J_Knox Reviews

Ghost Story (1981)

Frustratingly simplistic adaption yet still beautifully done

[23 October 2001]

Ghost Story, the movie, is based on the book of the same name by Peter Straub and unfortunately that's about as much as they share since most of the story structure, major plot points, the beginning and the ending have all been modified beyond recognition.

I have never been one to say "the book is better" blindly. A movie is a movie and should always be seen as a separate entity than it's literary counterpart. In this case we have a beautiful gothic horror tale that is wonderfully acted with amazing special effects and cinematography. Craig Wasson flawlessly holds his own against veterans like Melvyn Douglas and Fred Astaire; Alice Krige adds depth to a character which was not scripted with much depth. The movie easily rates high marks, it's slightly confused at times but very good nonetheless.

However, if one reads the book, you'll wonder if this is even the same story. Only the basic idea of 4 old men (5 in the book) hiding a long forgotten secret as the ghosts of the past come to haunt them remains. Watching the movie after reading the book feels a bit like watching a film version of Dracula where the count isn't a vampire but simply a psychopath. The story structure is there, but the layer within a layer feel of the book is gone, as are the wilder supernatural elements and nearly all of the spooky scenes. In short, we're left with character names, the title and a few random passages and bits of dialogue. Why anyone would have paid what was probably quite a bit of cash for what amounted to little more than a title and an idea is kind of hard grasp.

Nevertheless, as a stand alone story, this is a fine film. One of the last "quiet" horror movies to be made before the slasher/splatter craze took off in the early 80's.

Texasville (1990)

The most misunderstood of all sequels

[10/10 · 10 September 2001]

Texasville is easily one of my favorite movies of all time because it doesn't go down the easy road, trying to please everyone, by being the same movie as Last Picture Show was. However, after having seen both Picture Show and Texasville back to back I noticed how surprisingly similar in context and theme they are. Both are about sad adults who look longingly onto the younger generation, all the while committing adultery as a way of recapturing their youth. I love both Picture Show and Texasville equally; but have a soft spot for Texasville because I was 11 during the timeframe shown in the movie, and 17 when it came out in 1990 so it is a bit more relevant to me. Also the dark humor helps make the film more enjoyable for those hot summer nights when the urge hits me to see it.

I've never thought of Texasville as fiction, more as cinematic fact. It's about as close to real life as you'll get without living it yourself. It was one of the first films I saw in a theatre as a cinema "connoisseur" and it'd be a shame to let it fade into obscurity. I highly recommend it to anyone reading this, a true minor masterpiece

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

I don't recall ever liking this movie...

[18 August 2001]

I saw this movie in the late seventies when I was 6 and was mildly amused. I saw it again in the late eighties when I was 16 and was aghast that his had ever been considered a comedic masterpiece. I saw it again about a year ago on television and even though I can forgive a few of it's quirks because it serves as such a good time capsule of 1963 I still can't consider it funny or amusing. I realize that by it's very nature comedy changes, what was daring thirty years ago is tame today. However, that isn't the case here. I can watch the 3 stooges shorts from 1935 and laugh myself to tears, I can watch most Jerry Lewis and Peter Sellers films and giggle hysterically. Mad World is nothing like those; in fact I doubt it was ever really funny. What happened was that it had the honor of being one of the first films with in all star cast which, more than anything, helped cement it as a classic. Despite the fawning and praise, however, the entire film's humor boils down to basically a much older version of the "rake hidden in the grass that pops up and hits the guy in the privates" gag told over and over again; no more, no less. It's lazy, loud, obnoxious comedy that thinks people screaming and running is funny. This is NOT funny, jokes are funny; jokes have pacing, timing and a punchline. This movie has none of that, people just yell out lines as loudly and shrilly as they can until they run out of energy, then someone else takes over. In a 15 minute bit this may be humorous, over the course of an almost 3 hour film it's exhausting. Watch it for the historical value but don't expect to really laugh.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

A Grand, Flawed and Failed Vision

[4 July 2001]

I must begin this by stating beyond any doubt that I admire both Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg. Both men are visionaries of the 20th and 21st century; have affected the way films are made and the way they will continue to be made for decades to come.

