jason-1649 Reviews

Doomsday (I) (2008)

Who run Barter Town???

[8/10 · 23 March 2008]

OK, anyone who has seen the previews knows what this movie is about. Truth be told the plot doesn't go much deeper than what you've seen in the previews, that does not mean this is a lousy movie, quite the contrary. However, if your wondering if you should see this ask yourself which of the two following phrases best describes you:

1) "I am a self righteous, pretentious ass who only enjoys movies if they are artsy and about subjects that couldn't hold the attention of a lobotomized autistic geriatric. I pretend that I understand complicated plots, even if the plot doesn't make sense to anyone and only seems complicated because writer uses big words to make things seem intelligent. I will in turn write a review showing my intelligence by basically copying what a big name critic, who is too full of himself to actually enjoy a movie, said and using my thesaurus to hide the fact I really have no talent or creativity. I mean because I have great talent and creativity, because I am an art major which makes me superior to all those science majors and their so called "jobs" they will get upon graduating."

2)"I like a good action movie from time to time. You know like back in the days of Chuck Norris, Steven Segall, Van Damme, and Mel Gibson before the psychotic anti-semitism. Back when a plot wasn't strong, but it was still enjoyable to watch a couple of people lay waste to everyone in their path of righteous destruction. Back when one person could smash through everything and in the end not have a scratch on their face, their guns had infinite ammo, and their car still runs despite the fact it should have been destroyed by now. Perhaps even just seeing people beat the crap out of each other, like remember that Bruce Lee movie where Kareem Abdul-Jabbar kicked him in the chest and left that foot print, that was bad-ass!"

If you answered 2 you might enjoy this movie. If you answered 1, go choke on something, and if your up to it, DIE!!! This movie feels like an old action movie brought up to date, a lot of violence, a lot of blood, and even a gratuitous boob shot near the beginning. The people do run out of ammo, but there is still the impossible indestructible car chase scene from days of old.

If you do like solid plot or storyline, this isn't for you, as there are a lot of issues. For instance, one scene uses a underground military facility sort of thing guarded by "12 inch thick blast doors." Problem is though it can be accessed easily by any two rusty old gates on either side of a mountain. If you think the doors are guarding something your wrong, they just lead to the road. I guess during an attack people will only hit facilities in Britain if accessible by road because, I guess, invading countries are too lazy to go around to the back door... And let's not forget bullet proof APCs that can have their windows smashed in with a baseball bat.

Also there's this issue where the movie doesn't seem to know where it wants to be, in a Mad Max knock-off or some strange life back to a cast system due to collapse of society thing. There is actually a scene involving castles and knights on horses with armor, don't get me wrong I got the idea, but that's a hell of a concept mixed in with the Mad Max genre isn't it? Oh and when I say "like Mad Max," I mean exactly like Mad Max. There is a car chase scene in the movie where a mohawked, leather clad, post apocalyptic punk gang chases the protagonists in cars like those out of Mad Max. Let me point out here these cars not only look like vehicles from Mad Max, I could honestly believe they were used in Mad Max. It's like the designer plugged in the Road Warrior and Beyond Thunder Dome and said, "If I change this I could.... Screw this we'll just copy those." I honestly felt disappointed the main actress didn't fight a giant retard with a midget on his back.

Not original, but not bad. Yeah the plot stinks, but there's lots of good ole wholesome face smashing action and a lack of realism that brings back such fond memories of a time when toy guns could rob banks and dodging Jarts was a pastime enjoyed by children who openly practiced Darwinism...

Cloverfield (2008)

To all Giant Monsters: Come to Manhatten, it's the new Tokyo!

[9/10 · 19 January 2008]

Honestly going into Cloverfield I had my doubts. There was no big named stars, shaky independent/Blair Witchish..ish..ish... camera work (along with a similar feeling ad campaign), and a lovely unrealistic concept. Thankfully, much like it did to Manhatten, Cloverfield crushed my doubts, then bombed the crap out of them, ate a few of my doubts friends, and in an unrelated twist made my doubts dress up as a clown and give up its self dignity to try and sell used cars. Cloverfield was indeed a wonderful movie. So lets go into how destroyed such doubts.

