This installment was fairly boring for much of the running time. The acting was wooden and when the actors suddenly feel the need to extrapolate to show why what just happened was significant, then you know you have mediocre talent writing your storyline. And some of those aspects of the Monsterverse had gotten downright silly recently. All of them involving Kong. Last movie, he got a Monkey Axe. This one, he gets a metal armored upgrade for an arm he couldn't use, from a Monarch employee who just happened to have some unused monkey tech lying around. How convenient. None of which address the fact Kong's arm was now frostbitten and basically useless before. Not any more. He's fine. Now he packs a dandy punch. Ah well. The movie is about kaiju, so I suppose expecting reality to make an appearance is expecting too much. But sooooo much extrapolation. Many, many examples abound. Hard to list them here without giving too much away. Basically my review comes down to this.... the last 45 minutes or so is pretty good, and action packed. Before that, well, it's tedious at best and poorly written. It's pretty eye candy, but you'll owe your brain an apology afterwards.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Wonder Woman 1984
(2020)
A Classic, it isn't. The DC Curse Continues......
23 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
But seriously, what's with all the one reviews? This is why I don't often read user reviews here. Some movies here get rated only a 10 or a 1. Rarely is ANYTHING that good or that bad. No explanations why this movie is apparently the worst kind of trash are offered in most cases, it's just yet another one note blind and deaf assertion that it is just soooo bad. Frankly when everybody here piles on a movie like it's their own personal rugby scrum it makes me wonder why and makes me doubt the validity of all those comments unless they are backed up with sound reasons why it is bad.
The movie? Yeah, it has flaws. Lots of them. It starts off well, but it's biggest problem is the villians and their motivations are poorly developed. Pedro Pascal overacts grandly, is kind of a goof and he is more than a little bit hard to take seriously when the plot, such as it is, takes a more dramatic turn later. He is a cartoon villain at best. Kristen Wiig provides the only stability early on, as her character at least has some thought put into it. But as Pedro finally comes into his role in the last part of the movie, Kristen is left having to do a sharp 180 degree pivot from an intelligent, sensitive and insecure (but likeable) figure into a psychotic power mad figure bent on world domination. If the script was up to the challenge this would not have been as much of a problem. But the script is the biggest problem here in WW84. All explanations here are very sketchy, despite the long running time. So it seems to meander from set piece to set piece without much coherence to link it all together. What story that IS there could probably have been efficiently knocked out in 90 minutes.
The worst part for me though, was Chris Pine's very presence in the movie. I am kind of ambivalent about his inclusion in this movie. The script seems to have been written solely as an excuse to shoehorn him into the movie when he had no logical reason to be there as it is written. While he is there, he almost makes you forget about the plot inadequacies and the Simon Bar Sinister turn by Pascal, though. Almost. He is, by far, the best part of this movie. Sadly. But his presence in the movie as an unnecessary romantic love interest for Diana Prince only detracts from the momentum of the movie as it proceeds towards its climax and that device way overstays its welcome and does not even remotely justify its insertion into the movie.
But it isn't all bad. Gal Gadot is fine in the title role. She doesn't dazzle you with her acting, but being brilliant isn't required here. She is believable, athletic and likeable in the role of Wonder Woman and that is enough. This is a super hero movie, after all. The action set pieces are nicely done. The CGI is very well done overall as well. The end of the movie mostly pays off well.
The movie just has a feel of being rushed out the door when a little more time in the editing room and a little more work on the script would have helped immensely.
I give it a 6 out of 10, mostly on the strength of the opening scene and the CGI effects. Probably will want to take one off later.
The movie? Yeah, it has flaws. Lots of them. It starts off well, but it's biggest problem is the villians and their motivations are poorly developed. Pedro Pascal overacts grandly, is kind of a goof and he is more than a little bit hard to take seriously when the plot, such as it is, takes a more dramatic turn later. He is a cartoon villain at best. Kristen Wiig provides the only stability early on, as her character at least has some thought put into it. But as Pedro finally comes into his role in the last part of the movie, Kristen is left having to do a sharp 180 degree pivot from an intelligent, sensitive and insecure (but likeable) figure into a psychotic power mad figure bent on world domination. If the script was up to the challenge this would not have been as much of a problem. But the script is the biggest problem here in WW84. All explanations here are very sketchy, despite the long running time. So it seems to meander from set piece to set piece without much coherence to link it all together. What story that IS there could probably have been efficiently knocked out in 90 minutes.
