Change Your Image
Vassago
Reviews
Wolf Creek (2016)
Plotless, pointless, pornographic primitivism.
In 2005, one "McClean" released a semipornographic video named after Australia's Wolfe Creek Crater, whose name "McClean" was apparently unable to read, and therefore he spelled it incorrectly. The ineptly made piece had no story and served, in the poignant words of the departed and missed critic Roger Ebert: "["Wolf Creek"] is a film with one clear purpose: to establish the commercial credentials of its director by showing his skill at depicting the brutal tracking, torture and mutilation of screaming young women".
This is a quote from Mister Ebert's zero-star review of "McClean's" production, and, while gentle, elegant and too forgiving to both "McClean" and to his "film", it does serve as a good introduction.
The video, masquerading as horror, but devoid of any storyline, tension, fright or basic film-making and storytelling competence, was centred around the dull character of one "Taylor", a serial rapist and killer of zero dimensions and zero interest. His personality consisted of a mildly annoying laughter.
It was followed by an even more ineptly made sequel, which was forgotten even by enthusiasts of the first semipornographic video. This is, essentially, a third "film" in this series. It has been stretched out into five hours, to make more money on selling it as a television series.
"McClean" does not even bother to actually work on this one, relegating the "writing" and "directing", such as they are, to grunts, while he gives orders as a producer. Since his only interest appears to be seeing and filming scenes or rape and murder, this series consists of that material. The "story" is the same as "McClean's" previous pictures: tourists come to Australia, "Taylor" appears, "Taylor" laughs, "Taylor" rapes, "Taylor" tortures, "Taylor" murders. Repeat ad infinitum.
To stretch out that deep story into five hours and six episodes, filler material is sprayed in between the rape and murder scenes: there is a girl, from USA, who survives one rape and murder attack, and then goes around Australia, trying to find "Taylor". She is 19 years old, first time abroad, and, as one would expect from a 19-year-old girl on her first excursion, she can obtain, operate, shoot and fix automatic weaponry, survive traps, easily escape gaol cells, fight large men, infiltrate buildings, run much faster than strong athletic men chasing her, and steal and expertly drive any vehicles, from cars, to Aussie "utes", to diggers and other heavy machinery. Her body possesses the magical ability to survive the heat and adverse conditions of the Outback, and to quickly regenerate itself after being e.g. Cut and broken by dingo traps. She also regularly shoots various rapists (not "Taylor"), then cries and consoles them. She dons a wig, too, to become a bargirl in a vile brothel-ish structure; because Australia is a tiny place inhabited by circa 30 people, this immediately allows her to run into "Taylor", for whom she had been looking across the country.
Other filler includes ridiculous scenes involving kangaroos, crocodile attacks, dingoes (as anyone who possesses more than one milligram of cortex knows, dingoes are not dogs, nor are they domesticated; here, naturally, they are), Aboriginal magic, as well as hunting, tracking and fighting skills (easily obtained by the girl from USA within circa five minutes, presumably by mental osmosis), and references to Crocodile Dundee. Oddly, no references to Foster's beer are made (although I suspect that it is far more likely that I had simply missed them, as I was fast-forwarding through the six episodes of this dull, sleepy and sleep-inducing chore).
To stretch out the filler further, many scenes are filmed eeeeeextreeeeeemeeeeelyyyyyy ssssloooooowwwwwllllyyyyyyy, therefore avoiding the need to add more "plot" and to expand the budget. Another way to save money is to film most scenes through dark blue filter, in an attempt to hide the bad (non-)design of the sets, and to reuse the same locations over and over.
Further attempts at making more films in the series have been, so far, delayed, possibly because the man who portrayed the character of "Taylor" was charged in 2018 by the New South Wales Police Force with a case of committing an act of brutal rape.
As for "McClean" himself, I do not know if he is Australian - I suspect that he must be, considering his venomous hatred of (other?) Australians. Every Australian in this piece is a degenerate, a rapist, a murderer, an opportunist devoid of empathy, or all four. The one quasi-positive Aussie is a flat, no-dimensional cardboard cutout of a police officer. His character serves the purpose of... nothing. The sole positive character - albeit just as flat and undeveloped as all the others - is the girl from USA.
Because "McClean" is clearly interested only in the serial rapist and killer "Taylor", that character is the sole one given an attempt (laughably inept and ineffectual) at development, courtesy of several ridiculous, terribly acted, and extremely predictable scenes from his past.
Yet perhaps the worst sin of this production is how pointless it is. We know that "McClean" will never let go of his beloved "Taylor", he will never kill his money-making character - not when he can keep copy-pasting the same film about him over and over again (after all, without "Taylor", he would perhaps have to learn how to write and direct an actual film, and why should he do that, assuming that he could - which is less than likely). "McClean" had not made "Taylor" a supernatural being, either (yet - even though he does already appear to possess at least the powers of teleportation, regeneration, telepathy, and Röntgen sight), so he cannot currently kill him and easily resurrect him. Therefore, any film and series about "Taylor" is as predictable as it is dull: since "Taylor" will not die, nothing that may happen throughout will ever matter, and the fate of any characters who will try to confront "Taylor" will be even more predictable. "McClean's" films are as surprising as the 12th second being ticked after the 11th second on the face of a clock.
One will do best to sum up this fecal product by quoting the sadly missed Roger Ebert again: "There is a line and this movie crosses it. I don't know where the line is, but it's way north of 'Wolf Creek'. There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty? The theaters are crowded right now with wonderful, thrilling, funny, warm-hearted, dramatic, artistic, inspiring, entertaining movies. If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: don't know that person no more".