First is the big named stars. OK I know big stars don't make a movie great, as a matter of fact they can make some movies seem worse because you feel they just cast them to have them and the part does not fit ("Minority thug from Harlem who's killed so many he's become emotionally cold? I'm thinking Rowan Atkinson.")This isn't the case here. I would not know any of these stars if I saw them on the street, outside of the fact a couple look like people I've seen drunk at college parties. This was actually a boost for this movie, as the actors did great and the fact I couldn't identify them in a line up of celebrities, or for that matter the people that live down the road, lead to making the concept more real in the idea your watching someones home video of the event at hand, that really added to this movie. I mean that too, if one of them robbed me at gun point and I had to pick them out of a lineup I would probably get it wrong, sorry again Frank you just looked seedy... Anyway.

Camera work/ Blair Witch ad campaign thingy. I have to say shaky camera work is one of my biggest qualms about independent film (it's called a tripod people, I know you don't have a big budget but my grandmother even has a tripod, GET ONE!). This was no exception to the shaky thing, but in the context of the movie setting, anything else would have been suspect, and still even with the all over camcorder work, it isn't nauseatingly shaky like so many Indy films which were shot by some cameraman I can only suspect suffers from Parkinson's (TRIPOD!! Seriously look it up), and it added to the sense of really being there. I also thought there would be no good shots of the monster because of this, but there were, unbelievably so. As for the Ad campaign, it was actually quite genius, and I have to qualms with it, I was just saying so was the Blair Witch ad campaign and I could have eaten a roll of film and produced a better movie in my bathroom about 24 hours later than that thing. It just scared me to think I may have to suffer through that again ya know.

Finally concept. Yes it is a giant monster attacking a city movie, but before you start conjuring images of a guy in a foam rubber outfit stomping Tokyo (which there is some subtle hints to that in the early movie, not the foam rubber part just the whole Godzilla thing), or worse yet start thinking of the remake of it which gave me an aneurysm, this movie is a far cry from those. This feels entirely different, and not in that walking through a yard barefoot and stepping in something that isn't dirt way, no it's in a good way. Plus with the reported budget this movie had, they must have called in some favors or black mailed someone to get this thing, it was quite spectacular.

Don't take my word for it though and I know you won't, lord knows I tried to warn you of Epic Movie but you went anyway, see it for yourself.

1408 (2007)

My condolences to Mr. King...

[4/10 · 22 June 2007]

What is it about movies based on the Works of Steven King? There's always two types made: The first is the classic to phenomenal such as Carrie, Cujo, The Shawshank Redemption, and the Green Mile (and don't write me about the different pen names used for the last two, it's still King no matter what he wrote it under). The second, and unfortunately most common, are the movies that come out hum-drum, hackneyed, and even just plain dull and lame, I'll give you a hint as to which category 1408 belongs to, it's the category closer to this sentence. Don't get me wrong King is a great writer by all means, but for some reason eight out of nine times movies based on his work fall like a midget off a bar stool, short and with a nauseating thud. Let's now take a short time to discuss the reasons for this using 1408 as an example.

Cast: John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson take the lead credits in this movie. Both of which in their own rights are good actors, Cusack is a fine actor and Jackson is the single greatest angry black man in Hollywood. I don't mean that in any racist sense so don't take it that way, it's just I can't give him title of best angry man period in Hollywood as long as R. Lee Ermey is still alive, GOT THAT MAGGOT!? Where was I…? Oh yes, Jackson's role in this was far from angry and loud taking away some of his best qualities, more so his actual role in 1408 was about as significant as whole bread, cause until it was sliced, no one seemed to care. As for Cusack, this movie seemed to be more of a one man show starring him trying to play a person slipping into insanity and coming out like someone slipping into an undersized Easter bunny suit on Christmas, mildly amusing but rather missing the point. The best part of this movie was when the both Cusack and Jackson were on the scene at the same time, this was amusing and fun to watch as they both played well off of each other in a battle of the greater smart ass competition, but this was in fact very short in this movie.

Plot: Have you seen the previews? If so you've seen the plot. Outside of what was in the previews 1408 has about as many twists and turns as a north Texas highway, and if you've never driven a north Texas highway this equates to exactly zero, and if you have, I am sorry for your ordeal. Outside of that, there's not much else to say about plot.

Horror: This movie is touted as a horror movie, and in doing so manages to be about as scary as children dressed as Raggedy Ann and Andy on Halloween… Scratch that actually, children dressed as Raggedy Ann and Andy terrify the hell out of me now that I think about it. It's like animated clown puppets out to steal your sweets and egg your house. On second thought let's compare it more to a Chihuahua in a sombrero, mildly amusing and while it may have teeth, come on it's a Chihuahua worst case scenario you'll end up with wounds less severe than if you cut yourself shaving.

