Change Your Image
Norman_French
Reviews
Gargoyles (1972)
Cheesy but Charming Schlock
Gargoyles has decent acting and some likeable characters. Cornel Wilde is actually believable as an author and researcher of ancient myths. Jennifer Salt plays his eye-candy daughter who screams at the monsters and is even kidnapped by them. The monsters are ridiculous (they act a bit like monkeys in lizard suits), but if you're old enough to not be scared by them, they're kind of fun to watch. The head Gargoyle has a nice prosthetic face (thanks to Stan Winston) and some enjoyably stilted lines. It was fun to see Scott Glenn in an early role.
Considering this low-budget TV-movie was shot with a single camera, it's surprisingly well-edited. It's not great, and if you're looking for a LOT of action, well ... look elsewhere. But I found this flick oddly charming (in some weird retro way).
I rate this at six (6) stars. It's probably best-viewed at a Drive-In.
Midsommar (2019)
Why didn't Dani leave?
After seeing a couple of elders jump off a cliff, Dani (at least) should have realized the following:
1) This is a (death) cult, and these people are insane.
2) I'm an outsider and don't understand the rules and customs.
3) Since the cultists are hiding things, more deaths may be coming.
4) I should probably assume my friends and I are in danger.
But NOOO ... a couple of guys calm her down and she stays, mostly oblivious and/or accepting of the increasingly WTF traditions. Dani should have stuck with her original plan and just walked away (alone if necessary).
Florence Pugh is GREAT here -- she's a good actress. But the cult aspects were painful to watch, especially given I have Swedish friends (who celebrate Midsommar the NORMAL way). I liked the ending, but that's too little, too late.
The plot is frustrating. The "outsiders" all should have left IMMEDIATELY after the first two deaths, which happened on the first day of the festivities, so CLEARLY more bad stuff was coming. Plus, the cultists were just WAY too happy to have guests.
I give this six stars for quality, plus one star for Florence Pugh, minus two stars for being SO implausible (and annoying). That's five (5) stars total, which seems fair for such a mixed bag.
Daniel (2023)
Wow -- the last 15 minutes
I watched this in two pieces, taking a break after the first hour. I didn't "get" the character really, he's clearly a very different person than I am. I didn't expect to leave a review, but after watching the last 15 minutes, that changed.
The last 15 minutes covers the funeral (which is well-edited and brought a tear to my eye) but also contains some the most profound aspects of the film. We see Daniel talking to US, the audience. He is making direct eye contact with the camera.
"In fact, I'm looking at you ... right now ... from across the {blah}. I think you're beautiful."
The {blah} word is a bit profound and saying it here, out of context, would cheapen the message. Watch the film and you'll find out what it is.
For me, this rates seven stars, with a half star bonus for the editing and another for the guts to not push this to 90 minutes (as many documentaries do). That makes EIGHT (8) stars total. I think some scenes will stay with me ....
Harum Malam (2022)
Muddled Malaysian morality tale becomes increasingly nasty
Despite the limitations of using English subtitles to understand what was going on, I think this film could have been better. It seems like the main goal was a gorefest, but a more interesting (and less derivative) tale could certainly have been told -- if anyone involved cared (but they didn't). The pacing was not great; the film often dragged.
The first act is the most interesting, as we're trying to figure out what's going on. The rest of the film slowly devolves into supernatural horror (possession and murder). I didn't like many of the characters, and it's hard to feel sympathy for people who aren't behaving or communicating well (even when lives depend on following rules and sharing information).
The cultural differences were mildly interesting -- at first -- but when the film got into gory-exorcism mode the disgusting happenings dominated (but not in a good way). I also found the use of seemingly generic prayers (by exorcists) to accomplish very specific goals quite unconvincing. Not sure if this was to avoid offending certain people.
I don't recommend this unless you specifically like Malaysian horror. I give it 3.5 stars, with half-star penalties for excessive gore, missed opportunities, and poor pacing. That's two (2) stars total.