Under the Bridge (2024)
Extremely fictionalized pseudo-adaptation of the case of Reena Virk's death, filled with far more soap-opera fiction than the actual grim truth.
This is an extremely fictionalized pseudo-adaptation of the events surrounding the well-known case of Reena Virk's death. In the hands of someone skilled and interested in telling a realistic and taut tale, that true tragic story could have become a powerful tale of teenage alienation and bad choices, a la the unmatched "River's Edge". Unfortunately, because nowadays it is more profitable to sell and market everything as a television series, this was stretched into six hours of some (very, very few) true elements of the case, mixed mostly with pointless filler, pointless flashbacks, pointless made-up soap-opera dramas of pointless made-up characters (while several far more interesting characters from the real case are completely omitted), and, of course, more "producer" credits than cast member names. If you want to know the case, read the articles; if you actually want to watch this, warn your fast-forward button in advance.
Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)
An unfortunately overlong and overstretched take on the true story of the Osage murders, told much better and in a much more concise manner by Stanislaw Mierzenski in 1967.
I first learned of Hale and the Osage murders as a little child in the 80s, when I read the story in Stanislaw Mierzenski's famous, encyclopaedic book "Gangsterzy". The grim, true tale of greed and blood has stayed with me since then, as did William Hale's name. Scorsese apparently learned of the story from a much newer book, and decided to adapt it - unfortunately, the result is an extremely long, bloated film, which is often dull and has rather little to tell, overall. It goes on for 3,5 staggering hours, which feel like 10 hours, yet its actual content would fit easily in a 1,5-hour film... with room for titles and end credits. Multiple scenes are shot, pointlessly, in exasperatingly elongated slow-motion, utterly unnecessary scenes fill out much of the film, details are repeated, and little happens for much of the feature. In fact, I suspect that the montage of photographs of various Osage victims in the first 30 minutes was added in post-production, because it stands out rather oddly - I would not be surprised if a producer yelled: "Marty, you HAVE to put that in, there's nothing else to jolt the audience in the entire first hour!".
It is rather close to the facts of the story, closer than many of Scorsese's previous, largely fictionalized adaptations of various true tales. That is the one strength of this film - although, unbelievably enough, it *omits* some of its more striking parts. For instance, the shocking tale of the advocate Vaughan is not included at all... but there certainly is a lot of slow-motion dancing.
Stanislaw Mierzenski had told the same story on barely 10 pages in his work "Gangsterzy" over 50 years ago - and he managed to contain more information (including Vaughan's demise) on those pages than the film does. Furthermore, his presentation was exciting and unforgettable. Scorsese's is not.
(On an unrelated note, I cannot even give the proper spelling of Stanislaw Mierzenski's name here, because, after only three decades of existing, IMDB still does not have Unicode support).
Bender (2016)
An interesting little quasi-Western drama, very loosely inspired by some elements of the true story of the notorious Benders.
This film is classified as horror, and, as a story of the notorious Bender "family" (who probably were not a true family at all), it would be assumed to be one - however, in reality, it is primarily a quiet psychological drama with some metaphysical elements, and a touch of the macabre. There is a small element of the core story of the Benders within - a group of apparently related people (who definitely are a family in the film version) open an inn in the American Wild West during late XIX century, and proceed to entrap and murder lonely travellers who stop by in the night - but it is very far away from the known facts of the true events, and the film should be treated as something of a very loose fantasy, peripherally inspired by history.
It is, in fact, quite involving, slow and - rather unusually, considering the subject - sometimes almost peaceful in its tone.
The film has the feeling of a local project, and I suspect that it was conceived, born and filmed in Kansas, by people personally interested in what may be the darkest story of the region (or at least was one, until a certain Dennis Rader appeared there...); I would certainly not mind its full score being released.
Fall River (2021)
Nicely designed opening titles. The rest is a nonsensical, chaotic mess, filled with lies and a cast of thoroughly repulsive individuals.
Finding a criminal and looking for tiny specks of possible incompletesness in evidence (present in >80% of cases, because, typically, during the commission of a crime, there is rarely a film crew present at the scene to document its every step, and rarely a group of criminalists to immediately secure all material evidence) and ways of sowing possible doubts (possible in >90% of cases) is a very profitable and highly fashionable business nowadays, so much so that there are more pseudo-documentaries trying to sell a criminal's "innocence" than there are convicted criminals themselves.
What can a director who looks for such a business opportunity do, then? Why, dig for the cases where there is no doubt, and throw in enough "maybes" to suggest some! Better still, if one can add salacious, also fashionable phrases such as "Satanic panic", "religious mania", "fanaticism", etc., etc. - that's a guaranteed sale!
The director of this chaotically filmed, artificially stretched like an old rubber (there are four episodes; one would be more than enough, and every one repeats at least 15 minutes of footage from the other episodes, verbatim) attempt at making a documentary reached for an old US case, the series of murders in the town of Fall River, where three local street-walkers were abused, victimised, and savagely murdered, and a local violent pimp and drug dealer was captured and sentenced for one of the killings, with an almost equally unappealing street-walker who had the ambitions of being a competitive pimp (and who, by her personality and looks, reminds one of a double for Charles Manson's brutal cohort Susan Atkins) being sentenced as well, after providing testimony.