The worst part for me though, was Chris Pine's very presence in the movie. I am kind of ambivalent about his inclusion in this movie. The script seems to have been written solely as an excuse to shoehorn him into the movie when he had no logical reason to be there as it is written. While he is there, he almost makes you forget about the plot inadequacies and the Simon Bar Sinister turn by Pascal, though. Almost. He is, by far, the best part of this movie. Sadly. But his presence in the movie as an unnecessary romantic love interest for Diana Prince only detracts from the momentum of the movie as it proceeds towards its climax and that device way overstays its welcome and does not even remotely justify its insertion into the movie.
But it isn't all bad. Gal Gadot is fine in the title role. She doesn't dazzle you with her acting, but being brilliant isn't required here. She is believable, athletic and likeable in the role of Wonder Woman and that is enough. This is a super hero movie, after all. The action set pieces are nicely done. The CGI is very well done overall as well. The end of the movie mostly pays off well.
The movie just has a feel of being rushed out the door when a little more time in the editing room and a little more work on the script would have helped immensely.
I give it a 6 out of 10, mostly on the strength of the opening scene and the CGI effects. Probably will want to take one off later.
We Are What We Are
(2013)
An overused movie cliche writhes again....
19 September 2020
The movie is quite good overall, but a slow burner. It is almost too slow for its own good. Most will have given upon it long before the movie finally finds it's legs. But for those who hang on, the movie develops a sort of ghoulish undertow as the details slowly come out. If it were it not for the ending, I would have given this movie an 8 out of ten. Creepy and atmospheric throughout but then it undoes a good deal of the methodical work put into the plot and character development by having the two female leads act completely illogically and out of character for the movie's penultimate scene. That being said, that scene won't be forgotten anytime soon by the viewer. It is very intense and more than a little hard to watch.
I do, however, begin to wonder if Hollywood is even remotely capable of making any kind of objective movie about Christianity anymore.
I do, however, begin to wonder if Hollywood is even remotely capable of making any kind of objective movie about Christianity anymore.
127 Hours
(2010)
A cautionary tale....
17 August 2011
The movie was well done, the cinematography was excellent and James Franco's performance was a tour-de-force. The movie fills out it's running time quite well, considering you find Aron stuck in the crevice canyon only 30 minutes into the film. The following hour consists first of his struggles to get free, and then, as the elements, and lack of food and water begin to take it's toll, hallucinatory sequences predominate. Much as you'd expect. The "scene" where he finally frees himself was suitably gruesome and rather hard to watch. Sound effects added greatly to the tense and visceral nature of the scene. After he frees himself, the rest of the movie is kind of anticlimactic. If you read accounts of the real life event this movie was based on, you know he makes it, and the rest of the movie deflates like a released balloon for that reason.
The problem I had with the film was not in the film itself, but in the almost staggering arrogance and stupidity of the hero the story is based on. I am a caver, and it is a sport or outdoor activity as it were that is similar in one sense to mountain biking or rappeling in the desert. You don't go ANYWHERE without letting someone know where you will be going to, and when you will be back. Just in case. It is (or should be) engraved in your soul. If you don't take that one simple rule to heart, you are an accident waiting to happen. As a result, the whole premise of what an intrepid explorer and resourceful person the hero is was kind of lost on me. The film tries hard to paint him as a heroic figure with an almost superhuman endurance and a man far more resourceful than MacGyver ever dreamed of being on his best day. But.
If only he had a brain.
The good news is, he has one now, as the information on the end credits help to illustrate. Too many kids think of themselves as ten feet tall and bulletproof. Perhaps that's where the film's true value lies. Perhaps it will help to show them they are not.
The only problem is most all of those kids will never see this movie. They'll all be too busy watching the latest Transformer epic, or movies of its ilk. Shallow, superficial crap. Too bad....
I was too busy marvelling how a young man so obviously intelligent could be so stupid at the same time, and so his adventures stuck in the crevice just played for me like a cheap Darwin Awards episode in a desert milleu. Only drug out for an hour. A long, interminable hour. You knew what was coming, only you just wanted for them to get on with it. For that reason, I could not truly enjoy it on its own merits fully. That took the edge off the movie for me, because of its subject matter.
But I'm weird like that. One thing for sure, it is not a movie for all tastes. But for those who go in for survivalist movies, it is a hidden gem. James Franco should have gotten an Oscar for this, and this role should open some doors for him.
I just hope he plays someone I like more next time.