The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (1991)
Plot similar to Naked Gun
This film is structurally a clone of The Naked Gun, not that there's anything wrong with that. Robert Goulet plays the villain this time, and instead of The Queen being the VIP-in-danger, we have an energy advisor to the President.
Overall, this film is pretty good, but IMHO not quite as good as The Naked Gun, which I rated one star higher. BUT -- this sequel had more intense LOL moments (e.g., the "dance" and "shower" scenes); the original simply had me smiling more consistently. So which film is "better" is probably a personal value judgment. For me the original was better on *average*, and the short-lived TV show (Police Squad!) was actually the pinnacle.
I give this six (6) stars. It has some good movie-spoof scenes.
The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988)
It's not only Leslie Nielsen who's great here
Priscilla Presley does a fine job of playing a parody of a stereotypical love interest, and George Kenney's character is almost a self-parody of his many B-movie roles. But after several viewings, the actor that I really enjoyed is Ricardo Montalban -- he plays villainous Vincent Ludwig straight, which makes for hilarious moments when Lt. Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) is accidentally destroying precious objects in Ludwig's palatial office.
This movie is based on the excellent but short-lived TV series Police Squad!, which despite being popular, was canceled because the network felt the near-constant sight-gags would cause the audience to focus too much on the show, and not enough on the commercials. In other words, the clever humor would DISTRACT the audience from the advertising (though I'm not aware of any actual study of this theory). Way to go, CBS!
This movie, being the first in the Naked Gun series, retains the most characters from the TV show. If you liked Airplane!, which was made by the same folks, you'll probably like this. I give it seven (7) stars.
Frankenhooker (1990)
Schlock horror satire is gleefully campy
I very much enjoyed this twisted spoof; it's inspired. The tone is perfect, but I give a lot of credit to James Lorinz and his amusing patter. I think most B-movie guys (you know who you are) will like this. It gave me a BIG smile!
The "special" effects are deliberately bad, but match the tongue-in-cheek story. I may even track down the unrated version, which is two minutes longer.
How Director Frank Henenlotter kept everyone on the same page here is a mystery. No one stood out for (inappropriately) bad acting. The weird set pieces and oddball props work great. There is a nice progression from bizarre low-key humor to complete absurdity. It's really well constructed.
I happily give this six (6) stars.
PS Patty Mullen is a poster child for a blonde who IMHO looks better with black hair.
The Lighthouse (2019)
Psycho-Sexual Arthouse Abortion
I planned to title my review "WTF Did I Just Watch", but of course that had been used. While atmospheric and technically well done, this film is a PAINFUL watch. It's basically an ultra-dysfunctional mash-up of Moby Dick and The Shining. I managed to watch the entire nauseating mess because I was curious about the ending, which instead of providing some satisfaction or at least an explanation, is pretentious garbage.
The entire movie feels implausible. The lighthouse itself was OK as a setting, the mechanisms made sense (FYI, the coal-fired steam engine is strictly for the foghorn), but the cistern situation was insane. The two keepers should have died (or at least been violently ill) from the polluted water. PRO TIP: Cisterns preserve water by keeping it cool and DARK -- there is NO WAY the access hole wouldn't normally be covered with a light-tight panel -- keeping it open is SUICIDE in a place like this; things will grow in it. And yet Robert Pattinson's character wanders over and sees dead/dying seagull(s) floating in there.
I learned nothing and would like my 109 minutes back. I give this abortion two stars, as it's useless IMHO except as film-critic-bait, but with a one-star penalty for a HORRIBLE "mental aftertaste". That's ONE star total folks -- the film was just THAT pointless and disgusting.
Voyagers (2021)
Flawed, but good sets and visuals
I think Tye Sheridan was good in this movie. Colin Farrell was fine as well. Lily-Rose Depp was intriguing, but seemed to be trying for some gravitas by underacting. She was not entirely convincing in this, and her model-esque looks made it a bit strange. Quintessa Swindell (Cyclone in Black Adam) had some impressively sultry expressions once her character became hot-to-trot. Like many of the other kids, once she was weaned off the impulse-control drugs, it was HELLO HORMONES!!
