra-violence and shriek-inducing scares and thrills with a tad of black comedy thrown in here and there. This is the exact opposite, where the scares and violence are toned down, but the comedy and camp value has been scaled up.

For reasons that don't make any sense to me whatsoever, ED2's first ten minutes or so are a recap and mild remake of the first, supposedly due to the fact that Raimi could not get permission to use footage from the original to put in this sequel. I don't know about you, but I don't see how that's necessary. Rarely do sequels include exact footage from the original, even more rarely is it needed. So for what it's worth, I've heard all of the reasons and it just doesn't add up. Fortunately though, this doesn't matter much and does not take away from the film as a whole...it's just not exactly a sequel and not exactly a remake. But it is, exactly, a very entertaining film.

Now what I do prefer in this film compared to the original is that the characters act in ways that are slightly more plausible. The first film had me screaming at the screen trying to help out the characters. Don't go outside, look behind you, and for God's sake, get the damn chainsaw and go to town on those nasties! Saw their friggin' heads in half! Here, my voice was saved a bit as Ash must've heard my advice from earlier and decides to bust out the bad boy flesh eating zombie stomper and shred their minion asses into oblivion. Never have chainsaws been so much fun.

We are also treated to the same wild and uninhibited camera work from Raimi, something that made the original stand apart from the rest of the genre for that attribute alone. Raimi does not disappoint here. His frenzied technique fits perfectly and he knows it. Watching the Darkness from the woods chase Ash as he tries to escape into and through the house is truly an awesome sight. As for the camp value, unless you're dead, you'll find some humorous elements here amongst the insane absurdity. And I will state, for the record, that I enjoy this film's ending much more than the original's.

A delightful addition to the horror/comedy genre, and a different although worthy sequel/remake. If you liked the original, you'll find something interesting herein.

The Perfect Storm (2000)

oh man

[4/10 · 13 September 2004]

The film means well, it's just an embarrassingly contrived failure that makes the real story look stupid and utterly pointless. First off, I'd like to say that anyone dumb enough to think that they can head directly into a hurricane on a small fishing boat and make it through unscathed, and just for some money, is entirely stupid and would probably succumb to the survival of the fittest theory sometime shortly thereafter if the storm did not kill them. People that attempt such things usually don't live too long. I guess some of my dislike for this film comes from my dislike of the real "heroes", I think they're stupid, with all due respect. But, I have to admit, maybe some of this dislike has been projected onto them unfairly and my opinion might be tarnished by this raw and pure definition of trite cinema. I rejoiced when they met their fate.

trite: 1. Lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed. 2. Frayed or worn out by use.

And there you have it. There never was much of a story to begin with, some fools died on a boat, but no one really knows the details....so the filmmakers were forced to pull the rest out of their rears. Too bad they didn't look to see if it didn't stink first. Everything in this film from the characters, the minor conflicts, the dialogue...it's all been done about three billion time before in three billion other movies. And where it gets bad is where you can tell even the creators knew that they didn't have much of a story to go on and decided to throw some weak conflicts here and there to keep the audience from falling asleep. A shark on board, oh no! Man overboard, oh no! The conflict onboard that is resolved after one of the guys saves his "enemy", aww, how cute and totally original. The lovesick lovers left behind, awww, how sad. The moronicly stubborn captain and the men who mindlessly worship him, hmmm haven't seen that before. I got sick of hearing "Skip" being said after about the hundredth time...almost as if they were in the military and addressing a superior as "Sir". And the captain that can't bear to leave his boat, idiot. Another thing that's gay is how excitable the crew is. They catch some fish and it's as if they won the biggest lottery jackpot of all time. It's silly. The acting itself isn't too terrible, there just was never much to work with. The whole thing isn't helped by simply the gayest ending of all time. 'I have this dream…'

The only good thing about this film is the special effects of the storm itself, which are mildly amusing. Other than that, this is a MST 3000 candidate for sure. As a matter of fact, I watched this film with the sole intention of ripping it while watching it, which was amazingly easy to do. It almost does it to itself. What it all culminates into is a below average, over-budgeted summer blockbuster and nothing more. Watch this film to see how to make a movie suck. 4/10

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Complete and utter failure.