Those who know the case know that it is relatively simple, and involved mostly violence, drugs, and competition in street criminality. That would not be interesting enough to sell, so the director concentrates on another aspect of the crimes: The Satanic Angle! After all, he tells you, *everyone* knows that when a crime involves some satanic, occult, esoteric, etc., imagery or background, it is obviously false, it's a frame-up, it's a scandalous lie, all the culprits are beautiful little innocents, etc., etc. "Case closed!" - he screams. "The pimp is innocent! Just listen to his convincing testimony that I've recorded! The real culprit is, uh, uh... well, does it matter? That woman who testified against him lied, and I will suggest that maybe she is guilty, even though I will forget that some of the people whom I filmed in support of the pimp are also saying things that make it seem as if the woman is innocent as well, so, uh, uh, never mind! See, there's also this weird guy, and I will suggest that *he* is guilty, too, because he's weird, and weird is *BAD*! He's weird like the pimp is, but, uh, uh, it's, uh, a different weird! See, he was also an abuser! Just like the pimp! Uh, I mean, uh... here, let me reinsert some footage that you've already seen! Oh, and here is half an hour of video about the COVID-19 outbreak, which is absolutely related to the topic of the 1979 murders! How do you like that, huh? Huh? I'm so great!"
That's approximately the kind of chaotic, repetitive nonsense that constitutes this pseudo-documentary. (By the way, regarding the pimp's filmed scenes: most of his monologues consist of repetitions of the phrases "know what I'm sayin'?" and "and all that stuff", as well as its alternative "and all that sh...". Perhaps the director saw in him a kindred repetitive soul who also repeatedly and repetitively likes to repeat himself? Let's repeat... well, no, let's not be this mess's director, and let's *stop* repeating).
At any rate: in reality, the occult/satanic angle consisted mostly of the fact that the violent pimp would occasionally use occult imagery and babbling, drugged "rites" (which would make even the old conman, the self proclaimed "founder of Satan's church", Anton la Vey himself - real name Howard Levey - roll his eyes) as just another tool with which to intimidate and control the unfortunate women whom he exploited and abused. This was actually quite a common tool used by his likes at the time, and is found in a number of similar solved cases, such as the notorious crimes of Adolfo Constanzo and his Matamoros sect, or Robin Gecht and his "Ripper Crew" gang. In both of those cases, the figure of a psychopathic leader / self-claimed guru took on a group of much weaker, damaged followers, and, by using the guises of occultism, Satanism and esoterica as a means of dominating, influencing and manipulating those followers, he gradually made them fulfill his own desires and commit hideous murders, including primitive rituals and cannibalism. And, in both cases, the followers submitted to his commands, even though the leader himself was privately motivated just by his sexual deviancy and violent psyche, and treated the occult factor as just a tool of influence and manipulation.
However, there *is*, in fact, a seemingly innocent man in all this mess, and it is the fellow whom the director of this 40-minutes-stretched-into-4-hours oeuvre desperately tries to present as "The Real Killer" (TM). The man, after having something of a mental breakdown, made admissions of "religious visions" of one of the murders, which was enough to send him behind bars for it. Nothing in the evidence points towards him; in fact, everything that exists points *away* from him. The other accusation levelled against that man is that he was an abuser. Was he? Maybe - but all there is to support that accusation is the word of a professional, lifetime liar, and the liar's one-time close associate, who supports the liar's words (and who appears in the interviews as someone who comes across rather bizarrely, almost as if drugged or intoxicated). The victim's own closest friend and confidante, a woman of her age, spoke of the man in her own testimonies (both at the time of the murders and in the 2000s), and described him as "a little mouse", who never did anything hurtful or even offensive to the victim; the man and the victim had, in the testimonies of the victim's friend, a shared, accordant and relatively happy relationship (as happy as the life of two social outcasts, one of whom is a street-walker, can be, that is). Instead of the man, the victim's friend directed her own suspicion towards, unsurprisingly, the sentenced pimp and the sentenced street-walker. Of course, the victim's friend is completely omitted by this pseudo-documentary, as her testimonies go completely against the director's "subjective truth", in every aspect and detail.
The only real evidence against the man seem to be local people's recollections that he was the town's oddball when it came to dressing, and that he may have had questionable morals, which may have involved alcohol and/or drugs. Of course, the questionable morals of the sentenced pimp - a genuinely confirmed violent abuser, a known drug user and provider, and a manipulative sadist - do nothing to prevent the director of this mess from wanting to be his own desktop BozoBuddy, and to advertise his "innocence" by the means of selling this product-supposedly-similar-to-a-documentary.
Il triangolo della morte: I mostri di Firenze (2020)
Intriguing documentary casts light on new and forgotten aspects of the notorious "Mostro di Firenze" case.
The infamous case of the brutal, uncommonly savage serial murders committed by il Mostro di Firenze, the Monster of Florence, has never seen an officially sanctioned solution and legal closure. It has, however, seen a multitude of hypotheses as to the nature of the killer, his psyche, and his possible identities.
The most common hypothesis involves the typical serial killer profile - a lone, local, sexually motivated psychopath with predilections towards violence. The most popular alternate hypotheses involve a group of culprits, direct and indirect, with the possibility of an esoteric of occult element being alleged as part of the motivation of one or more of the culprits.
(One may note that while, on the surface, the latter may sound like a concept more fit for an action film or a novel than a real criminal case, it would actually match some famous solved cases, such as the notorious crimes of Adolfo Constanzo and his Matamoros sect, or Robin Gecht and his "Ripper Crew" gang. In both cases, a strong psychopathic leader / self-claimed guru took on a group of weak, damaged followers, and, using the guises of occultism, Satanism and esoterica as a means of dominating, influencing and manipulating those followers, he gradually made them fulfill his own desires and commit hideous murders, including primitive rituals and cannibalism. And, in both cases, the followers submitted to his commands, even though the leader himself was privately motivated just by his sexual deviancy and violent psyche, and treated the occult factor as just a tool of influence and manipulation).
