This forgotten 80s slasher is truly one that has to be seen to be believed. Its got a killer in a Richard Nixon mask, a couple of Nazi brothers, a girl getting her chest ironed (!), invisible whipping weapons (think Phantasm but on a much lower budget), a teleporting disemboweled cat, brain-eating maggots, surf-rock music, and more! None of it makes any sense and by no means is it a good movie but its so bizarre you just cant take your eyes off it! Love the scene where a chick throws herself into a glass coffee table...to get away from the killer! The DVD is the quality of a VHS transfer but, in this case, it actually kinda helps the film by giving it the grainy picture effect that works well for a film of this "so bad it's almost good" caliber.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Don't Look in the Attic
(1982)
week-old spaghetti sauce
7 January 2008
Now, I LOVE Italian horror films. The cheesier they are, the better. However, this is not cheesy Italian. This is week-old spaghetti sauce with rotting meatballs. It is amateur hour on every level. There is no suspense, no horror, with just a few drops of blood scattered around to remind you that you are in fact watching a horror film. The "special effects" consist of the lights changing to red whenever the ghost (or whatever it was supposed to be) is around, and a string pulling bed sheets up and down. Oooh, can you feel the chills? The DVD quality is that of a VHS transfer (which actually helps the film more than hurts it). The dubbing is below even the lowest "bad Italian movie" standards and I gave it one star just because the dialogue is so hilarious! And what do we discover when she finally DOES look in the attic (in a scene that is daytime one minute and night the next)...well, I won't spoil it for anyone who really wants to see, but let's just say that it isn't very "novel"!
...and you thought pt. 4 was as bad as it gets!
15 October 2005
Man, there are gonna be some seriously ticked-off fans. I mean, I'm a fan of the first 3 films (mostly 1 and 3) but I'm talking about the "die-hards" who are gonna be even more ticked than me because after 2 years of "in-the-making", THIS is what they come up with.
Sci-Fi channel can make all of the bad movies-of-the-week that it wants but making sequels to cult favorites like "Return of the Living Dead" is, well, they should really just know better.
As if part 4 wasn't bad enough (and it was awful), we get treated to something even worse: part 5. Having absolutely no redeeming qualities, it essentially plays like a 2-hour demonstration of what not to do when making a movie. Not even once does it rise to "so bad it's good" status as it's clear the writer and director aren't aware of ANY of the rules to good "bad movie"-making...such as this one: "Plot holes can exist as long as there is enough action to distract the viewer from focusing on them,"
The makers of this film apparently think every viewer has the IQ of a coat hanger because the plot holes come fast and steady from the beginning through to the end. Within the first ten minutes, we find ourselves asking: "Why is it that some of the high-school students in the P.E. class look to be about 30 years old?", "Where did the note about the guy's uncle come from?", "How can the main character have lived in his house for years (judging by the dust in the attic) without ever knowing about that secret room?" and "What exactly did Peter Coyote do to deserve this?" and then later, my favorite: "What high school lets unsupervised students use syringes on laboratory rats?" Meanwhile, we get mostly bad dialogue scenes instead of action (or camera work, atmosphere, good music, good dialogue scenes...really, take your pick), to go with these glaring questions.
Believe me, I'm not nit-picking. I normally don't mind plot-holes in otherwise entertaining movies. If I was able to overlook them while watching "House of the Dead", I'd say I'm pretty forgiving. I don't think a movie has to be completely in sync with reality, but come on, at least make an effort!
Here, it's obvious that someone was just too lazy or too inept to fix them...and that is just one problem that needs fixing! What about the fact that the zombies not only talk, but when they do, they sound just like...humans?! (Well, actually, that was more the case in part 4. Here, they only really talk when the opportunity for a lame one-liner presents itself.) Still, what about the fact that they feel pain? Or that they run (but only when convenient)? Honestly, I think this was made by people who have never seen a single zombie flick. If you don't agree, then explain the makeup effects because, let me tell you: gray face powder and latex cheekbones do not a zombie make.
Like I said, fans are gonna be ticked and die-hards may well storm the Sci-Fi Channel HQ. They would have been wise to change this to a stand-alone film instead of a sequel, but as it is, maybe "Return of the Living Dead 5: Dig Your Own Grave" would have been a better title.