The problem I had with the film was not in the film itself, but in the almost staggering arrogance and stupidity of the hero the story is based on. I am a caver, and it is a sport or outdoor activity as it were that is similar in one sense to mountain biking or rappeling in the desert. You don't go ANYWHERE without letting someone know where you will be going to, and when you will be back. Just in case. It is (or should be) engraved in your soul. If you don't take that one simple rule to heart, you are an accident waiting to happen. As a result, the whole premise of what an intrepid explorer and resourceful person the hero is was kind of lost on me. The film tries hard to paint him as a heroic figure with an almost superhuman endurance and a man far more resourceful than MacGyver ever dreamed of being on his best day. But.
If only he had a brain.
The good news is, he has one now, as the information on the end credits help to illustrate. Too many kids think of themselves as ten feet tall and bulletproof. Perhaps that's where the film's true value lies. Perhaps it will help to show them they are not.
The only problem is most all of those kids will never see this movie. They'll all be too busy watching the latest Transformer epic, or movies of its ilk. Shallow, superficial crap. Too bad....
I was too busy marvelling how a young man so obviously intelligent could be so stupid at the same time, and so his adventures stuck in the crevice just played for me like a cheap Darwin Awards episode in a desert milleu. Only drug out for an hour. A long, interminable hour. You knew what was coming, only you just wanted for them to get on with it. For that reason, I could not truly enjoy it on its own merits fully. That took the edge off the movie for me, because of its subject matter.
But I'm weird like that. One thing for sure, it is not a movie for all tastes. But for those who go in for survivalist movies, it is a hidden gem. James Franco should have gotten an Oscar for this, and this role should open some doors for him.
I just hope he plays someone I like more next time.
Newsies
(1992)
Not nearly as good as some would claim, but certainly not as bad as others would claim...
31 July 2010
People have covered this movie in excruciatingly fine detail, so I won't go into the technical aspects of the film. They have already been explored quite adequately. Where this movie fails is where all live action Disney movies fails. Disney has a tendency to infuse all the heavies in their movies with a heavy, leaden cartoonish aspect. I guess that makes them less threatening to the audience their movies are aimed at. Newsies is no different. You could even make a strong claim that the movie was fomulaic. Guilty as charged. But this doesn't really detract much from the movie very much. Anyone who expects reality or accuracy from any, and I do mean, ANY movie musical is setting the bar way too high for a movie of this type. All movie musicals have a certain element of fantasy to them. No-one breaks into song in the real world for dramatic effect. Do they? So to judge a musical on the basis of historical accuracy or realistic ambiance is doing a fool's errand, and are just simply nit-picking. Most of these same people would also cheerfully give a 10 to any one of several 60's musicals with two people professing their love for each other in song against a painted backdrop. So, please. Give it up.
Newsies was just simply released at the wrong time. Movie musicals were box office poison then.
Newsies gets much more right than it gets wrong. The choreography was stunning in it's execution, given the complexity of the routines that were performed during the movie. Christian Bale turns in a most agreeable performance considering his age at the time this movie came out. The songs by Alan Menken were as engaging and catchy as they could be, given the historical material on which they were based. And that's probably what killed the movie upon it's release, ultimately. A dated premise. Disney took a big chance and rolled the dice, and lost. But perhaps what was bad timing then, might be good timing now.
This movie is much better that most have led you to believe. And if you are willing to suspend disbelief and watch the movie on it's own terms, you are in for a treat. The movie has a lot of energy and is so earnest in its' message, it almost hurts. But is it good? Yeah. I think it is.
Newsies was just simply released at the wrong time. Movie musicals were box office poison then.
Newsies gets much more right than it gets wrong. The choreography was stunning in it's execution, given the complexity of the routines that were performed during the movie. Christian Bale turns in a most agreeable performance considering his age at the time this movie came out. The songs by Alan Menken were as engaging and catchy as they could be, given the historical material on which they were based. And that's probably what killed the movie upon it's release, ultimately. A dated premise. Disney took a big chance and rolled the dice, and lost. But perhaps what was bad timing then, might be good timing now.
This movie is much better that most have led you to believe. And if you are willing to suspend disbelief and watch the movie on it's own terms, you are in for a treat. The movie has a lot of energy and is so earnest in its' message, it almost hurts. But is it good? Yeah. I think it is.