There are a lot of "space-arc" films, and most suffer from the rather stupid idea that building and then traveling inside (for a century or more) a giant spacecraft is easier than saving (part of) the Earth, or simply building a large, super-fancy underground bunker (which would be less isolating than being in space).
This particular arc-ship sported artificial gravity, which clearly isn't centrifugal, as the gravity suddenly disappears when one goes out through an airlock. Yet the gravity remains in a room when the power is cut. Huh? Also, if we have such super-advanced tech in the future, why no anti-gravity (UFO) tech? The physics here makes no sense.
While I appreciated the Lord-of-the-Flies storyline, it seems implausible that intelligent, highly-trained science-oriented kids are going to fall for evidence-free tales of a mysterious malevolent force and instantly become a paranoid mob.
The ending is a bit pat (and rushed). Also, the audio was annoying; the sound effects and associated bursts of music were too loud relative to the dialog -- unusual for a film with a decent budget. Apparently, some exec wanted more (cheap) drama.
I give this seven stars, with a one-star penalty for various plausibility flaws, and half-star penalties for the audio and the somewhat unsatisfying ending. That's five (5) stars total.
The Time Travelers (1964)
Semi-silly retro S/F fun (with nekkid spa babes)
This low-budget film rises above schlock; it's rather charming at times -- in its own little way, it was trying to be a minor classic. This film influenced both Star Trek and The Time Tunnel. John Hoyt, who plays Varno, was in the Star Trek pilot and in two episodes of The Time Tunnel. The ending is not what you'd expect -- it's actually decent (and perhaps briefly thought-provoking).
All the casting was good, but model-turned-actress Merry Anders and Playboy Playmate Delores Wells are cast members I appreciated for, ah, "various reasons". But they did a fine job and livened things up.
I give this six (6) stars. The "mental aftertaste" is quite good.
PS Although you don't see anything naughty (as in R-rated), some of the spa babes actually WERE naked -- the director insisted (for the best "vibe"??). Hey, it worked for me.
After Earth (2013)
Formulaic structure obscured by layers of sentiment
I enjoyed elements of this film (due to the miracle of rock-bottom expectations) despite Jaden Smith's acting. I actually knew someone like Will Smith's depicted character, and so the sentimentality *initially* worked for me. But I saw how contrived this movie was, so I gave it a middling score of 5 stars and went to bed, wondering if I'd been too harsh.
The next morning I woke up with an odd sense of "buyer's remorse" -- that I had been suckered (by M. Night Shyamalan), and so I rewrote this review from scratch, thus exorcising the mental demon (IMDB is great for that).
To be fair, I thought there was real tension in many scenes, so I don't fully understand the terrible (1-star) reviews. Also, it was nice to see Sophie Okonedo and Zoë Kravitz, despite their small roles.
Starting with six stars for "unrealized potential" (or brainless entertainment), but subtracting one star for the blatantly contrived set-up and another for the manipulative style (i.e., sentiment-as-distraction), I arrive at four (4) stars.
Time Bomb Y2K (2023)
Retrospective documentary gently touches on broader issues
This documentary is nicely done, but not perfect. It could easily have been three to five minutes shorter, which would have helped with the pacing. Nevertheless, this is an interesting presentation of archival footage.
I like the way this film covers optimists, realists, and pessimistic survivalists. As someone who lived through this, I can tell you there was a LOT of hype back then. Scaremongers selling books were saying things like freeway accidents would occur as power brakes failed at the stroke of midnight. These sorts of claims were laughable of course -- no engineer is going to increase his workload by making systems more complex than needed -- especially when the system MUST be reliable. Why on earth would a power braking system need to know the time and date? It's ridiculous.
As the New Year came and went, the film shifted into covering some interesting and (mostly) uplifting thoughts about global connectivity and the uncertainty and possibilities of the new Millennium.