This documentary focuses largely on the group hypothesis as the proposed solution of il Mostro's case, with emphasis on the occult possibilities and suggestions of a detailed conspiracy being present at one or more points.
However, whether you are inclined towards the idea of a group being involved in the killings, or towards the idea of a lone murderer motivated purely by his violent psyche and acting out without anyone else's involvement, this is an intriguing, well-made documentary, which casts light on a number of forgotten and even previously unknown aspects and evidence in the case.
The most fascinating part is the extensive profile of an almost completely forgotten, yet very intriguing "new-old" suspect, rediscovered after decades of staying unremembered. He was a local man, with alleged predilections towards violence, possibly involved in another homicide. He collected memorabilia about il Mostro's case, reaching as far as 1974. He had .22 calibre weapons and ammunition of the notorious "Winchester H" type at his home. He was a skilled shooter (the killer had calmly shot out the lights of the victims' vehicle in one of the murders, quickly hitting each one with a single bullet fired from distance in the dark night). He was tall, agile and strong. He lived approximately the same distance away from all crime scenes, and he had once been a member of the Foreign Legion (a witness saw a man stalking Pia Rontini shortly before her murder; the never-identified man had a characteristic ring, whose description matched the signet of the Foreign Legion).
All in all, it is quite surprising that he had remained essentially forgotten since 1985, until now. Of course, as had happened with so many other parts of this tangled case, this "new-old" man may have had absolutely nothing to do with it, and any similarities between the case and his life may be purely coincidental.
Whatever one's view on il Mostro's case may be, the "Triangle of Death" is a most worthy watch.
(Unfortunately, a star goes away from its score, as someone involved in the sound mixing had completely messed it up: instead of normalising the music, dialogue and effect tracks, he had raised the volume of the music in a number of places so annoyingly loud - especially for one repeating, clamorous track - that it completely drowns all the voices, making the narration inaudible in several parts).
The Deep House (2021)
Nice scene lighting and several minutes of good ambience, suffocated and drowned by terrible writing, inept directing, and barely existent plot.
The film opens as originally as any "Deliverance" copy from the 80s: some city folk drive to a remote location, full of nature, and meet a vaguely shifty local. (I wonder if he will turn out to be hiding some evil secret in the end? What do you think, horror viewers?)
So far, so dull.
Then, however, they dive into a (goofily deep, though helpfully clear and lit) lake, enter a very well-maintained giant sunken mansion located beneath its waters (the place must cost a fortune to maintain, with devoted in-house staff and several gardeners, considering its superb condition at the bottom of the lake) and, for about 10 minutes, the film becomes engaging.
The lighting makes the best of the decent location, and there is some actual ambience. The film looks promising! There will clearly be something unpleasant that our heroic pair of explorers are going to discover. What will it be? Something exciting, probably! Perhaps even something original?
And then... our divers meet ghosts. Evil ghosts. Underwater ghosts. Dull, boring, trite, disappointing ghosts.
And that's it, that's the utterly pointless rest of the film. A ghost chase, but underwater. Instead of the "Da, ra, ra!" song from Scooby Doo, there is some forgettable "spooky" score, but the essence is the same. (The Scooby gang did at least one underwater ghost chase, by the way).
Argento's "Inferno" is a weak film, but it does have that memorable lovely diving scene, with Rose descending into the forgotten cellar, accompanied by an uneasy score.
Whoever made this film seems to have watched that scene in "Inferno" and thought: "Wow! I want to stretch this 2-minute scene into a 2-hour film! I don't know how, I don't know why, but I WILL DO IT!"
And so he did. And he never knew how.
Perhaps the film will be more engaging for divers, but I suspect that if I, a complete diving layman, could recognise how idiotically irresponsible and inept the pair of this film's "heroes" were as divers, then actual divers are more likely to be annoyed and insulted by their dangerous stupidity.
If you feel thirsty, you can give it a look. Or just watch the diving scene in "Inferno".
The Infiltrator (2016)
Robert Mazur's captivating true story of infiltrating the world of crooked finance is turned into an imbecilic cartoon about shootouts and car chases.
Robert Mazur's story of infiltrating the world of crooked finance is one of the most amazing tales of undercover operations, and the seed from which one of the most infamous scandals in modern banking grew. His book, "The Infiltrator", is a captivating narrative of that operation. You will not find a trace of either in this imbecilic, not-even-nominal anti-adaptation, which throws the story out to replace it with a cartoon about shootouts and car chases.
How does one adapt a story of a financial analyst infiltrating the muddy, labyrinthine currents of money laundering perpetrated by major banks for major criminals? There are a myriad ways.
How does one adapt it so that the average beer guzzler understands it?
Well, if one's name is "Furman", the obvious choice is to turn the story of financial infiltration into a video about car chases, shootouts, and curses, as filmed by a teenager of low intellect and lower creativity, desperately attempting to copy the already mediocre film "Blow", and failing miserably.
The "story" of this film, such as it is, goes thus: Ruzam (he is the opposite of the real Mazur, so I will not call him that), a man who seems to be 30 years older than the real Mazur was during the real operation, works as an undercover financier. He is nervous and neurotic, and surrounded by incompetent boobs. His next task involves infiltrating a major bank, filled with crooked executives. He is joined by his partner, Infuriating Moron Clown, and yelled at by his supervisor, Bitter Vulgar Woman.
The task consists of shooting, cursing, car chasing, drinking, cursing while drinking, drinking while car chasing, and drinking after cursing while shooting during car chasing.