Special Effects: I think there were supposed to be some in this movie, I'm not sure... I think the third string special effects unit on a Troma movie could have done a better job. Let me rephrase that, the effects weren't horrid, they just weren't there, and aside from a couple of educational film quality ghosts there wasn't anything in the movie that couldn't be reproduced by a bored kid and a camcorder.

Final Notes: While I did come down hard on this movie, as it is more fun to do, it was not the worst movie I've ever seen either, it was just a far, far, far cry from the best. For that reason I decided to get creative with rating it. 1: Definitely better than a one. 4: Slightly below average but so was the movie. 0: Not even a valid option. 8: Not even close.

Therefore, I give this movie a semisolid, somewhat gelatinous 4. I will note that despite all I have said, if you like this movie, don't take this as an attack, we all like different things, it just lacked something overall for my taste. For me, despite a decent cast and a decent original story writer, this movie was about as far off par as Tiger Woods if he were blind and on crack.

The Messengers (2007)

Not great, but still better than being bludgeoned to death by a halibut.

[4/10 · 14 February 2007]

Let me start by saying, I usually go into every horror movie with a bit of skepticism. Too often I have been blind-sided by movies claiming to be scary and turning out to just be utterly bland (i.e. "Dark Water", AKA "Various Shots of People Going to and Coming From Daily Chores with 15 Minutes of Plot Thrown in: The Movie!"). Furthermore, these movies can draw the worst crowds; from people who can't stop talking to the movie and each other, delinquents, and people who think that by yelling popular catch phrases they seen on some TV show that they are the main attraction in the theatre when they are just annoying. Then when it's all over you have to walk out listening to people talk about how scary it was all the while thinking, "These people must find their own shadow scary." The Messenger's was a pleasant surprise as far as such movies go.

I got lucky enough to not be in a theatre with a bunch of annoying people, and the movie wasn't too bad. It was far from a truly great horror movie, but 99% of horror movies don't make the grade of great anyway. At least this one didn't make such claims as I have seen other's make like, "Scariest movie since The Ring!" or "More terrifying than hunting with Dick Cheney!" or "More disturbing than that guy at the park who just sits and soils himself while talking to invisible people and occasionally asks you to spare some "point spatter," whatever the heck "point spatter" is!" It made no such claims, and I didn't feel that the previews were too misleading, and if entered with no preconceived notions that you're going to see some great blockbuster of a movie, it can be rather enjoyable.

The movie is a nice film about a girl, her family, and seven million crows. OK, so that's not really what it's about, but it can seem that way some times. Actually, the movie is about a family who tries to start a new life in a house that is of course haunted, and in being so it has the appearance of Ed Gein's vacation home. But that doesn't stop the family from moving in and trying to grow cheery sun flower's, because when I think true horror, I don't think neighboring cemetery, or cornfield full of psycho children; no I think of the horrific sunflower. Of course sun flower farming isn't easy, so why not hire help, and who could possibly be more knowledgeable for such a task than the DJ from Northern Exposure. Yes, the family seemed to be living the high life. That is until the ghosts show up and a few other somewhat predictable twists occur.

One of the big issues I had with this movie was how heavily it relied on the whole "BOO!!!" factor. In other words, it a little over used the whole, creepy music followed by something jumping out toward the camera sort of thing. While effective in creating a good jump and relieving tension, usually you may want to try and build a little tension before doing it. These events start trailing off later though as I can only imagine the writer started thinking, "Maybe I've done this enough… Nah, just one more." Near the end there is of course a twist, a twist as surprising as the results of a colored marble sorting test being taken by Helen Keller; in other words, not very surprising and sloppily tossed in with everything else. I won't say exactly what the twist is, but let's just say it is a little predictable and felt thrown in and somewhat hack-kneed, leading to this whole "the ghosts aren't bad, just misunderstood" type scenario. Then it ends with the whole, "everything's OK now, everyone's happy, the sunflowers are looking better, the warfarin worked on the crows, and now we can live peacefully in the Gein family house in a nauseatingly happy way." But, I am being a little too harsh on this movie as in all reality it wasn't bad at all.

If you're looking for great movie plot and surprising twists, this isn't your movie. But, if you want a decent movie for the horror genre that you can go watch with some friends and not feel horridly let down, then this is a good movie to watch.

I will leave you with this, never go into a horror movie with Great Expectations for two reasons: 1) Because it's hard to read Dickens' in a dimly lit movie theatre. 2) If you don't have Great Expectations but instead just plain great expectations, you'll probably, not always, but most likely be let down. Enter a horror movie with low to no expectations, and the mediocre to decent movies can be bearable to enjoyable and the truly good horror movies will blow you away.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

Great movie... Finally a Labyrinth with 100% less Bowie crotch...