While not highly structured, this documentary has a straightforward (linear) time-flow, a decent cross-section of opinions, a low-key tone, and a good ending that raises questions about the future. I would have changed a few things, but not much, so I'm *tempted* to give it seven stars. HOWEVER, the film did NOT excite me, and I doubt it will be of great interest to the average viewer. So I think a "proper" rating, considering the big picture, is probably five (5) stars, which is also an accurate reflection of the entertainment value I received.
Tremors II: Aftershocks (1996)
Let the franchise-milking begin!
Bottom line, this film is better than expected, but that's a low bar. The directing is uneven; Fred Ward starts off playing a painfully goofy version of his Earl Bassett character, despite being a decent actor. But the film does find its footing, and even flirts with competence after Burt Gummer (Michael Gross) shows up.
The set pieces are terrible; a crappy warehouse is called a "refinery". The oil angle is apparently justifies someone paying $$$ for help and having a female geologist (who's confusingly also a paleontologist and ex-Playboy model) laying about. The goofy replacement for Kevin Bacon adds zero value beyond acting as an all-too-familiar plot device.
I think the central question here is whether ANY of the original film's magic is still present. I say YES, there is some fun to be had with the Graboids (and a new way of killing them).
I rate this at three stars with some bonuses: two stars for getting original cast members Ward and Gross, a half-star for still using lots of practical effects (not just CGI), and finally a half-star for Burt Gummer's deuce-and-a-half with the "mil-spec engine". That's six (6) stars total. This may sound generous for a low-budget sequel, but be aware that I rated the original at NINE (!!) stars.
Jumanji: The Next Level (2019)
Third time is NOT a charm
The previous film, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is excellent (I gave it an 8), but at this point, with the third film in the series, we've reached franchise-milking. The good news is we have the same cast. However, for an unknown reason (lack of good ideas?), regional and ethnic accents are now supposed to invoke hilarity during body-swaps. To make matters worse, two characters are elderly. The ensuing age jokes wear thin rather quickly.
This film is basically equivalent to an old, worn-out tire with some shiny new tread glued on (i.e., a "retread"). It's an OK watch if you keep your expectations a bit low. I give it five (5) stars given I still like many of the characters.
PS The ostrich running down the street at the end is a nod to the original film, where the Jungle came OUT of the (board) game, versus the (video) game sucking players IN.
Jumanji (1995)
Silly but Imaginative Classic
Although Robin William's amazing improvisational skills are muted here, he's still great fun in this ground-breaking (for the time) movie. Whether the now-dated goofy humor is endearing or boring is largely up to the viewer's taste. Jumanji was released 15 years after Airplane! (with its far more modern/clever humor), but the creators of Jumanji probably wanted to ensure a family-friendly result (note how many reviews mention seeing it with your kids).
IMHO, this is a movie that most everyone should see at least once; not only is it a classic, but it's also a precursor of the excellent Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. I think it's worth noting that only in the original film (Jumanji) is it possible to have characters lose their memories of the game when their timeline is altered. In other words, only those who NEEDED to remember do. Alternatively, one could say that the oldest participants retain free will; it's up to them how to use what they've learned. Because this (technically) changes history (the younger participants end up never playing the game), a new timeline is created.
Jumanji is easily the most charming and sentimental of the three movies. The Christmas scene at the end is quite moving. I think it rates seven (7) stars.
Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)
Emma Stone's sarc is the best part
This self-referential sequel is completely watchable, but seems like an attempt at a shallow self-parody. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's goofy -- but not always in a clever way. The original film was fresh and inspired, but this one is hit-or-miss.
There's some great sarcastic writing here and there. For my taste, Emma Stone has the best lines (and facial expressions and sarcastic accents). To be fair, the entire cast IS trying; but there's only so much they can do with the script, and the overall result flirts with tedium.
The characters are fine, but it's hard to care a lot about them in this goofy self-aware pseudo-parody. I never felt they were real people, or were ever in real danger (because of script destiny).