Another partner, Half-Age Woman, joins Ruzam as well, pretending to be his girlfriend, and causing panic in his Forgotten Background Wife (Will they? Won't they? They won't).
She also constantly sabotates the mission by not informing Ruzam what she knows and what she's about to do and tell the targets. Well, at least in the real world, that would have been scandalous incompetence, bordering on criminal sabotage. Not in Furman's world, however!
On the way, Ruzam meets Larry Fish. (Actually, this is supposed to be Barry Seal, but he has less to do with the real Barry Seal than he does with a sea seal, hence I shall call him "Fish" instead). Larry curses and drinks, and gets shot during a car chase. (This scene has as much to do with the circumstances of the real Barry Seal's demise, which happened at the hands of cartel's "Cumbamba" and his kill squad, that it may as well have involved flying elephants dropping bombs on the car).
There are idiotic pseudo-tension scenes, such as bank security officers entering Ruzam's room for absolutely no reason whatsoever, standing silently for two seconds (as the music rises to a dramatic if quick crescendo), and then disappearing like a magician's flash paper. Additionally, since Furman really wanted to make a horror film and forgot what genre he was actually working on, he suddenly throws in an idiotic scene with a bloody vooodoo ritual (actually, it should be santeria, but Furman knows as much about either voodoo or santeria as he knows about anything else) - a scene which is not only incompetent and laughable (that would be the Furman standard), but also utterly pointless and completely separate from the rest of the film. The scene connects to nothing, adds nothing, is disjointed and is as fitting as adding a bag of cement to a cup of tea.
As the end approaches, Ruzam and Half-Age Woman commit criminal sabotage of the operation by warning his targets to "go back to Colombia", because they think of them as their friends and feel sorry for them. Fortunately for the saboteurs, the targets refuse and remain in place, thus ensuring the climactic ending - a fake wedding.
In reality, the fake wedding, prepared to arrest the targets, was so relaxed that the crooked bankers were giggling as the agents placed handcuffs on their wrists - they were convinced that it was a hilarious party prank, performed by hired Chippendale Clowns. Furman abandons that and instead fills the wedding with - what else? - shootouts! Lots and lots of shootouts, with lots and lots of machine guns, all filmed in slow motion!
The dreck of the "script" ("EXT. Bob curses and shoots at a speeding car, which curses and shoots back"?) is credited to another Furman, this one female. Usually, same names in a Hollywood production mean the noble tradition of nepotism - daughter, mother, long-time lover, etc. - but I was not interested enough in either of the two Furmans to check if they were indeed related, or, for that matter, if there were any other Furmans on the film's salary list.
There is one good scene in the entirety of this film - a brief apperance by an unnamed Pablo Escobar. It lasts about two seconds, it is wordless, quiet and understated, even subtle. It is even atmospherically lit, in an almost surreal, dreamy manner. In fact, those two seconds are so much better than anything else in the film that I suspect that someone other than Furman had storyboarded, blocked and directed this scene. I'm even more inclined to think so because Escobar actually looks similar to the real one, and considering Furman's penchant for accuracy and realism, I would expect his Escobar to look like old Lo-Pan from "Big Trouble in Little China".
Yet those two seconds sadly cannot make up for the rest, so spare yourself the suffering and watch any film that is more factual, more entertaining, and more competently made. Any film whose quality surpasses Furman's capabilities will do - and those include, for instance, "Manos: the Hands of Fate" or "Police Academy VII".
Lokis. Rekopis profesora Wittembacha (1970)
Dark Gothic romance of subtle fear.
"Lokis" is a dark Gothic romance, a faithful (though expanded) adaptation of Prosper Merimee's famous story, and the creme de la creme of the small horror niche dealing with the Eastern variant of the werewolf - the "werebear".
Reverend Wittenbach, clergyman and bibliophile, travels into the eastern regions of Polish-Lithuanian forests - the "kresy" - in order to explore the vast library owned by a rich family of noblemen. Hosted in their luxurious mansion, the reverend learns the strange secrets of the surroundings and discovers the dark and disturbing secret of the family - there are whispers that his host, the enigmatic young count Michal Szemiot, may be something other than a man... that he was born of an unholy union of a woman and a bear...
Photographed with saturation purposely taken to the extreme in outerior takes - some scenes in open spaces resemble nothing as much as impressionistic paintings - "Lokis" relies on dialogue, imagery and the viewer's imagination in order to create an atmosphere of slowly creeping fear... the kind of fear that is always in the corner of one's eye, never pushed in one's face. This is not the kind of film for a dullard that considers the umpteenth remake with TV Guide's "Teen Star of the Month" to be the Olympus of horror movies.
The most interesting aspect of the film is its ambiguity - nothing seemingly supernatural is definitely shown as such. Do we really see a witch walking on water or merely an old woman using a secret path in the forest swamp? Is the count a werebeast or merely a man driven into insanity and murderous lust by his deepening psychosis? These questions are left unanswered, for the viewer to decide.
Currently available on DVD, "Lokis" is a worthy view to a conneisseur of the subtle and refined old school of horror cinema.
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
Almost on par with such classics as "Police Academy VII", "Batman & Robin" and "Charlie's Angels"...
I did not think it would be possible, but this abomination was even worse than Verhacken's flick. Once again, Heinlein was completely ignored, and, even though (thankfully) Verhoeven's moronic shades of Nazism are gone, the film is still extremely poor due to its absolute lack of a plot, cardboard characters, and the fact that it is literally built of cliches and ripoffs. Additionally, it seems to have had a budget which would not be enough to buy a hot-dog and which was apparently spent mostly on acquiring the rights to some random Warrior footage from the first flick. As for the "new special effects", they must have been created after the whole budget had been spent. I think I saw the "head bugs" in a gadget shop once - in fact, if the screener I have was of any higher quality, I would probably see "Made in China" stamped on them somewhere...