[1/10 · 31 August 2004]

AVP fails on several levels. It completely fails as an addition to both series, and it fails as a film itself. When I heard Anderson was in charge of this project, I knew that it couldn't be good news….and then when the PG-13 rating came along, my fears were multiplied and confirmed. A huge fan of both series, I wanted more than anything to like this film and for it to at least be average. After all, I cannot think of many film ideas that have had more potential. This very well could have been the best action and sci-fi film ever created, only if it had a decent director. I actually gave Anderson a chance, a 10% chance of making an average film, and a 0% chance of making it into what it deserved and had the potential to be. Those who gave him more should be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed that I paid to see it, however, I have a unique way of justifying it. Since I paid for it, the only way I can redeem myself is to rip this excuse for a film apart in this review, which will be long, and tell everyone I know how much this film completely sucks and how the originals and all copies should be burned.

MASSIVE spoilers:

First off, it fails right off for having a weak and unbelievable story, all thanks to the brilliantly moronic Anderson. Full of holes. An ancient pyramid, reminiscent of the Cube, 2000 feet below the ice in Antarctica? Riiiiiight. Predators have hunted humans for years, so let's send some adolescent ones to go after the fiercest species in the universe, and hey, let's only have them do it every 100 years….Riiiight. A chained up Queen Alien that's also been frozen and imprisoned by some wimpy ass Mongoloid Predators that get schooled like little b*tches? Riiiiight. A Predator and a woman make friends and the Predator even makes a shield and spear for her out of an Alien carcass? Oh-f-ing-KAY! I'll stop, but it doesn't take a film professor to see where this is going. They might as well have put an Alien Predator sex scene in it. So much potential and this was what Anderson shat out.

Anyone with even a lick of respect for either franchise can see how utterly stupid this film was even before any production was set forth. It gets even worse. Why in the hell would you claim to be a fan of both franchises and then go against many things we know about both creatures and make yourself look like a fool? Easy, Anderson is a fool. Face-huggers now fall off within minutes of attachment, the gestation period for the chest-bursters is now also a few minutes….and, to top it all off their blood is only sporadically acidic. How's that for consistency? Want more? Why in the hell would Predators set up an entire human civilization to perpetuate their ritual Alien hunts and bring weapons with them that melt when they come in contact with Alien blood? If these things have been hunting Aliens for hundreds of years, you'd think they'd be smarter than that.

And while we're at it, let's change the way the Predators and Aliens look. The Preds in this film look like they have down syndrome with their masks off. The fact that they look like linebackers doesn't help either. The original in 1987 looked infinitely better and more realistic, not like some lumbering oaf in a rubber suit. And just to make them fiercer, as if it were needed, let's make the Aliens so that they can open their mouths as wide as a Muppet, particularly Guy Smiley, can. This is the material we waited 14 years for?! I actually felt sorry for the Predators in this movie, they're just sad. On top of looking like they rode in on the short ship, they get their asses KICKED. Colonial Marines did better against a HIVE of Aliens than the Preds did against a few running around….and these were friggin' Predators!!! I thought the Predators hunted the ALIENS? These Preds were sissies, and were about as stealthy as a rhino giving birth during an electrical storm. Utterly ridiculous.

The cinematography used is entirely out of place. The quick-cut editing used during the fight scenes is some of the worst I've seen to date. You can't see anything that's going on and you might as well not even see the fights at all. That's exactly what I was looking forward to after 14 years, especially in a film with 'Vs.' in the title. While some of this may be possibly attributed to the studio axing it to make it PG-13, the shots that are left are far too close to the action, leading me to believe that this may have not been the studio's fault as some Anderson supporters claim. It's truly confusing and annoying. Straight out of The Blair Witch Project. And let's not forget to throw some Matrix bullet time into a face-hugger sequence, we'd be lost without that. And for a film that is obviously meant to be action-packed, it certainly isn't. Half of its measly runtime is spent setting up this ridiculous scenario. Where is the damn epic showdown?! This was a Versus movie right?