Which is why this is so hard to admit...

I was disappointed.

Beyond the luster of a Kubrick/Spielberg partnership of minds to finish the last film of the great cinematic Master, there is nothing. No script, no pace, no theme, no tone, no plotting and no feel. It's a problematic mishmash of ideas linked together by the story of a robot boy who wants to be a real boy. The first part is excruciatingly overlong, overmelodramatic and shrieks with "A Steven Spielberg Production" which is the entirely wrong approach for the material. Probably Kubrick would have been too icy and cast everyone without sympathy; but Spielberg makes it much too warm, overloading it with trite emotional musical cues and so forth.

The second part, which begins when the mother casts Haley Joel Osment from her home (in a scene which is everything except tearful as it so hard tries to be) is much smoother and easier on the eyes and there are certain scenes that make you smile and think of Kubrick in his 2001 phase.

Lastly the third part is an absolute disaster; Spielberg commits an almost unforgivable mistake and re-introduces the narrator late in the story, then compounds this mistake by showing us everything instead of coyly suggesting. All of Kubrick's films never told what was obvious to those who bothered to watch the film. 2001 is almost without dialogue, A Clockwork Orange's narrator never tells you what the ludovico treatment is, or why Alex does what he does. The Shining ends in glorious ambiguity, as does Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. Spielberg declined to understand this and explains everything to such an extent that you almost feel your imagination atrophy. Finally, there's an ending, which almost preaches a kind of self-satisfied selfishness on the part of all characters; David for wanting his "mother" to love him at all costs, Monica for loving David only because he replaces her son and fulfills her needs, and then Dr. Hobby (William Hurt) for giving life and feelings to things who are to be used as toys for the wealthy and privileged.

Are we supposed to feel sympathy towards David as he mutilates and beats to death another identical mecha boy because of his desire to be "unique"? We've been told all through the film that David is just as human as a human boy; so how can we see this act as anything else except an insane murder? The tone of the film tries to suggest otherwise while the events no matter how sugarcoated are pretty plain to see.

The final act is interminable and treats the audience with beautiful images but absolute contempt for their intelligence. What if Kubrick had given the most lame of explanations to the ending of 2001? Remember how lame movies seem when they have aliens with human feelings and motivations? What if Kubrick had explained 2001's ending for well over 20 minutes? Would it still be a classic? In film, less is more. This never once felt like a film Kubrick would have approved. But I can't blame Spielberg, he was Stanley's friend and he did what he felt and though was right. So, yes, I was disappointed but Spielberg did his best and I tip my hat to him.

However, there was only one Stanley Kubrick and even he struggled in vain with this tale. Perhaps it never had a chance no matter who helmed it. But one thing is certain, there will never be another Stanley Kubrick, and watching this film only made me miss him more.

Playgirl Killer (1967)

Corman or Lewis would have loved it.

[10 June 2001]

This movie is quite reminiscent of the 60's b-films by either Roger Corman or Hershell Gordon Lewis. All the women look like playboy models, it has characters come in and out of the story needlessly and for little reason other than the fact that they could only hire their "star" (in this case Neil Sedaka) for a day or two. There's the weird-O-rama soundtrack from Hell consisting of lots of single sustained organ notes, and lots of neat location shots of characters running around to and from each other. I'm quite partial to this film since it was made in Montreal and I recognize many of the sites where it was made even after almost 35 years. There is no way to reccomend this other than saying that if you like the works of either H.G. Lewis or Roger Corman you'll want to add it to your collection. Otherwise you'll find the somewhat sadistic storyline, grindingly slow style and cardboard characters who talk like Edgar Allan Poe wrote their lines quite anachronistic and dull compared to todays films.