Sci-Fi channel can make all of the bad movies-of-the-week that it wants but making sequels to cult favorites like "Return of the Living Dead" is, well, they should really just know better.
As if part 4 wasn't bad enough (and it was awful), we get treated to something even worse: part 5. Having absolutely no redeeming qualities, it essentially plays like a 2-hour demonstration of what not to do when making a movie. Not even once does it rise to "so bad it's good" status as it's clear the writer and director aren't aware of ANY of the rules to good "bad movie"-making...such as this one: "Plot holes can exist as long as there is enough action to distract the viewer from focusing on them,"
The makers of this film apparently think every viewer has the IQ of a coat hanger because the plot holes come fast and steady from the beginning through to the end. Within the first ten minutes, we find ourselves asking: "Why is it that some of the high-school students in the P.E. class look to be about 30 years old?", "Where did the note about the guy's uncle come from?", "How can the main character have lived in his house for years (judging by the dust in the attic) without ever knowing about that secret room?" and "What exactly did Peter Coyote do to deserve this?" and then later, my favorite: "What high school lets unsupervised students use syringes on laboratory rats?" Meanwhile, we get mostly bad dialogue scenes instead of action (or camera work, atmosphere, good music, good dialogue scenes...really, take your pick), to go with these glaring questions.
Believe me, I'm not nit-picking. I normally don't mind plot-holes in otherwise entertaining movies. If I was able to overlook them while watching "House of the Dead", I'd say I'm pretty forgiving. I don't think a movie has to be completely in sync with reality, but come on, at least make an effort!
Here, it's obvious that someone was just too lazy or too inept to fix them...and that is just one problem that needs fixing! What about the fact that the zombies not only talk, but when they do, they sound just like...humans?! (Well, actually, that was more the case in part 4. Here, they only really talk when the opportunity for a lame one-liner presents itself.) Still, what about the fact that they feel pain? Or that they run (but only when convenient)? Honestly, I think this was made by people who have never seen a single zombie flick. If you don't agree, then explain the makeup effects because, let me tell you: gray face powder and latex cheekbones do not a zombie make.
Like I said, fans are gonna be ticked and die-hards may well storm the Sci-Fi Channel HQ. They would have been wise to change this to a stand-alone film instead of a sequel, but as it is, maybe "Return of the Living Dead 5: Dig Your Own Grave" would have been a better title.
so bad it's...awful
15 October 2005
THIS is what we waited for? THIS is what we've been given after more than a year of hype? I can't believe how bad this was! It's not funny, it's not scary, it's not even "so bad it's good", it's just "so bad it's really bad"...
We are talking about some grade-z bad direction, I'm not sure what was worse: watching everyone don mining helmets to explore a research facility or watching 2 of the characters test their walkie-talkies while standing five feet apart in the same shot! No wait, the worst was the fistfight (?!) between the talking (?!) zombie and the human...or any scene with the girl in pigtails. Speaking of the characters, this movie has the most unlikable group of (horrible) actors you could possibly imagine. Most of them seem to think they are in a high-school play and overact accordingly, with ridiculously exaggerated expressions of (insert emotion here). The others can barely muster up enough inflection in their voices to break past monotone...and when they do, it's only at the end of the line, so everything they say sounds like a question.
I'm not usually one to speak too badly about films because it takes a lot of work to make one. In fact, I usually give more credit than is probably deserved and therefore end up liking (or at least not minding) films everyone else hates. I thought "House of the Dead" tried too hard but was mildly entertaining and found good points to "Cry_Wolf"...that should pretty much put my movie viewing into perspective.
With this film, there just isn't anything to speak highly about. Originally, I gave this film a rating of "1" but changed it to a "2" after seeing part 5. I didn't think it possible, but part 5 is worse than this one. As a matter of fact, the only positive thing I can say about this film is that it is slightly more bearable than part 5 and I guess that's worth something.
I thought it was hysterical when they put a preview for 'Land of the Dead' with this movie...it's like they couldn't make it look bad enough on it's own, they had to give us something for comparison!