End of 'spoilers'.

And to all of you people defending this film, what in the hell are you thinking? Just because you're a fan of both franchises doesn't mean you have to swallow this and embarrass yourself on these pages. We deserved more. If you are OK with this film and do find it enjoyable, you are completely void of any taste in film. I simply do not understand your mediocrity.

For having more potential than almost any film in the last decade and releasing this stank pickle, I give AVP 1/10. R.I.P. Alien and Predator.

Frida (2002)

Before the mullet, there was the uni-brow.

[7/10 · 24 August 2004]

First off, if any of you guys out there are reading this review to see if it has anything in store because your girlfriend is going to make you watch it, read on. Make no mistake, Frida is definitely a chick flick.....a chick flick that shows Salma Hayek naked about a half a dozen times! I know I'm a pig, but seriously guys, this is the only reason you'd want to watch this film. So, let her make you watch it and enjoy.

Now that my lewd itch for the day has been scratched, let's get to the actual film. Frida is supposed to be a story about the amazing life of a wonderful artist who had her fair share of tragedy, greatness, and heartache. The film and cinematography are truly stunning, using moving adaptations of Frida's art, certain scenes and moods are expressed with passion. Visually, it is quite epic and gives the actors much scenery to chew. Speaking of acting, Hayek and Molina are at the top of their game here and each have much character to work with. Hayek probably deserved her Oscar nod. There are also several interesting cameos by several great actors such as Ed Norton and Antonio Banderas...but their parts are very minimal and don't contribute much to the story.

While the aforementioned acting and visuals are truly great and impressive, the story for just didn't cut it. I simply did not care about it or what happened really. I was constantly looking at my watch as a result and felt that much of the film could have been cut down. There seemed to be many pointless scenes that added nothing to the picture. It could be that this is just not my cup of tea and I'm fine with that. I have no doubt that this is a favorite of many, but it probably caters to the more feminine crowd. I'm not saying it was a bad film, it's just not my bag and didn't do anything for me. It probably didn't help that I watched both Kill Bill films directly before this one.

If you enjoy either of the leads, you'll probably find some interesting elements here. For me, I found it to be average.

Hard Boiled (1992)

A perfect example of why Woo should never have left his home.

[9/10 · 23 August 2004]

For the record, I utterly despise John Woo's American films. Not once has he impressed me, much to the contrary. His US films are stupid, unrealistic, and lack the brutally intense, realistic gun battles that he so masterfully conceived in his Hong Kong films. It's sad and hard to believe that this is the same director.

Rarely are such intensely brutal gun battles put on film in such a masterful way as they are here. Every bullet does damage to something or someone, which had to have made this an impossible film to choreograph. It is awe-inspiring to see all of the damage happen before your eyes leaving you wondering in amazement at how they even pulled it off. All of the blood squibs and debris are placed perfectly. I was amazed at the intricateness and caliber of the sequences. Very well thought out. And while it is true that foreign stuntmen are willing to take more chances than Americans which makes the films far more enjoyable to watch (American insurance companies also have something to do with this), the audacity of some of the stunts is downright insane. I wish the Americans would take note of the detail and insanity involved here. Some of this can be seen in some of Woo's American films, but it doesn't really matter since they suck anyway. The one and only bad thing I can say about the action sequences, is that no one ever reloads, EVER. Other than that minor gripe, they're flawless.

The basic story is fairly decent, although due to the cultural gap some things don't make a lot of sense or seem silly. This can't be blamed on the film itself though, but the aforementioned cultural difference. But overall, a great story that keeps you guessing. It makes for a rather long action film, but that's a good thing because we get treated to so much action. I can't say much for the acting considering I don't speak Chinese and can't interpret the way in which the lines are delivered...but it seemed satisfactory. Great story, invincibly awesome action, immense entertainment.

Hard Boiled kicks ass, period. If you really would like to see how to pull off some amazing action sequences, then give it a shot. You will not be disappointed. Fellow action directors should take note, including Woo himself.