Drive in Massacre (1976)

I kinda liked it...

[21 March 2001]

This was actually pretty watchable for the genre it was made in. In no way was this film intended to be anything else but B-movie fare at a drive-in very much like the one portrayed within (minus the murders we hope). A nice touch is that it contains the semblance of a storyline. Instead of following the killer around as in most slasher films, they follow the two policeman that are trying to find him as they interview potential suspects. The very novelty of seeing it told this way made it fun for me. Some other moments, such as the not-too-seamless voiceover by a character named "The Great Germy", are so awful that it's almost an inspired kind of awful.

You basically have to have gone to the drive-in yourself years ago to see how dead on some of the portrayals of the patrons are. Yes it's schlock, but it's mostly amusing schlock and perfect for a boring saturday night when you had nothing else to rent; provided of course your video store even carries a copy of this.

For those who'd like to buy this and have no idea what they're in for; just ask yourself the following: Do you like such movies as "The Prowler", "He Knows You're Alone" and "My Bloody Valentine" ? Heck, did you even KNOW these films existed ? If the answer is "yes" to both, then you'll like this film, but don't pay more than 5 or 6 dollars for it. If your only exposure to slasher films has been Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Halloween and maybe a Friday The 13th film or two, then you will probably not like this film and stay far far FAR away.

Hannibal (2001)

Problematic screenplay undermines great director

[17 February 2001]

I couldn't even begin to say how much I admire Ridley Scott. He is by far and wide one of the best directors ever to come out of Hollywood. His biggest flaw, which is exemplified in Hannibal, is his fickleness about screenplays. He likes to have them changed as he's making the movie or start the movie without even a completed script. Sometimes this works beautifully (Blade Runner, Gladiator). Sometimes not (Hannibal). The biggest problems of this movie occur within the script penned by David Mamet and Steve Zaillian, both quite able scribes. The biggest and most apparent flaw is the total lack of focus. What exactly IS the story here? Is it Mason Verger's quest for revenge? Clarice's attempt at redemption and former glory by returning to the case that distinguished her so much in the past? Or is it Italian detective Francesco Pazzi's discovery that a simple missing person's case has uncovered a monster and may just prove profitable to him. OR... is it Lecter's decision to come out of retirement because of his boredom ? That's four storylines competing for attention onscreen. Not to mention the fact that the entire film takes a dramatic left turn at the 3/4 mark and returns to America after spending so much time in the moody streets of Florence. Making it almost seem like they started a whole new movie right there. It's very fragmented and distracting to watch, but you can't deny Scott's, Giannini's, Hopkin's and Moore's talent in making a decent enough film out of a muddled story. I won't even get into some of the more ludicrous aspects of the film like Lecter going from continent to continent with no makeup while being on the FBI's top 10 wanted list. I can't recommend this in good conscience to fans of Silence of The Lambs, and instead invite them to watch the 1986 era Lecter film, Manhunter. You'll enjoy it more. To all others, enjoy the good parts of Hannibal and try not to wince too much at the bad ones.

April Fool's Day (1986)

Definitely a cult film

[17 December 2000]

This is a movie that's riddled with so many little problems that eventually it's overcome by them. First and foremost is it's scope. It wants to be a mystery, a comedy, a revenge flick and a slasher movie. It's too convoluted and muddled to be mysterious, it's too serious and flat to be funny and the revenge and slasher angle are there only because previous draft of the screenplay probably had it penned a slasher/revenge film. There's a scene early in the film (establishing the lame revenge angle) that's SO improbable that it opens up a big gaping plot hole that haunts the film right up to the last minute. Just think of how realistic "I Know What You Did Last Summer" would have been if right after the scene where the kids hit the guy with their car and dump the body in the river they would have been back at the fair partying and having fun; not to mention having the incident barely mentioned again throughout the film. This said, April Fool's Day is certainly watchable, though wince-inducing sometimes and half the fun is figuring out just how much inspiration this was for the newer "Scream" type films (Personally I think a LOT). The cast is certainly able and personable and unlike a lot of newer "hot young stars" they don't make you cringe too much. The director doesn't seem to know what he wants his film to be but he does manage to keep us interested to the very end. If you're a slasher movie junkie and haven't seen this one it'll be worth the rental price.