We are talking about some grade-z bad direction, I'm not sure what was worse: watching everyone don mining helmets to explore a research facility or watching 2 of the characters test their walkie-talkies while standing five feet apart in the same shot! No wait, the worst was the fistfight (?!) between the talking (?!) zombie and the human...or any scene with the girl in pigtails. Speaking of the characters, this movie has the most unlikable group of (horrible) actors you could possibly imagine. Most of them seem to think they are in a high-school play and overact accordingly, with ridiculously exaggerated expressions of (insert emotion here). The others can barely muster up enough inflection in their voices to break past monotone...and when they do, it's only at the end of the line, so everything they say sounds like a question.
I'm not usually one to speak too badly about films because it takes a lot of work to make one. In fact, I usually give more credit than is probably deserved and therefore end up liking (or at least not minding) films everyone else hates. I thought "House of the Dead" tried too hard but was mildly entertaining and found good points to "Cry_Wolf"...that should pretty much put my movie viewing into perspective.
With this film, there just isn't anything to speak highly about. Originally, I gave this film a rating of "1" but changed it to a "2" after seeing part 5. I didn't think it possible, but part 5 is worse than this one. As a matter of fact, the only positive thing I can say about this film is that it is slightly more bearable than part 5 and I guess that's worth something.
I thought it was hysterical when they put a preview for 'Land of the Dead' with this movie...it's like they couldn't make it look bad enough on it's own, they had to give us something for comparison!
Land of the Dead
(2005)
A Fully Fleshed Film For The Fans
28 June 2005
Wow! This movie was a truly great film from a truly great director and a fitting entry, if not conclusion, to the "Dead" series. Rather than directly praise the film, I'd like to counterpoint some of the negative things I've heard from others: First, to those who say it wasn't scary enough: What did you really expect? How often is the fourth entry of any series as scary as the original? Usually, it isn't even good! For example, Friday the 13th part 4: Scary? Not really. Entertaining? sure. Nightmare 4: Scary? Not so much. Entertaining? questionable. Howling 4: Do I really even need to go there? In a sub-genre that has been imitated, duplicated, and redone time after time, I'm not even sure it's possible to make a truly scary film. Instead, Romero has made a (rare) truly entertaining film that blends horror with dark comedy and opts against cheap scares. Was last year's remake of "Dawn of the Dead" more frightening? Only if you've never seen a "Dead" movie. Was last year's "Dawn of the Dead" remake full of cheap scares instead of genuine horror? You betcha.
To those who say it isn't groundbreaking cinema: Again, what were you expecting? The man invented the zombie film. Isn't that enough of an achievement? Exactly how much more ground is he supposed to break? It's clear that Romero was well aware of this as he focuses more on his social allegory here than in any of his previous installments. In "Day of the Dead", he subtly raised the question: Who are the real monsters, us or them? Here it is fully fleshed out, pun semi-intended. The idea of the zombies becoming more like us and us more like them is a very interesting concept and one I think we may see explored further in other zombie films to come. Given the current situation of world events, this film could not have been released at a better time.
I respect Romero immensely for not compromising his style to match that of today's films. Finally, we have a good horror film that doesn't have any of the "MTV-style" editing and uses real effects instead of CGI. Don't get me wrong, the "MTV-style" can be good (see "The Matrix") but lately it has gotten way out of control (see "Blade: Trinity" and try to follow any fight scene). All in all, I think most true horror and zombie film fans will appreciate this movie for everything it is and those who dislike it are probably the same people who felt the remake of "Dawn" was original and groundbreaking cinema.
To those who say it isn't groundbreaking cinema: Again, what were you expecting? The man invented the zombie film. Isn't that enough of an achievement? Exactly how much more ground is he supposed to break? It's clear that Romero was well aware of this as he focuses more on his social allegory here than in any of his previous installments. In "Day of the Dead", he subtly raised the question: Who are the real monsters, us or them? Here it is fully fleshed out, pun semi-intended. The idea of the zombies becoming more like us and us more like them is a very interesting concept and one I think we may see explored further in other zombie films to come. Given the current situation of world events, this film could not have been released at a better time.