The quality of acting was better in this title, however - mostly because the first one was dominated by the vomit-inducing anti-acting courtesy of two awful plastic non-actors - Richards and Busey. Even Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside couldn't save the film when they were constantly showered with splinters falling off the Wooden Two.
It reminded me of the "Critters 3" casus - a horrendously bad sequel to an SF flick which was bad enough in the first place. Compared to "Starship Troopers II", "Battlefield Earth" looks like a sedate, monumental space epic.
If only "Starship Troopers: Terran Ascendancy" was made into a film instead of the two that *were* made...
Johnny Dangerously (1984)
Superb pastiche of the genre.
Just like wine, "Johnny Dangerously" gets better and better with every day. This clever, witty, well-acted film could very well stand on its own - but as a parody of the gangster genre, it's truly outstanding. In fact, it's quite obviously the best film of its kind... the funniest spoof of mob movies and even the respective period - although, admittedly, this position is probably easier to achieve when its main competitors are such primitive, vulgar and dull pseudocomedies as "Jane Austen's Mafia".
Nightstalker (2002)
Ridiculous drivel.
This movie makes Paul W. S. Anderson and Uwe Boll look talented, and their flicks appear enjoyable. Unbelievably, Fisher's "Nighstalker" manages to be, simultaneously, campy and filthy, annoying and dull, unnerving and boring, ridiculous and repulsive. There is really nothing good about it, apart from perhaps the cover and Bret Roberts - the actor who portrays Ramirez (and even he looks - expectedly - embarrassed when the hack "director", Fisher, has him play a flour-covered "vampire" weirdo, which, in Fisher's 12-year-old mentality was intended as a "symbolic" representation of what Ramirez sees in his "possessed" mind during the crime spree).
The "story" is sub-imbecilic and is not in fact even loosely based on the actual events. Fisher's "writing" skills are almost as high as those of a drug-induced 13 year old metalhead, fresh after drinking a sixpack of beer and viewing "House of 1000 Corpses" with his Deicide tape playing right into his ears. In fact, said metalhead would probably write and direct a better movie than Fisher's (well, it certainly could not be any worse!) - at least in *his* film, there would be no unnerving stroboscopic Pokemon "techniques", which Fisher loves so much.
As far as the director's "factual" treatment and "research" go, this flick's script was apparently based on Fisher's experience of trying to read a short, misspelled summary of an article reviewing a book with a chapter whose part described a documentary about comic books depicting serial killers, who happened to include Ramirez. Fisher's directing is, if possible, even worse than his "writing" - often, this flick is simply unwatchable, with its shaky, chaotic camera movement and ridiculous (and nauseatingly long) high-speed segments set to obnoxious, vomit-inducing, ear-shattering noise which Fisher apparently considers to be "music" (and which in fact did not even exist in 1985 - Night Stalker would listen to the likes of AC/DC and Springsteen, not some antitalent, late 1990s Death Metal bands).
The only potentially redeeming aspect of this movie might be the fact that, much like Ed Wood's movies (which are, of course, infinitely better, involve much more talent, decent music and superior directing), it often manages to be unintentionally funny. For instance, Fisher often makes an infantile attempt at inserting cheap "ambience" into scenes by filling their backgrounds with repeated white noise and incomprehensible mumbling done in a low bass. He intends this mumbling to be the "voice of Satan", but it sounds exactly like the Psychlos from John Travolta's
Therefore, every time I heard Fisher's "Satan", I would think "Ooh-oh, it's Travolta the Terl!" and burst out laughing. Fisher's ludicrous image of "Satan" himself - the aforementioned flour-covered bald Howard the Duck reject with sharp teeth - made the scenes even funnier.
As for the DVD itself, there were some deleted scenes (even though the whole film should have been one deleted scene), a trailer, a bit better than the flick itself (in the same sense as gonorrhea is better than AIDS), plus a commentary track from Mr Antitalent himself, Chris Fisher (at least I've read that there is a commentary, on the DVD box - I did not actually listen to it, since I have no intention to hear talentless dolts drone about themselves.)
A while ago I bought the DVD with the TV film about Ramirez ("Manhunt") from Amazon Europe, and any second of that film highly surpasses Fisher's lameness. I never thought I could see someone less talented than Paul W. S. Anderson and Uwe Boll actually find employment in Hollywood - but today I saw him, and his name was "Chris Fisher".
The Ninth Gate (1999)
A stylish masterpiece: no wonder so many dullards dislike it.