Wet Hot American Summer (2001)

Silly yet amusing.

[8/10 · 17 August 2004]

If you've got the right sense of humor and of the absurd, then this movie will be right up your alley. If you don't, you will utterly despise this film. Wet Hot American Summer is a spoof of 80's camping films, and even a spoof of spoofs...if that's possible. Filled with ridiculous situations and off-the-wall absurdity, one never knows which direction the film will take itself next. Far from serious or even sane, those who don't like "stupid" movies will probably not find anything special here. However, if you do, then you'll find this ridiculously hilarious.

This had to have been a joy to make. Talking soup cans, fridge-humping chefs, hardcore drug binges, and interesting student/teacher relationships give it more than enough material to crack a few smiles from the makers during filming. It's so random and aware of it's jokes and what it is that it's hard for me not to like. It never takes itself seriously and the viewer shouldn't either. It's a perfectly absurd party movie....and shouldn't be taken as anything else. If you do, then that's your problem and fault for not being able to enjoy this film. That's a sad thing too, because it's definitely one of the most ridiculous movies I have ever seen, which is a good thing.

If you like silly films, then you'll love this. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Excellent comedy.

The Evil Dead (1981)

Marvelously putrid.

[10/10 · 16 August 2004]

What more can be said of Raimi's legendary cult-classic that hasn't already been beaten to death like a puss-oozing zombie that crosses paths with Ash? Possibly nothing, but I'll try.

Before Spiderman and before the countless spin-offs of this movie were made or even conceived, Raimi and friends decided to make a low budget zombie flick mainly for fun, and surprisingly it has become a masterpiece of shock and horror. Possibly a perfect example of how to make an entertaining film on a shoe-string budget, The Evil Dead delivers what it promises, the ultimate in grueling horror. Even with it's mild budget and sometimes shaky acting, TED shocks and spooks the audience through chilling atmosphere and some of the most violent effects ever put on film. Those who are squeamish need not apply. As a matter of fact, just run for your girly life.

There are several reasons this film succeeds. First, Raimi's camera work is truly masterful. By using fast camera work and aggressive shots, Raimi has created an eerie world that is sometimes hard to look at but too entertaining to turn away from. His style from behind the camera is absolutely unmistakable. This is perfectly exemplified in the beginning of the film, where the camera alone creates enough atmosphere to leave you biting your nails in suspense of what's to come. You feel at any moment someone is going to get their neck chomped on by some zombie hiding just out of view. One of the most impressive openings I can think of, perfection in pacing and atmosphere. It gets even better once the action starts. Some shots hold for a seeming eternity, and part of you wishes for it to stop for it's unrestrained gore and violence...but the other part of you is getting a sick kick out of it. One of the most impressive shots is where the darkness from the trees begins to chase people, knocking any tree or obstacle down that happens to be in it's way. Truly magnificent technique, however they did it.

TED also succeeds because it's self-aware of the fact that it's a simple zombie movie and never takes itself too seriously, and doesn't expect the audience to do so either. It's meant to be campy, cheesy, revolting and chilling at the same time. There are moments in the film where it seems to be making fun of itself and the genre in general. For this fact alone, one cannot hold certain things against it such as sometimes questionable acting from the supporting cast and sometimes the downright implausibility of certain situations. If you can accept this and you're not put off by mannequin ultra-violence, then you should find yourself on the supporter's side of the fence. I think some don't like it because it can be ridiculous and cheesy in parts, although it was meant to be. Even with the fact that it's sometimes cheesy, there are some downright chilling moments in this film that most horror films nowadays cannot begin to muster. Case in point, the zombie screaming from the cellar door. The zombie growls and howls themselves are enough to send shivers up one's spine. And let's not forget the unforgettable tree love scene, ridiculous and hilarious simultaneously.

Last but certainly not least: Bruce Campbell as Ash, the badass of all zombie films. Campbell is Ash, period, and always will be.