I respect Romero immensely for not compromising his style to match that of today's films. Finally, we have a good horror film that doesn't have any of the "MTV-style" editing and uses real effects instead of CGI. Don't get me wrong, the "MTV-style" can be good (see "The Matrix") but lately it has gotten way out of control (see "Blade: Trinity" and try to follow any fight scene). All in all, I think most true horror and zombie film fans will appreciate this movie for everything it is and those who dislike it are probably the same people who felt the remake of "Dawn" was original and groundbreaking cinema.
Saw
(2004)
sets a new standard for the genre
6 March 2005
Unrelenting, unforgiving, and most certainly unlike any viewing experience I can remember, "Saw" is quite possibly the best thriller in modern cinema. I pity the fool who happens upon this film thinking it will be "just another Hollywood fright flick" because it truly is in a class by itself. This is a thriller that will take your breath away in the first minute and not give it back until the end credits roll. It is a gruesome, grisly, and utterly evocative depiction of the darkest recesses of the human mind. What makes this thriller a cut above the rest?
A good thriller scares you. As a grown man (and horror fan), I rarely see a film that accomplishes this task. This one had me flipping on every light in my house...and sleeping that way as well. I'm actually embarrassed to admit that I kept thinking the killer was going to jump at me any second.
A good thriller delivers an ending that you don't expect. For "Saw", this would be a gross understatement. This is an entire film of one unexpected event after another, so much so that I actually gave up trying to guess what would happen next.
A good thriller stays with you afterward. There are several times during this film where the tension was so unimaginably unbearable, I found myself wondering whether or not I really wanted to continue watching. Not because it wasn't good but because it was almost too good for its own intent. The horrific scenes of torture the killer puts upon his victims were made impossibly more shocking by the schizophrenic style in which they were filmed. This is not to be confused with the "MTV-Style Flash-Cut To Infinity" style seen in so many thrillers today (which thankfully was absent here). This was a series of frantic zooms and close-ups along with swooping high-speed 360 shots of the victim. Throw in some music that effectively makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up and you have the work of a brilliant (if insanely twisted) director.
Films like this don't come along often so don't miss it. Even if you think it is too gory, too sadistic, or too intense, you would have to admit it is an excellent piece of independent art that makes "The Blair Witch Project" look like a fairy tale, swims circles around "Open Water", and pretty much cuts any Hollywood studio picture completely in half.
A good thriller scares you. As a grown man (and horror fan), I rarely see a film that accomplishes this task. This one had me flipping on every light in my house...and sleeping that way as well. I'm actually embarrassed to admit that I kept thinking the killer was going to jump at me any second.
A good thriller delivers an ending that you don't expect. For "Saw", this would be a gross understatement. This is an entire film of one unexpected event after another, so much so that I actually gave up trying to guess what would happen next.
A good thriller stays with you afterward. There are several times during this film where the tension was so unimaginably unbearable, I found myself wondering whether or not I really wanted to continue watching. Not because it wasn't good but because it was almost too good for its own intent. The horrific scenes of torture the killer puts upon his victims were made impossibly more shocking by the schizophrenic style in which they were filmed. This is not to be confused with the "MTV-Style Flash-Cut To Infinity" style seen in so many thrillers today (which thankfully was absent here). This was a series of frantic zooms and close-ups along with swooping high-speed 360 shots of the victim. Throw in some music that effectively makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up and you have the work of a brilliant (if insanely twisted) director.
Films like this don't come along often so don't miss it. Even if you think it is too gory, too sadistic, or too intense, you would have to admit it is an excellent piece of independent art that makes "The Blair Witch Project" look like a fairy tale, swims circles around "Open Water", and pretty much cuts any Hollywood studio picture completely in half.
Battlestar Galactica
(2004–2009)
You don't have to be a "sci-fi" fan to LOVE this show
26 February 2005
I caught the series premiere of this show by accident. I was channel flipping and stopped on Sci-Fi Channel before leaving the room. When I returned, "Battlestar Galactica" was on and in the time it took me to reach for my remote control I was hooked. I've watched it every week since.