Certainly the best and most stylish horror of the 1990s, it placed Roman Polanski back at his roots, allowing him to once again explore the dark depths of the occult and the human psyche, and providing the viewers with the pleasure of following the new protagonist on a thrilling journey in search of... ah, no, see the film and find out what it is that Corso wants and what he ultimately discovers. Having seen and loving this masterpiece, I immediately expected hordes of dullwitted mouthbreathers throughout the world to loathe it for its elegance, stylishness, unconventionality and darkness - and they did not disappoint me. I quickly saw them attack the film, complaining (their complaints always badly misspelled, with horrendous syntax, third-grade lexicon and short, monotonous sentences, regardless of the language used) that the movie was "confusing" (please stick to your level of entertainment, an X-Men cartoon), that "nothing happened" in it (nothing certainly ever happens in their heads; as for the film, the fate of the world being chosen and sealed was but one of the things that happened), that it was "too slow" (no, my "dears" - *you* are), or that "the acting was bad" (compared to their favorite pearls of cinematic performance, such as "Scream 3" or "Jason goes to Hell"), or that there "wasn't enough action"... ...and with this complaint of theirs, we arrive at the real reason why the dullards disliked "The Ninth Gate" (other than the fact that they were unable to understand it) - it did not have enough explosions! Not enough Marilyn Manson! Not enough kung-fu fights in slow motion! Not enough Sarah Michelle Gellar! Not enough clone syrup! Well, "dears", sorry - this is a thinking person's film. Not *your* kind of movie, but ours. Now leave us in peace, allow us to enjoy Roman Polanski's vision again, and feel free to go see an Adam Sandler "comedy" or "Charlie's Angels 2" - flicks of this kind should certainly match your "intellectual level" and provide you with enough infantile "entertainment" to last you the whole afternoon.
Chiefs (1983)
Excellent adaptation.
I still place Stuart Woods's "Chiefs" among the best police dramas ever written. Since I learned that a TV adaptation of the book was made, I've always wanted to see it, and, a few months ago, I finally bought the DVD release of the series. I actually did not expect much, but what I received surprised me - and it was a positive surprise. The series is an excellent adaptation of the novel and manages to do it justice, which is a rarity... as is the fact that very little of the book's plot is omitted. Certainly, some of the details - such as Will Henry's growing obsession with the mysterious murders, and the technical sides of his investigation - have to be treated superficially, but every important subplot and aspect of the book is present in the film; consequently, the series manages to be just as thrilling and involving as the novel. Amusingly enough, the credits on the box of the DVD misled me slightly - I assumed Charlton Heston, Keith Carradine and Billy Dee Williams would be playing the three chiefs, chronologically; of course, this is not the case.
Red Dragon (2002)
Joins van Sant's "Psycho" on the Growing List Of Horrible Remakes.
I knew "Red Dragon" would never match "Manhunter", but I had some faint hope that it might turn out not *too much* worse, and that it might preserve some of the spirit of the book, in spite of Brett Rush Hour's directing.
Unfortunately, it's on par with Gus van Sant's remake of "Psycho". It's painfully clear, too clear, that the only reason for its making were the dollar signs in Dino de L.'s eyes. It's a (bad) school play on the steroids of a big budget. Everyone, literally everyone in the film is stiff and wooden, except for Hopkins, who is hammy.
Where Brian Cox was caged evil, Hopkins is a clown. Where William Petersen was a tormented agent, Norton is a bored yuppie. Where Tom Noonan portrayed a man of a demented yet fascinating psyche, Fiennes is a bumbling cartoony villain who behaves like a village idiot and seems as dangerous as a bumblebee, while pitifully trying to look like Harrison Ford. Keitel chews his dialogue as if to say "let's get this trash done and go home already".
The dialogue is lifted from "Manhunter" and sometimes (less often) from the book, and I felt extremely bored, because every minute I knew exactly what would follow and what words would be said. The few scenes that were thrown in The ridiculous, ubercliched "Jason Voorhees syndrome" ending doesn't help much, either.
Of course, Manhunter had *a real director*, and a damn good one, too - Michael Mann, one of the few directors who have *and care for* their artistic visions; Brett Rush Hour cared primarily for the check, apparently.
2001: A Space Travesty (2000)
"How funny!", I thought this morning. But I wasn't thinking of this movie.
"Hey, it's 2001... let's make a comedy with this date in title!" thought the makers of "Space Travesty". "Let's make it a comedy, too, and let's have Leslie Nielsen in it. Plot? What plot?!? We'll throw in some jokes and glue them together with scenes showing Leslie Nielsen making faces!"... and so they did. Oh dear. You know this movie is awful already before seeing it - and that's because its trailer does not contain a single funny scene. As you probably know, movies of this sort put all their good jokes in their trailers (vide: Mel Brooks's Dracula). The trailer for this one has nothing funny in it, and that is not because the makers kept the good jokes for the movie itself but because they don't even have one funny gag to show - the whole "film" consists of some jokes older than the Pacific, plenty of awful "sex 'n' barf" kind of "humor", and a lot of dreadful, unimaginative, uninspired, boring, inane and inept attempts at a parody ("SAL! oh, that's Italian, and there's that music from GODFATHER playing, oh how funny!"). I don't blame Leslie Nielsen for this dreck - the writer and director (or, I should say, the "writer" and the "director") are to blame for it - but it's sad to think that he hasn't appeared in a movie worth watching since "The Naked Gun 2 1/2"...
In Too Deep (1999)
Donnie Brasco for the 1990s
A superb, tense thriller that can be placed alongside "Donnie Brasco" (I mean, of course, Agent Joseph Pistone's book, not the dreadful movie, full of lies and awful changes, that was "based" on it). "In Too Deep" is powerful, dark, gripping and keeps you in uncertainty of what's going to happen till the very end. A very realistic experience, with attention paid to the tiniest details and legalities - this isn't your average stupid Tarantino flick where undercover cops go around happily shooting anyone they want whenever they feel like it; this feels almost *real*! I doubt if the movie was actually based on a true story of an undercover policeman (unless the "story" is the obvious fact that thousands of policemen risk their lives every month working undercover all over the world), but if anything like it ever happened, you can safely bet that it happened exactly the way the movie tells it. Highly recommended, especially for anyone interested in true crime. I hope it comes out on DVD, with extras and specials - this movie deserves it. If while reading "Donnie Brasco" (NOT while watching its stupid film version...) you ever wondered what it would be like if moved to the 1990s, "In Too Deep" will answer your questions! (By the way, have you noticed that "God" looks somewhat like a thin Suge Knight, while J-Reed looks a bit like an older version of Tupac Shakur...?)