Jennifer's Body
(2009)
Demons and high school and lesbians, oh my
25 January 2010
A movie that almost lost me before it even got started. The movie starts out with one of the principles in an insane asylum, explaining in a voice-over how she got there. But then, the film almost collapses under the weight of some truly excruciating dialogue where it appears that screenwriter Diablo Cody was just forcing more and more teenage clichés and pop culture references into each line along with a sly little nudge and a wink to the viewer as if to show just how truly hip and with it she can actually be. Absolutely god awful. Subtle as a flying mallet and like a bad, bad episode of Buffy, or something. The roadhouse fire scene, too, was clumsy and rather awkwardly executed. But as the film finally slowly edged into horror territory, although the dialogue didn't change character, it then gained a counter point. Which made it ever so much better. You have to wonder why people simply stood and watched the roadhouse slowly catch fire, all around them though. Not that most horror movies have ever had a stranglehold on reality. Even so, after the punishing dialogue, it was almost too much. Just about tipped the balance, for me. But after that scene, what was horrible before slowly became comic relief, and the movie finally found its' legs.
Most of the move after that worked, except for that utterly pointless and inexplicable lesbian kiss scene between Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried. I suppose that was shoehorned in for the fanboys to try to compensate for the total lack of nudity that the audience for this movie had to be expecting. I mean, come on. It's Megan Fox, for crying out loud. There.... has....to be nudity. There... just has to!
Um, no, not really.
Where this movie ultimately succeeded in was it's unconventionality. It took your expectations and turned them on their collective ear. You expected nudity but didn't get it. Particularly in light of the fact the chief protagonist was a succubus, a female demon spirit that preys on men by luring them to their doom with the promise of sex. And business was very good indeed. You also expected a lot more gore than you got. The movie only marginally had more gore in it than your average PG-13 movie. Then there was the contrast between the "virgin" sacrifice at the waterfall and the integration of an old hackneyed Tommy Tutone song into the scene that was beautifully written with a wonderful interplay going on between the actors before the scene comes to a sudden, jarring halt. Nice. There was more to like about than that but, I'll satisfy myself with that description, so as to save you, dear reader, some mystery. That scene, though, nailed it and neatly encapsulated what this film did right. And mostly, overall, Jennifer's Body did that. After a rough start. Throw in a little ongoing psychological examination within the movie of why girls hang out with "best friends" who treat them like dirt, but forgive all and still hang around for more as though they were in some kind of female version of boot camp in training for the relationships they would seek later in life, and you have a fairly interesting little artifact of the new millennium.
Damned if the movie didn't remind me of the old Julie Brown video to "The Homecoming Queen's Got A Gun", though. High school evil, but not evil evil. See it.
Most of the move after that worked, except for that utterly pointless and inexplicable lesbian kiss scene between Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried. I suppose that was shoehorned in for the fanboys to try to compensate for the total lack of nudity that the audience for this movie had to be expecting. I mean, come on. It's Megan Fox, for crying out loud. There.... has....to be nudity. There... just has to!
Um, no, not really.
Where this movie ultimately succeeded in was it's unconventionality. It took your expectations and turned them on their collective ear. You expected nudity but didn't get it. Particularly in light of the fact the chief protagonist was a succubus, a female demon spirit that preys on men by luring them to their doom with the promise of sex. And business was very good indeed. You also expected a lot more gore than you got. The movie only marginally had more gore in it than your average PG-13 movie. Then there was the contrast between the "virgin" sacrifice at the waterfall and the integration of an old hackneyed Tommy Tutone song into the scene that was beautifully written with a wonderful interplay going on between the actors before the scene comes to a sudden, jarring halt. Nice. There was more to like about than that but, I'll satisfy myself with that description, so as to save you, dear reader, some mystery. That scene, though, nailed it and neatly encapsulated what this film did right. And mostly, overall, Jennifer's Body did that. After a rough start. Throw in a little ongoing psychological examination within the movie of why girls hang out with "best friends" who treat them like dirt, but forgive all and still hang around for more as though they were in some kind of female version of boot camp in training for the relationships they would seek later in life, and you have a fairly interesting little artifact of the new millennium.
Damned if the movie didn't remind me of the old Julie Brown video to "The Homecoming Queen's Got A Gun", though. High school evil, but not evil evil. See it.
Blood Diner
(1987)
Did you all expect this to be a serious film? Honestly?