I have to admit that I'm not really a sci-fi fan...at all. To prove my point, I've never seen a Star Trek movie nor have I willingly watched any of the various incarnations of the TV show. Those that I have seen (with friends) seem forcedly fantastical and melodramatic (I apologize to any Trekkies but bear with me; I'm trying to make a point).
However, "Battlestar" is the exact opposite. Given the name, one might expect each show to end in a breath-taking space fight. One would also be dead wrong. Instead, it is involving and engaging, often ending on a subdued and possibly mellow note. Rarely have there been any intense fight scenes (the premiere being an exception). There are no new worlds being discovered or life forms waiting to be identified. No man is going to boldly go anywhere. This is a very character-driven show that explores the human condition and it is thinly disguised as a space saga about man vs. machine. The whole "sci-fi" element seems merely a setting. While the main premise involves a war between humans and cylons (machines), the show is really about the conflicts between our species alone (the cylons appear identical to humans). The well-written themes of trust/betrayal, fear/uncertainty, love/duty, the will to live, and the desire to conquer could be transplanted to any setting and be just as effective.
All-in-all, this is a truly great show that has probably yet to be discovered by those outside of the "sci-fi" world. If you are one of those people who have no idea what the word "klingon" means (such as myself), I urge you to give this show just one chance. It's a great discovery and far, far better than any one of the 5,000 "reality" shows currently airing this season. It would be a shame to miss something this good just because you are programmed to skip right past the Sci-Fi Channel.
I have to admit that I'm not really a sci-fi fan...at all. To prove my point, I've never seen a Star Trek movie nor have I willingly watched any of the various incarnations of the TV show. Those that I have seen (with friends) seem forcedly fantastical and melodramatic (I apologize to any Trekkies but bear with me; I'm trying to make a point).
However, "Battlestar" is the exact opposite. Given the name, one might expect each show to end in a breath-taking space fight. One would also be dead wrong. Instead, it is involving and engaging, often ending on a subdued and possibly mellow note. Rarely have there been any intense fight scenes (the premiere being an exception). There are no new worlds being discovered or life forms waiting to be identified. No man is going to boldly go anywhere. This is a very character-driven show that explores the human condition and it is thinly disguised as a space saga about man vs. machine. The whole "sci-fi" element seems merely a setting. While the main premise involves a war between humans and cylons (machines), the show is really about the conflicts between our species alone (the cylons appear identical to humans). The well-written themes of trust/betrayal, fear/uncertainty, love/duty, the will to live, and the desire to conquer could be transplanted to any setting and be just as effective.
All-in-all, this is a truly great show that has probably yet to be discovered by those outside of the "sci-fi" world. If you are one of those people who have no idea what the word "klingon" means (such as myself), I urge you to give this show just one chance. It's a great discovery and far, far better than any one of the 5,000 "reality" shows currently airing this season. It would be a shame to miss something this good just because you are programmed to skip right past the Sci-Fi Channel.
Savage Island
(2004)
Great Example of Good Low-Budget Film-making
1 February 2005
I finally got around to seeing this after hearing great things about it. It actually exceeded my expectations. Considering the budget involved this was a surprisingly competent and well-made film. The lack of finances actually helped this film in several ways, especially given the plot. Just like The Blair Witch Project, this film was all the better for being shot on video instead of film. Another bonus: Whereas most low-budget horror films (even the best of the best) suffer from mediocre-to-unintentionally hysterical acting, this film actually had a talented cast (save one or two characters), particularly the two leads. The only thing missing from the film was an original storyline. It borrows heavily from better-known films like "Deliverance" and "Wrong Turn" but if you're like me, films of this nature never cease to be terrifying. Plus, the director keeps things interesting throughout. I'd be very interested to see what the director would do with a bigger budget and I have a feeling it will only be a matter of time before we find out...
The Grudge
(2004)
It Never Forgets And Neither Will You (VERY MINOR SPOILERS)
23 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see The Grudge with three of my friends. Even though I am a long (long, long, long) time die-hard horror film aficionado, I (for the first time ever) found the movie so frightening, I was almost in tears. While my best friend agreed with me, the two other friends with us did not find it particularly scary at all. I was shocked to hear them say this until I realized what was going on. Those two friends had seen the 2004 remake of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and left the theater in a similar state to the one I was in after "The Grudge". While I found "TCM" to be an excellent and devoted re-visioning, it did not scare me in the least...just like the original version was an excellent film but not frightening (in my opinion).