Kingpin (1996)
I felt guilty laughing, but it *is* funny!
Yes, this movie is rude, crude and cruel. But it's also funny and you can't help it! :) It's just great - well, perhaps with the exception of Murray. I can't stand this wooden guy and his annoying "acting". But even he didn't spoil the movie too much... :)
Batman & Robin (1997)
It's not ONLY the worst "Batman" ever made...
I won't be very original saying this, but that's not only the worst Batman ever made (even the TV series was better) but also the worst movie I've ever seen. They even made Bane (an intelligent, sophisticated and educated man) into a brainless zombie on steroids. Please, someone resurrect the Joker, so he can take out Clooney's "Batman", O'Donnell's "Robin", and especially Silverstone & Thurman - they're responsible in 40% for making this movie such a pile of waste. But, of course, the ones who deserve to be given a dose of Smilex are the two people responsible for killing the Batman series - director Schumacher and writer Goldsman (or whatever their names are spelled). For God's sake, bring back Tim Burton and Michael Keaton before Goldsman & Co. try to prove that they can make a Batman movie worse than "Batman & Robin" (and I'm sure they can!).
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
OK, with just one complaint
A nice, borderless movie for just about anyone - and I have but one complaing: why was Hopkins cast as the narrator? I've had enough of this guy's hammy "style" and I can't take him anymore... why wasn't Angus "The Tall Man" Scrimm asked to do the narration? Or, as another user suggested, Christopher Lee? Hey - even Carey himself would probably do a better job...
Virus (1999)
Greetings, virus... I am Ripoff of the Borg. Originality is futile.
I was hoping for a decent "Alien" clone on the sea. But it turned out that "Virus" is copied from three other movies with basically nothing original added. The plot is taken from "Leviathan", the alien's concept from "Star Trek" and the Borg, and the cyborgs - from "Hardware". And all those movies are better - even "Star Trek"! There's nothing surprising that, and it would be OK were "Virus" tense and exciting. But it isn't... Frankly, it's just boring. For me a necessary element of plot in such movies is a thoroughly alien, unknown and mysterious organism, hostile toward humans. But here, with the cyborgs and most things explained right away, it's about as exciting as watching people fight a couple of toasters. The only thing worth mentioning is the soundtrack... not bad, not bad at all. Other than that, it's pretty weak. It amazes me that this movie got its own action figure series, while e.g. "Leviathan" and "Hardware", though much better, still don't...
Big Daddy (1999)
Now I KNOW who's the worst "comedian" of all time
Some time ago I began wondering who might deserve the title of the worst comedian (pseudo-comedian, actually) of the last decade. Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler were high on my list, but when I saw "The Truman Show" I decided that Carrey eventually learned how to act instead of making faces, so I left him in peace. Recently, I saw "Bid Daddy"... and now I am sure: Sandler is the worst excuse of the comedian of the last 20 years, and perhaps of the century. And as for this movie, it's terrible even by the "Sandler standards". I'm just too tired to count the reasons why it's so awful... let me just tell that the day Adam Sandler deserves to be called an actor and a comedian will be the day Ed Wood is granted 10 posthumous Oscars for his life work.
Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (1995)
Why do such films get made?
What twisted gods or forces sent Jim Carrey and Ace Ventura to this world and for what sins? Watching this "movie" is the kind of punishment that makes the worst ancient Chinese tortures seem like picnic. Were I a brain surgeon, I think if I had to perform a lobotomy on someone, I'd just make them watch "Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls". I thought Adam Sandler's "comedies" were at the very bottom of the barrel of the worst movies ever made, but "When Nature Calls" must be knocking from below them... This "film" isn't funny, isn't entertaining, isn't original, and in fact it's not even disgusting (though it tries to be, I must admit that). Why do they spend any kind of resources on such trash?
Nightwatch (1997)
Dull, boring, predictable.
Ah, another one of those thrillers where you're supposed to wonder about the killer's identity, suspecting everyone in turns. Well, I guessed the killer *in the video rental*, after I looked at the cover! And I was right, of course. Now that's a "quality" script! As for the rest - boy, where to start... The acting is either hammy (McGregor) or wooden (Arquette) and the worst thing is that this flick is so *dull* and *boring* that it makes eating tomato soup and potato chips The Great Adventure! This is a remake of the Danish original which I might choose to see one day (for free - if it's anything like this remake, it's not worth paying a penny). I doubt it can be any better, though, with the same director and writer. One star, and even that is being too generous!
Urban Legend (1998)
Silly and "overpredictable"
Sill, silly movie. Which would be fun if it weren't so predictable. I knew the killer less than FIFTEEN MINUTES after the opening, and this is one of those films where you're supposed to learn who the killer is only in the very end. Even Robert Englund cannot save this movie with others acting so bad. And speaking of bad actors: who is that ugly girl killed in the very beginning, the one driving the car in the rain? She has to be the worst "actress" I have ever seen. She can't do ANYTHING, she can't speak, she can't sing, she can't walk, and she most certainly couldn't act even if she took 1000 acting classes. If you think you've seen a bad, wooden actress, take a look at this one... Apart from the quite good, ambient score, there is one good thing about this movie (probably especially for a non-American viewer :) - you learn a good deal about nice urban legends. The movie actually inspired me to hunt for those on the Net and then write an article on them - for this I'm thankful. :)