In my opinion, this is by far the best of the trilogy, and although there could have been more of the chainsaw, this is the definitive zombie film and probably always will be. I feel it succeeds over it's sequels due to it's increased violence and lack of humor in comparison. It's blood, gore, camera work, and shock factor are still formidable even today and are what make this such a cult classic. If you've ever liked any horror film, this is an absolute must-see.

Love or hate it, there it is.

Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

It feels so good to be so bad...

[4 August 2004]

John Malkovich sure doesn't seem to appear in that many films, but when he does he certainly outshines the entire cast, including ensembles like we have here. He's more of a Broadway actor anyway, but when we get a chance to see him on celluloid, it sure is a treat. Needless to say, he is more than enjoyable here. But he's not the only one who puts on a marvelous performance. Pfeiffer, Thurman, and Close all do very respectable jobs in this lustful tale of deceit and revenge. However, I must say that although she performed well, Glenn Close seems fairly miscast. Why? Because she's supposed to be this unattainable beauty and simply irresistible to Valmont (Malkovich), but she simply couldn't give a desperate man a stiffy. The part required someone of timeless beauty which she does not have, in my opinion. To be honest, she scares the living sh*t out of me.

What we have is an original tale of lust, power and deceit rolled up into a film of excellent entertainment and quality. A little seedy for some, however, I enjoyed it quite well. Close and Malkovich's behavior, in character, sometimes made me want to slap them and sometimes give them a high five. Very effective. Respectively, while you're meant to feel sorry for some of the characters, you can't help but to root for the evildoers as well.

The costumes and sets are very impressive and are completely convincing. And for once, I don't really have anything bad to say about Keanu Reeves. He plays a tool, so he fits the bill perfectly. Overall, a very entertaining and decent movie, even if it's not really my forte or one of my all time favorites. Pig alert, see this movie if you want to see Umabreasts! Yes, it's an official word. I know that was lame but get over it.

American Psycho (2000)

Killing people is cool...

[9/10 · 20 July 2004]

Now this is a good horror slasher flick. It is much more than that as well. Not only does AP bring some class and wit to this genre, but it also brings an eerily realistic and masterful acting performance from Christian Bale. Absolutely perfect. Thinking that Leo was being considered for this makes me nauseous. There's no way he could've pulled it off anywhere even close to the magnitude that Bale did. On top of his acting, he looks perfect for this role...a normal good-looking guy on the outside, but with something very dark and sick just under the surface. You can see it in his eyes. For this film alone, I eagerly await to see him in more films.

Now I will say that I have not read the book, so anything I bring up or comment on is strictly for the film itself, as a film. It's usually a fairly pointless routine to compare books and movies anyway.

Set in the snooty materialism days of the 80's in New York, all of the film's characters only care about two things, money and themselves. This is a recurring theme that pops up continuously throughout the film, most importantly attributing to the fact that Bale doesn't seem able to be caught because people are too wrapped up in these two things. In that sense, the film is a mockery of sorts, a satire of the time period and culture. Bateman (Bale) cares about money, but has become bored with the way his life has become, and really simply cares about his outward image and his desires that he cannot completely control.

Through witty narration and random speeches Bateman gives, we realize the extent of his obsessions and how they completely run every aspect of his life. The best example of this is given in one of the first scenes where he's talking about how he prepares himself for the day. Great stuff. This film also has quite a bit of comedy contained in it as well, at least if you have the right sense of humor. There are several classically funny parts throughout, mostly attributed to the subtle yet clever narration.

Not only that, if you leave out the book when interpreting this film, it leaves itself quite open and is a cause for much debate here on IMDb. It's one that can constantly be debated as long as the book worms can't leave out the fact that it's based on a book. I stand somewhere in the middle but on neither side. After all, films should, in all rights, stand by themselves. Visit the AP message boards after viewing for more of what I speak.

Overall, an immensely funny look at materialism and murder, and the perceptions contained in our world and or lack thereof. All but perfect. Not for everyone though (especially children), and it's probably a little misunderstood, hence it's curiously low rating. If you enjoyed Fight Club, you'll probably find some intriguing elements here.

Highly recommended.

Chinatown (1974)

Bring you down to Chinatown.