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

Not as bad as bad as you remember

[17 December 2000]

As problematic as this film is I can't condemn it as much as some have. It was the last Friday film to be dead serious in tone and not throw lame little jokes at the audience trying to lure away fans of the wisecracking Freddy Krueger from the Nightmare on Elm Street flicks. But it's obvious the Friday franchise had run out of gimmicks for this one and the filmmakers were just trying to go through the motions. The plot idea isn't half bad though, the writers wanted to stay away from having Jason come back as a zombie and tried to make it more of a murder mystery. It might have worked too except that they don't spend ONE single minute setting up the mystery. "Jason" just appears, kills, and that's it. You don't know who it really is, don't get the smallest clue and by the time it's done you've stopped caring (Or just plain forgot it was supposed to be a mystery). As always the blame falls squarely on the film's writers who didn't take enough time to flesh out their screenplay. If Paramount hadn't rushed this into production they might have kept their franchise alive and profitable enough for a more films than they eventually ended up with. Still, I recommend this for the old fans of the series who haven't seen it in a long time and probably remember it as a worse film than it really is. Give it a shot on a rainy afternoon, you'll enjoy it more than you did the first time. Guaranteed.

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)

*Shudder* Not good... Not good at ALL

[14 August 2000]

Okay, I had given the first film a very high passing grade primarily for Jim Gillespie's surprisingly good first time direction and for Kevin Williamson's clever adaption of an old "Young Adult's" novel (kind of a Goosebumps for the 12 to 16 set). It was a bad bad bad book but he made a sick twisted movie of it and Jim Gillespie gave it a semi-surreal "Santa Barbara/As The World Turns" kind of look using phony sets and lot of blue highlights and dark tones.

But this sequel... it's unwatchable for two principal reasons:

Number one it's a useless sequel, NOTHING here is new and the main feeling you get watching this is deja-vu, if not boredom.

Number two is that Trey Callaway's screenplay is horrible. It's an amateurish and barely coherent effort all the way. First of all we KNOW who is doing the killings the whole time and there is not even the slightest single effort at mystery.

As for the directing Danny Cannon pretty much apes the look of the first film and flies on auto-pilot the whole time. No points there.

Finally, there's the acting... ewww... Freddy Prinze was horrible in the first movie, sometimes looking like he had just read his lines off a teleprompter (no noticeable acting effort) and he continues this tradition here. Jennifer Love Hewitt was pretty good in the first one but she seems to have gotten worse the more she's done films.

So here we have it, bad direction, bad writing and bad acting. A total mishmash not worth the two hours required to watch it. AVOID !

Flirting with Disaster (1996)

Obnoxiously unfunny

[10 August 2000]

Why is it that people think grating, annoying, OBNOXIOUS characters are funny ? It's hard to laugh when you just want someone, ANYONE to smack those people up the back of the head as hard as they can. The dialogue goes nowhere, the scenes go nowhere and all in all you feel like you wasted 2 hours of your life watching something that might have worked as a Saturday Night Live skit. Avoid at all costs. I'm the type of person that can always find something redeeming in a film and there is NONE to be found here.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)

One of the worst ever films made

[9 May 2000]

The Renegade Version (Director's Cut) is a watchable but bad film. I give that version 1 out of 10. This is the ONLY version that anyone should watch if they have the sadomasochistic urge to see this torture-fest. The original version that I saw in theatres was so godawful that it made "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane" and should have a mental health warning on it. I wish I could give this a minus rating like -6 or something but I can't so just trust me on the fact that you'd rather watch an all nude version of The Golden Girls for the rest of your life than seeing this film just once. It really is that bad. At least if it was fun-bad that would be something, but this is like root canal surgery without the giddy side effects of the nitrous oxide.