Those two friends are terrified by "real life" (i.e. nothing supernatural) blood and gore films. That sub-genre of horror is everything "The Grudge" is not. Instead, "The Grudge" represents everything that has frightened me and haunted my imagination since I was a child. It is an unrelenting barrage of humans who open their mouths to release completely inhuman sounds (that literally make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end), people walking down dark hallways with a lurching limp or with their heads rolled impossibly far to one side, children who appear sweet and innocent only to look subtly inhuman and undeniably demonic upon closer view, things that are not under the bed but already in the bed waiting for you, evil that will unquestionably win in the end...it's only a matter of how much Hell you are willing to put yourself through until that defeat occurs. What makes these things (and the film as a whole) so terrifying to me is that in all of these figments of the darker recesses of imagination lies the inherent realization that they are not so completely far-fetched that they could never actually happen. They are all ordinary things that take on a sinister new personality by simply enhancing or omitting a single characteristic of the norm. This is made all the better by the tradition of Japanese filmmakers to leave it up to the audience to decide the full reasons behind the events rather than spell everything out for us...a practice not forgotten in this remake. If this type of Twilight Zone-ish horror is your cup of tea, then you will leave this film feeling as though you may never sleep with both eyes shut again. When on of the victims slowly turns around to reveal a greatly contorted mouth missing the lower jaw, I felt the need to look behind me to make sure she wasn't occupying any nearby theater seats. That is something that never crossed my mind during "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". 10/10
Those two friends are terrified by "real life" (i.e. nothing supernatural) blood and gore films. That sub-genre of horror is everything "The Grudge" is not. Instead, "The Grudge" represents everything that has frightened me and haunted my imagination since I was a child. It is an unrelenting barrage of humans who open their mouths to release completely inhuman sounds (that literally make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end), people walking down dark hallways with a lurching limp or with their heads rolled impossibly far to one side, children who appear sweet and innocent only to look subtly inhuman and undeniably demonic upon closer view, things that are not under the bed but already in the bed waiting for you, evil that will unquestionably win in the end...it's only a matter of how much Hell you are willing to put yourself through until that defeat occurs. What makes these things (and the film as a whole) so terrifying to me is that in all of these figments of the darker recesses of imagination lies the inherent realization that they are not so completely far-fetched that they could never actually happen. They are all ordinary things that take on a sinister new personality by simply enhancing or omitting a single characteristic of the norm. This is made all the better by the tradition of Japanese filmmakers to leave it up to the audience to decide the full reasons behind the events rather than spell everything out for us...a practice not forgotten in this remake. If this type of Twilight Zone-ish horror is your cup of tea, then you will leave this film feeling as though you may never sleep with both eyes shut again. When on of the victims slowly turns around to reveal a greatly contorted mouth missing the lower jaw, I felt the need to look behind me to make sure she wasn't occupying any nearby theater seats. That is something that never crossed my mind during "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". 10/10
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
(2004)
For A Video-Game Movie, It Doesn't Get Any Better
13 September 2004
This sequel to the excellent 'Resident Evil' more than lived up to my expectations in every way. As a big fan of the first film and its director, Paul W.S. Anderson (I realize he is an acquired taste), I was initially worried when I learned he was handing the reigns over to newcomer Alexander Witt. I never should have doubted Anderson because this sequel blew me away. It's been two hours since I saw it and I am still trying to catch my breath!
For a video-game movie, you couldn't ask for more: non-stop action, visual flair in almost every shot, an attractive cast (in these movies, nobody cares about acting skills), and an ending that promises more for the future. Sure, there are glaring plot holes, but who cares? You don't go see movies like this for an intricately detailed plot and in-depth character development. You go see movies like this to have a good time. It won't win an Oscar but nobody expects or wants it to.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the films is Where that the first film had a tight and claustrophobic feel, this installment is an all out, no-holds barred smorgasbord of violence and noise....and it never makes the slightest attempt to apologize for this fact. I thank Mr. Witt profusely for that. Furthermore, he does not try to copy the style of the first film. Instead, he made the decision (a chance-y one) to unleash a whole new bag of tricks. While that could have been a disaster for the franchise, it ended up being the smartest thing for it.