[9/10 · 19 July 2004]

Yet once again Jack Nicholson shows us how it's done by simply doing what he does best, playing himself. Chinatown is a unique and fairly impressive noir piece that I was only recently able to see. Much like L.A. Confidential, CT throws us right into the mix of the old days, very convincingly, through great cinematography and perfect set pieces.

Chinatown is fairly effective creating a mysterious atmosphere by using shady characters of questionable backgrounds and a story that holds much more to it than what's merely on the surface. Somewhat hard to follow when compared to most films, you really must pay attention during this one. This is not one to get up and go to the bathroom during unless you hit the pause button. I found this slightly annoying at first, but then it quickly grew on me. I like how everything here isn't spelled out for you in bold letters. One must pay attention and piece things together for themselves, which is exactly how a mystery should be. It keeps you on your toes. You never seem to know which direction the story is going to take you next.

Technically, the film is close to perfect. The cinematography, the score, and the acting are all top notch. All of these elements are combined into a screaming mystery flick. Some may be tempted to get bored at some point, but don't, you must pay attention. I personally enjoyed it quite well and think it's an excellent film. My one and only qualm with it though is the seemingly anti-climactic ending that, while realistic, simply comes out of nowhere without warning. I felt a tad let down at the end after all of that buildup, but the more I think about it, the more I actually like it. This, as I have heard from many people, is not a film to judge on it's first viewing, but one that must be viewed several times in order for the viewer to absorb everything. For this reason alone, and the fact that I've seen it only once, I can't bring myself to take too much away from it simply because of my one qualm with it. I must view it again and see if I like it better. I think I will do just that.

Overall, a great, beautiful, classic noir that won't soon be forgotten.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

Me pot of gold.

[10/10 · 19 July 2004]

Not having seen this until very recently, I'm going to try and give an objective review for this film with tentative criticism. I'm not all too educated in the Western genre, but supposedly this is the best, so I figured it to be a good place to start.

Absolutely stunning cinematography technique, excellent characters and actors, and one of the most memorable musical scores ever help define TGTBATU's spot in film history. It's no wonder it's achieved the status it has. Having never seen any of the old spaghetti westerns before, I really didn't know what to expect. I was surprised but also delighted. For some reason I thought this film was going to be extremely realistic, so I was a little surprised to see hats getting shot off and rope cut in half by a bullets. I suppose it is part of the genre's characteristics and probably takes a little getting used to. Also, at the same time the film is very realistic as it introduces the theme of the Civil War at different parts throughout the film giving us a small glimpse of it's effects back then.

Easily my favorite component to the film, the cinematography is simply amazing. Panoramic backgrounds and extreme close-ups do their respective jobs quite nicely to give this film more character that it needs, which is not a bad thing. I'm sure it's played a huge part in the film's notoriety and support since it's release. The score and the well-cast actors obviously had a part in this also. Oh yeah, and one more thing, Clint Eastwood...born for these parts.

Being new to the genre of Spaghetti Westerns, I offer up my criticism with much reluctance. For the record, I enjoyed the film quite a bit and was not disappointed. However, I was a little surprised to find the film rated so high, even if it is the genre-defining classic that it is. What's wrong with it? Well, it's a tad too long for one. Not that I can't stay interested, I just felt they could have cut a few of the scenes. Also, while the cinematography is beautiful, and complimented by long shots, I feel these longs shots are sometimes a little too long. The cemetery and stand-off scenes in the end come to mind. They're wonderful sequences, just too long. It's not that big of a deal, just sensing a little pretension leaking out here and there. And lastly, the sound quality is fairly terrible, even if the score is decent. The quality makes it sound like everyone was in a cave, including the impressive score. I do realize that the film was dubbed...some of which isn't all that great, which explains some of the off-key lip movements from some of the characters, some of them English speaking. Other than those three little gripes, that may not have been such forty years ago, this is a great film that I enjoyed immensely. I will definitely add it to my collection soon and continue my quest to see all of the great Westerns. Anyone interested in Westerns, great adventures, or simply film in general should not miss this hallmark.

Highly recommended, but not for everyone.