[9/10 · 2 February 2007]

When I went into this movie I wasn't really sure what to expect. I soon started to think, "Ah crap… I have to read this whole thing?" Also the beginning seemed somewhat like an eighties fantasy/children's movie. Indeed things were looking bad. However, I must say I was quite pleasantly surprised rather quickly.

For starters, the subtitling was not poorly done, you know the whole, white text on a white background thing, the movie was too dark for that one. Also, there was none of that let's try to flash the fine print of an automotive contract across the screen in under two seconds thing either. Believe me, I'm not trying to badmouth subtitled films, it's just sometimes you end up reading so much you miss what happens on screen.

Also, that whole child fantasy movie thing ends quite abruptly with the first "guy getting his face smashed in" scene. Indeed, this movie takes what could be considered a childish fantasy feel and makes it creepy, violent, and disturbing. The imagery in this movie goes through a myriad of changes; from war drama and violence, to childish fantasy, and finally makes a long stop in Child Nightmare Land with occasional trips back to Warville with no further layovers in Child Fantasyberg.

Most of the "magical" creatures in this movie skip the normal fantasy realm and jump straight into that "weird kid in your Jr. high class who draws fairy tale creatures in a very disturbing fashion, and later took out a whole post office with an AK-47 five years after graduation" realm. The faun in this was definitely no where near the friendly Mr. Tumnus of Narnia. However, the most disturbing creature is the one with the eyes in its hands. You know the one you see in almost every screen shot of this movie, that thing just gave me the creeps. I'm not entirely sure what the most disturbing feature of this creature was. The eyes in the hand thing wasn't too awful, but when it held the hands up to its face, its fingers formed what looked like gaudy large eyelashes, this would be comical if it wasn't for the eerie resemblance to Tammy Faye Baker's eye makeup, and as we all know, there was nothing funny about her. However, the whole skinny leg thing that creature had going on really did it for me, I couldn't stop staring at them, and while you may not consider that disturbing, I did, I had nightmares about being chased down by anorexic eighty year olds for two days following.

It was refreshing to see a fantasy movie based on a Labyrinth that didn't involve David Bowie's crotch every six scenes. This movie is most certainly not the childhood fantasy/adventure movie you remember starring Tom Cruise's yet unfixed crooked teeth, no this movie was more disturbing than one of Willie Wonka's fetish fantasies (Just think about that one for a second, believe me that would be disturbing.) All in all, a great movie, it tackled a childish genre and made it adult very convincingly. The ending even placed me somewhere between happy and sad in a way that was very odd and I can't describe without spoiling the movie and therefore won't, just take my word on this one. A great movie, just don't bring your kids to it thinking of childhood memories of the Dark Crystal; it's not that kind of fantasy movie.

Epic Movie (2007)

This thing won't let me vote below a 1....

[1/10 · 26 January 2007]

After watching this movie, I just couldn't stop talking about it. Mind you, not in the sense that someone can't stop talking about a great book or show, but more along the line of how someone can't stop talking about their colonoscopy during a diner conversation. In other words, after seeing this you can't help but try and remove the stain it left on your very soul by vomiting out the experience onto others.

This movie entered with the tag line of being "written by two of the six writers of 'Scary Movie'!" What they forgot to mention is that the two who wrote it were only responsible for writing the credits and all the jokes deleted for the sake of not causing mass suicide. Put more delicately, this movie almost makes Pootie Tang look Oscar worthy, which ironically enough was made fun of in the last Scary Movie for being horrid. Coincidence? Yeah, not even some sort of Karma dealing fiend would wish this movie upon the world.

"So," you ask, "What makes it so bad?" I bet your thinking that all of the funny stuff was in the previews, right? No, actually there was no funny content in the previews at all, it just seemed that way when taken out of the context of the movie. Much the same way "Hogan's Heroes" was funny to people who weren't in Auschwitz during the Holocaust, the previews are funny to those who haven't seen the movie. When you actually see the movie, you start to ask, "Why was that funny in the preview?" The answer: You can see pretty flowers if you ignore the fact that they are growing from the corpse of a man who died during a freak green house accident.

Do yourself a favor, rent a History channel documentary on the history of documentaries and hit yourself in the head with a hammer. It'll be twice as funny, make three times more sense, and be only a fifth as painful.