24 March 2008
The reviews of this movie honestly befuddle me to no end. The only way the movie could be rated this low by so many people, is that somehow, for some reason, they were expecting a serious film of some sort or another. Assuming the title itself didn't give them a rather obvious clue that this was to be a Herschell Gordon Lewis homage. And if they were..... well, if the first 5 minutes of the movie didn't serve them notice that they were dealing with a movie reveling in a flamboyant sense of camp and bad taste, then perhaps they would have been better off watching some pretentious art film. 'Twould serve them right for taking themselves sooooo very, very seriously.
This movie is a cheaply made gore fest, masquerading as a comedy, no excuses. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you. Sort of Grand Guignol in fish net stockings and garters. Evoking screams even as you laugh at it's over the top absurdity. Is it for all tastes? No, certainly not. But at what it tries to do, it succeeds at, for the most part. For me, at least, the movie struck a delicate balance between horror and comedy, two extremes that are fairly difficult to make work very effectively together, though it must be said, it succeeded far better with the latter than the former.
If you liked this genre (splatter comedies.... a rather narrow genre of film-making, to say the least), check out any one of the following, 2001 Maniacs, Frankenhooker, Psychos In Love, Bloodsucking Freaks, The Toxic Avenger, and Brain Damage. All cut from the same bolt of bloody cloth. And all equally worthwhile in their own way. Just try not to confuse any of them with Gandhi, okay? Class dismissed.
This movie is a cheaply made gore fest, masquerading as a comedy, no excuses. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you. Sort of Grand Guignol in fish net stockings and garters. Evoking screams even as you laugh at it's over the top absurdity. Is it for all tastes? No, certainly not. But at what it tries to do, it succeeds at, for the most part. For me, at least, the movie struck a delicate balance between horror and comedy, two extremes that are fairly difficult to make work very effectively together, though it must be said, it succeeded far better with the latter than the former.
If you liked this genre (splatter comedies.... a rather narrow genre of film-making, to say the least), check out any one of the following, 2001 Maniacs, Frankenhooker, Psychos In Love, Bloodsucking Freaks, The Toxic Avenger, and Brain Damage. All cut from the same bolt of bloody cloth. And all equally worthwhile in their own way. Just try not to confuse any of them with Gandhi, okay? Class dismissed.
Tommy
(1975)
A cult classic if ever there was one. You'll either love it, or hate it.
13 July 2005
This movie is all over the place. Ken Russell's penchant for garishness and bad taste runs rampant throughout the film, and the imagery consequently gives the film a very surrealistic feel (when it doesn't simply just get too weird for its' own good which it most definitely does indeed do at times). It should also be said that some of the casting is questionable to say the least. Jack Nicholson should never, ever have taken this role. His cameo is short, but rather painful to watch. Not to mention painful to listen to. And Oliver Reed? Think ham. He must have had a ball doing this movie, though. But in an odd sort of way, he fits in the role of Frank like a glove. Watch the movie, and you'll see what I mean. Just don't ask him to sing at your wedding. You'll regret it. Deeply. And plot? Almost none here to be found. At least none that cannot be easily summarized in two or three pithy sentences. That being said, I know I didn't go to see it in the seventies because I thought I was going to see Oscar caliber performances or a tight and thoughtful script. I went to see it because of the music. And it still holds up well to this day because of that. The music still carries the day. Tommy is one of The Who's best and shining moments. And between the songs, some of the performances shine..... just enough to make this a worthwhile viewing. But God help you if you go into this expecting anything approaching serious cinema. You will be seriously and grievously disappointed. Tommy is mostly played off as camp and is meant to be that way.
Best performances...... Elton John as the pinball wizard, (who does so well in this that I think he decided afterwards to retire from making movies while he was still ahead) while Ann Margret chews up the scenery much better than I had certainly expected, and Tina Turner as the Acid Queen gives a performance in a cameo that you have to see to believe. Paul Stevens as Cousin Kevin also gives an energetic turn in a rare (for this movie) comedic moment.
I give it 7 out of 10. Too flawed to be a classic, but definitely a solid piece of work overall. You may never look at another body pillow without pork and beans and Ann Margret springing immediately to mind ever again.
Best performances...... Elton John as the pinball wizard, (who does so well in this that I think he decided afterwards to retire from making movies while he was still ahead) while Ann Margret chews up the scenery much better than I had certainly expected, and Tina Turner as the Acid Queen gives a performance in a cameo that you have to see to believe. Paul Stevens as Cousin Kevin also gives an energetic turn in a rare (for this movie) comedic moment.
I give it 7 out of 10. Too flawed to be a classic, but definitely a solid piece of work overall. You may never look at another body pillow without pork and beans and Ann Margret springing immediately to mind ever again.