This is OK light entertainment; I give it five (5) stars.
Diabolical (2022)
Nice idea but very uneven
The first toon, "Laser Baby's Day Out", is by far the best. The gentle retro flavor, combined with OTT violence and gore, is brilliant. Highly recommended.
The other toons vary greatly in quality. They're ALL watchable, but expect some to not be to your taste, as there is a lot of diversity here.
One wonders what someone new to the Vought universe would make of all this (hmm ...).
I do think it's great that folks like Awkwafina (The Farewell), Christian Slater (Archer), Aisha Tyler (Archer), Nasim Pedrad (SNL), Andy Samberg (SNL), and so many others helped.
I rate this at six (6) stars overall. The Boys and Gen V are better.
Byzantium (2012)
Classy and character-driven vampire tale is a slow burn
Vampire films are usually standard formulaic (Dracula-style) affairs, odd variations (e.g., The Hunger), parodies, or low-budget schlock. Byzantium is none of the above -- it's a British arthouse drama that uses vampires quite effectively as a plot device. In other words, it's not just about vampires; there are many themes here (e.g., class, sexism, responsibility vs freedom, and questioning authority) which aren't exclusive to the undead experience.
The casting and acting is very good, but some may find the pace to be rather slow. While it didn't change my life, I liked this film. BUT -- you have to be in the "right" (i.e., thoughtful) mood.
I give this 6.5 stars, with a half-star bonus for some of Gemma Arterton's outfits. That's seven (7) stars total.
Freud's Last Session (2023)
Gad -- I hope the play was better
This film imagines a meeting (which might have actually happened) between Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins) and C. S. Lewis (Matthew Goode). The disjointed conversation covers disagreements involving Christianity (and religion in general) vs atheism, good vs evil, the nature of sexuality, and other topics. This seems like a worthy basis for an art film (it's based on a play), but instead of penetrating and enlightening (or even controversial), it's superficial to the point of near-tedium.
The filmmakers must have been worried about losing the audience if they got too deep. There are many distractions to (presumably) keep the audience awake -- flashbacks (including relived trauma), dreams, romantic entanglements, character flaws, and medical crises. The problem with this approach is that the discussion, while quite animated, is simplistic and unsatisfying. I learned nothing of importance, and had nothing to think about afterwards -- this "null result" was unexpected and quite disappointing.
There are some decent moments, so I give this 4.5 stars, with a half-star bonus for Matthew Goode's performance. That's five (5) stars total.
Cabin Fever (2002)
Mildly interesting variation on the cabin-in-the-woods tropefest
Director Eli Roth's first movie, "Cabin Fever", was supposed to reinvigorate the horror genre. It didn't -- that honor arguably belongs to The Cabin in the Woods, which cleverly (and subversively) parodies many of the tropes that are found here in Cabin Fever. For example, we have the lonely gas station run by rednecks. We have the remote cabin that a bunch of dumb-ass kids (soon-to-be victims) can't leave. We have a scary "thing" terrorizing them (in this case, a super-deadly virus). We've got the standard personalities (sexy gal, virtuous gal, jock, nice guy, etc).
This movie is watchable and has some interesting moments. But it's not particularly memorable -- or believable. Who uses unfiltered water directly from a pond as tap water? NO ONE. It's ridiculous.
This movie has multiple rednecks; was the idea of copying aspects of Deliverance supposed to be revolutionary?
On the plus side, we have Cerina Vincent, who is attractive and frequently unencumbered by clothing above the waist.
I give this 4.5 stars, with a half-star penalty for lack-of-believability. That's four (4) stars total.
Mad God (2021)
Brilliantly Weird and Artfully Disgusting
This film is unique and impressive. But like many far-out art films, it poses more questions than it answers. I can easily imagine people debating whether there even IS a plot. The hellish and post-apocalyptic scenery is NOT suitable for date night.
This film is a little bit like Tim Burton tried to animate famous painter Hieronymus Bosch's vision of hell and went insane in the process. It's beyond grim or dystopian; it's macabre and nightmarish.