Cruising Bar (1989)

Hysterical slice of life

[8 January 2000]

The story of 4 absolute "down-in-the-dirt" losers trying to land babes on a saturday night. The stories of the total geek and the wannabe playboy are the best. With the story of the cheating garage owner coming in third. The fourth story of the junkie movie star is a bit too serious and sweet at times to fit in with the rest of the film's laid back comedic and somewhat surreal mood but it's not too jarring with the rest of the film. The actor playing all four roles is Micheal Cote and I honestly think he should get the Peter Seller's award for multiple characters. He's great to watch. You really can't tell it's the same guy in all the roles. Highly recommended for those lonely Saturday nights when you'd rather be going out but would rather not go through what these guys went through.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Phantoms of Star Wars

[1 June 1999]

I liked this film, but not for the same reasons most people did.

I liked it because it fits in the series and doesn't stand out as bigger, badder, better. if it DID stand out, people would feel pretty lame watching them in order. A slam bang first part and then the film gradually get tamer. But any real problems with the script lie solely in the fact that Lucas has not written a screenplay since the original Star Wars. (He only wrote Empire and Jedi's stories, not the screenplays) His directing/writing style are definitely out of the 70's and most audiences don't really want a rather slow paced film anymore. Character development was no worse than in any other Star Wars film. I mean, did we get to know Liam Neeson's character any better than we did Lando Calrissian ? Or was Darth Maul any better/worse of a bad guy than Boba Fett ? Yet, I clearly remember seeing entire websites devoted to these very same characters that have about 15 minutes total screentime in the entire second triology.

I think the deeper reason why people don't like this film is that nobody is six anymore, and we just can't feel the same sense of wonder we did watching the original triology.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

Fun to watch !

[4 April 1999]

Having been raised on slasher films (the first film I ever saw in the theater was Halloween) and having seen them decline into total garbage like "Jason Goes to Hell". I was pretty pumped by the inventiveness of "Scream". For a while in 1992 I was watching most horror films with my finger nearly glued on the Fast Forward button. So when "I Know..." came out I was the first in line to see it. It's not as good as "Scream" but it's superior to a lot of older "classics" in the genre like "Maniac" or "He Knows You're Alone" or "The Burning". The story itself was interesting by making everyone in the film not particularly innocent. You have the feeling they deserve what they're getting. But what really sold it for me was the fact that entire film looks like a satanic version of a Goosebumps book filmed on sets from old soap operas. The look of the film is so good ,and Jim Gillespie's vision, so focused that it works better than it should. I enjoyed it, if not for being a great film, then for being a better film than most of its predecessors and most of its equals today.

Crash (1996)

New fetishes of the flesh

[27 January 1999]

Crash is definitely a hard film to like, but it's a good one. It's sci-fi without the silly aliens or rocketships. A kind of psychological window of the future where men and women are as cold as the machines they drive and technology has become such a part of us that we become more aroused by it than by warm flesh.

I was worried that the movie industry had become emasculated until I saw Crash. This was a film made without compromise and you have to watch it at least twice to see all the subtle visual innuendo's and metaphors. It's not an easy film to understand and wasn't made to appeal to everyone. Obviously, a lot of people hate it and call it unrealistic, failing to grasp that art merely mirrors life and that if you can think it someone has done it. There are people out there who really do act and think this way. Crash uses the fetishes and sex to illustrate how people have become so distant from their emotions, libidos and each other that they have to use drastic measures to reconnect.

Watch it if you want to see something different and daring. But if you were offended by Basic Instinct or thought Se7en was too grim I'd suggest something a bit lighter.