Bottom line: If you like video-game movies, you can't get any better than 'Resident Evil: Apocalypse'. If you don't like video-game movies, well, I guess you really don't have any business going to see it in the first place, now do you?
For a video-game movie, you couldn't ask for more: non-stop action, visual flair in almost every shot, an attractive cast (in these movies, nobody cares about acting skills), and an ending that promises more for the future. Sure, there are glaring plot holes, but who cares? You don't go see movies like this for an intricately detailed plot and in-depth character development. You go see movies like this to have a good time. It won't win an Oscar but nobody expects or wants it to.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the films is Where that the first film had a tight and claustrophobic feel, this installment is an all out, no-holds barred smorgasbord of violence and noise....and it never makes the slightest attempt to apologize for this fact. I thank Mr. Witt profusely for that. Furthermore, he does not try to copy the style of the first film. Instead, he made the decision (a chance-y one) to unleash a whole new bag of tricks. While that could have been a disaster for the franchise, it ended up being the smartest thing for it.
Bottom line: If you like video-game movies, you can't get any better than 'Resident Evil: Apocalypse'. If you don't like video-game movies, well, I guess you really don't have any business going to see it in the first place, now do you?
Taking Lives
(2004)
Brilliant
29 August 2004
'Taking Lives' was a brilliant and welcome entry in the crime-thriller genre. Although it has gotten some harsh reviews by critics, I fail to see what the problem is. It has a good and thoroughly involving story, excellent performances (particularly by Jolie and Martinez), terrific atmosphere (thanks to director Caruso) plus a great and unexpected, if somewhat implausible, final twist.
Even though critics have claimed they saw the twist coming from miles away, I seriously doubt that is the truth. There isn't even the slightest hint of what is to happen in the final moments of the film so successfully predicting said ending would be about like getting struck by lightning...not bloody likely.
Even though critics have claimed they saw the twist coming from miles away, I seriously doubt that is the truth. There isn't even the slightest hint of what is to happen in the final moments of the film so successfully predicting said ending would be about like getting struck by lightning...not bloody likely.
Open Water
(2003)
Awesome Movie...Even Though I Hated It
24 August 2004
I watch scary movies all the time. In fact, I've seen almost all of the "important" ones and can safely say that the biggest impact this has had on me is to make me numb to the various tactics used to scare an audience. It seems like with every film I see with friends, my friends are screaming and I do not even flinch.
With "Open Water", I did not flinch but it was the first film I have seen in some time that left me feeling uneasy, to say the least. After spending 80 minutes watching the final horrible moments of two ordinary lives, I left the theater with an indescribable sense of dread and a desperate need to go home and watch a good, pointless sitcom.
I'm not sure I can say that I like this movie. I definitely have no intention of seeing it again. However, any film that can cause me to feel as genuinely disturbed as "Open Water" must be a pretty good movie. I should add (as a warning to those who haven't seen it) that I also left feeling a little queasy due to the fact that, like "The Blair Witch Project", the camera movements were often jerky and the camera, like the water, seemed to constantly bob up and down.
Score: 8/10
With "Open Water", I did not flinch but it was the first film I have seen in some time that left me feeling uneasy, to say the least. After spending 80 minutes watching the final horrible moments of two ordinary lives, I left the theater with an indescribable sense of dread and a desperate need to go home and watch a good, pointless sitcom.
I'm not sure I can say that I like this movie. I definitely have no intention of seeing it again. However, any film that can cause me to feel as genuinely disturbed as "Open Water" must be a pretty good movie. I should add (as a warning to those who haven't seen it) that I also left feeling a little queasy due to the fact that, like "The Blair Witch Project", the camera movements were often jerky and the camera, like the water, seemed to constantly bob up and down.
Score: 8/10
Tell Your Friends