A tad more narrative structure would have helped; the ending is interesting but unsatisfying. Still, even if it's like a bad drug trip, this film is worthwhile just for the visuals. Any deep meaning you may find should be considered a bonus.
I give this seven (7) stars -- just for the experience.
Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009)
I'll never drink punch again
This film by Ti West is FAR better than Eli Roth's original. The characters are more interesting, and there is a lot of good satire. The gore is plentiful and IMHO not meant to be taken seriously (but perhaps folks did; there's a lot of bad reviews -- hmm).
This film made me smile quite a few times, so that's worth six (6) stars in my book (I gave the original only four). Given the gore and bad behavior at a high school prom, it's possible this film is a gentle satire of a several other (rather obvious) films, but who knows really.
The original Cabin Fever, while mildly painful to watch, is a useful precursor to this film, which picks up right where the previous film ended.
If you see this film and liked it, check out Zombeavers -- it's lower budget (and quite uneven) but even more warped in some respects.
Dracula III: Legacy (2005)
Slight improvement over Dracula II: Ascension
I think they tried harder with this film (Dracula III: Legacy); the Eastern European locations helped (and the circus-gone-bad theme was decent). Also, they maintained the same cast; in fact this film starts EXACTLY where the previous film left off; it's like one long movie divided into two halves.
We now have Rutger Hauer playing the boss vampire, and though he's a fine actor, his weird (and kinda lame) portrayal of Dracula gives this film a schlocky vibe.
For me, the very first film (with Gerard Butler, Christopher Plummer, and Jonny Lee Miller) is WAY better than either -- I gave it a 7. Dracula II: Ascension was VERY disappointing by comparison -- I gave it a 4. I'm rating this film at 5 stars. It has a nice ending BTW; it's memorable and arguably the highlight of the film.
Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver (2024)
If you liked Part One (set-up), you'll like Part Two (showdown)
Aside from the visuals, I was quite underwhelmed by Part One -- I gave it 5 stars. Part Two is an improvement in that we learn more about our merry band of "Seven Samurai", as they share their formative background stories. The upshot is that these previously one-dimensional characters are now two-dimensional. In addition, I think Part Two is less blatantly derivative. This may sound like faint praise, but I honestly appreciated the improvement, and some credit is due. However, the characters in these films are merely there to provide sufficient story context for a bunch of CGI.
The visuals are good, just like in Part One, but with more explosions. The defensive prep of the village was well done. It's nice to see people use their brains and come up with a plausible strategy (kind of rare in movies). So more credit is due.
I enjoyed this movie; I think it rates 6.5 stars on that basis. However, I'm deducting a half-star for semi-predictability. That makes six (6) stars total.
PS The lack of powered (or automated) farming tools (aside from a stake-bed hover-platform) is puzzling. It's supposed to show some pseudo-Amish quality-of-primitive-life, but anyone who has actually done that kind of work will tell you (better) TOOLS give you quality of life. Granted, they had a mill, but carefully avoided showing the power source (hmm). Anyone who thinks subsistence farming is "fun" is delusional; mechanized agriculture is responsible and necessary for modern (middle-class) life; without it you have a neo-feudal society at best (which GRANTED is what they're depicting, but better tools would be in EVERYONE'S best interest, and are clearly feasible in a society that can make dreadnoughts, sentient/sapient robots, and hover-boards).
Dracula II: Ascension (2003)
Predictably Poor Sequel
I liked Dracula 2000 -- I gave it a 7. This sequel is lame, tired, and uninspired. I watched it immediately after the original, because:
"I had a good time, so I foolishly craved some more. / The first film was fine; what did the second have in store? / But now I can only whine -- be careful what you wish for."
While there's one line that made me laugh, this sequel has really nothing to recommend it. It's not terrible; it's just ...meh.
Everything about the original is superior -- even the women were better looking (and yes, that matters in a vampire movie).
I give this only four (4) stars.