Napoleon Dynamite
(2004)
truly amazing
23 February 2005
Truly amazing stuff, this was. I decided to rent this out on the recommendation different people I knew, and because of that, now I am contemplating homicide. The movie was just simply almost too painful to watch. The acting was okay, likewise the cinematography. The problem was that it just wasn't funny, moreover, it was tedious, and had absolutely no plot whatsoever. Most of the characters spent most of their time acting like either they were on some serious sedatives, or had lobotomies, or were just simply unpleasant people. Sure, I knew people like this in high school. We all did. It doesn't mean I want to return to the wreckage of other people's youth, though. In an odd way, I found the movie reprehensible. It didn't glorify or champion the geeks of high school we all knew. Frankly, it only made fun of them. That was the only way you could find humor in this movie, for the most part. It was sad and pathetic. And the worse part of it is knowing that some people liked this drivel enough for the producers to probably want to produce a sequel....
Coming soon to a theater near you..... Napoleon Dynamite 2!
Filmed on location at the burn ward of your local state run hospital. Come see your local tax dollars squandered, while you laugh uproariously at the antics of of the newly handicapped. Don't miss a moment of the climactic wheelchair race!
Rated PG (For Putrid Garbage)
I want my life back!..............
Coming soon to a theater near you..... Napoleon Dynamite 2!
Filmed on location at the burn ward of your local state run hospital. Come see your local tax dollars squandered, while you laugh uproariously at the antics of of the newly handicapped. Don't miss a moment of the climactic wheelchair race!
Rated PG (For Putrid Garbage)
I want my life back!..............
Not even close to being as bad as some people seem to think it is......
22 January 2005
I just saw Anchorman recently, and was surprised to see how many people seemed to hate it. I kind of had to weigh in here to help make the score for this film reflect in a more realistic way its' actual worth. Comedies are kind of like horror movies in that you have to suspend belief to a certain extent and just go along for the ride. If you want a sound, reality based movie, go watch a serious drama. This movie was simply, pure escapement. Sure, it was dumb fun. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. This time around, I wanted a movie with lots of laughs, and Anchorman, by and large, delivered. I came into the movie not having any experience with any of Will Farrell movies, TV appearances on SNL, or anything. I had no idea what I was going to get. What I got was a pleasant enough farce, though by no means a classic. Will Farrell plays the fool quite well, and parts of the movie was pure genius, though most of the laughs for me were generated by the rest of the cast. I mean, how could you not laugh at the biker drop kicking Ron Burgundy's dog off the bridge, or the (very) mean spirited banter between Ron and Veronica over the end credits of the nightly broadcast following their recent breakup? My only complaint was that on the DVD version, I had never yet to date seen so many good scenes wind up on the cutting room floor. My opinion? 7 out of 10 stars. Very close to being the best comedy of the summer, though "Harold and Kumar goes to White Castle" probably edges it out by a hair.
The Dead Hate the Living!
(2000 Video)
utter crap, even for a B-movie
22 January 2004
I picked this movie up out of a bargain bin at the local video store for a rather ridiculously low sum. Maybe it was the Tom Savini ambiguously worded recommendation on the front cover that influenced the purchase. I thought, well, it IS cheap..... how bad can it be? Much as I hate to admit it, I still felt cheated. A good basic premise, the movie within the movie angle. And one that is totally wasted. So many others have weighed in with their opinions, and have dissected the movie quite adequately, so I don't feel the need to reiterate what they have already said so very well. But what I will say is this. I understand that the movie was made to be intentionally bad. I understood most all of the homage references to all the old masters of the horror genre. I understood all that. But when you decide to go down that road with a movie, (making a movie to be enjoyed as camp, that is) it kinda helps if the movie is at least a little bit fun here and there on SOME level. But when the movie lets it all ride on that premise, it would be nice if there was SOMETHING you could hang your hat on. But there is nothing here to redeem it, really. One good line, ( I DID like the line about the director "....if he plays his cards right, a small but obsessive group of people will someday know who he is.") and one mildly amusing scene (In the store....why the purchase of a box of condoms AND a tube of hemorroidal ointment?). And that's just about it. It's not enough. Not by half. It has got to be really discouraging deliberately setting your sights THAT low, and STILL managing to shoot your self in the foot. And if it's not, well, it damned well should be.
* 1/2 stars out of ten
* 1/2 stars out of ten
Tell Your Friends