[e-mail] Reviews

Chinatown (1974)

Just find the girl, Mr. Gittes.

[10/10 · 1 April 2008]

Chinatown is not so much a movie as it is an experience. To date, it is probably my favorite film. I've always enjoyed film noir, especially the old Bogart films. Chinatown draws strongly from that tradition, but comes from a European director's (Polanski) perspective. The film is highly stylized and seems to draw the classic old detective formula perfectly into the downbeat, sometimes depressing, but artistic style of the 1970s.

The story is that Jake Gittes (Nicholson) is an LA private investigator hired by Mrs. Evelyn Mulwray to investigate whether her husband, the head of Water and Power for the city, is having an affair. Mulwray is already the subject of controversy due to his reluctance to build a new dam during a city water shortage. After Gittes uncovers what appears to be an affair, the real Mrs. Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) comes forward and sues Gittes. Gittes quickly tries to persuade her that he was set up and wants to warn Mulwray. However, before he can do so, Mulwray is found dead at a reservoir. Mrs. Mulwray hires Gittes to investigate her husband's death after he convinces her that her husband was murdered.

I really enjoyed the interplay between the actors. Nicholson and Dunaway play very well off of each other, but John Huston, who plays Noah Cross, gives a fantastic performance. Mr. Cross is Evelyn's father who hires Gittes to find Mulwray's girlfriend. Huston walks a fine line perfectly of being both charming and brutally dangerous at the same time. Throughout the film, Gittes has to evade goons trying to do him some harm over his investigation into Mulwray's murder and police Lieutentant Escobar (Perry Lopez) who he worked with in Chinatown. Escobar's demeanor towards Gittes definitely indicates that Gittes has a bad past. I also really enjoyed Roman Polanski's cameo as a knife wielding thug, which is a brief but memorable appearance for Gittes.

The style of the film adds greatly to its effectiveness. Rather than use voice-over narration, as is often done in detective films, the audience discovers clues at the same time Gittes does. In addition, the richness of the plot keeps the viewer guessing, but does not get distracting as some detective films would. However, to really understand the title, you have to watch the whole film.

This film was really a sleeper for everyone involved. Roman Polanski (director), Robert Towne (writer), and Robert Evans (producer) had prior to its release believed they had a colossal flop. However, the film came together beautifully. The cast was excellent, from the lead roles down to the extras. The direction was great and the story, although altered by Polanski from the original script, really put emphasized the downbeat nature of the subject material.

This is a must watch for anyone.

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

The son of God goes forth to war.

[10/10 · 28 March 2008]

I love this movie. I don't think I'd put it as my favorite, but it definitely is in the top 10. Everything was superb. Director John Huston, actors Sean Connery, Michael Caine, and Christopher Plummer, the supporting cast, the story, everything.

The story is that Peachy (Caine) has returned to India to tell Rudyard Kipling (Plummer) about his adventure with Danny (Connery). Kipling had earlier met Peachy when Peachy tried to return his watch after stealing it (All three men are Freemasons, so Peachy's theft was taboo). Peachy and Danny have hatched a plot to blackmail a local Rajah, which Kipling turns in to save them from punishment. Later, Peachy and Danny, who are ex-soldiers, ask Kipling to witness a contract between them that they will venture to become kings of Kafiristan (a then mysterious province in current day Afghanistan) rather than stay in India or return to Britian. Before leaving, Kipling gives Danny his watch charm (the masonic square and compasses) for good luck. The rest of the story, is told by Peachy as he recounts the journey he and Danny took to get to Kafiristan and their subsequent attempt to become rulers of that land.

The cast certainly is strong. Some of the supporting cast are unknowns, such as Karroom Ben Bouih as the High Priest (his only film role at the age of 103), or Doghmi Larbi as Ootah, and the relatively unknown Shakira Caine (Mrs. Michael Caine) as Roxanne. Saeed Jaffrey who plays Gurkha Billy Fish is relatively unknown to the United States, but has a very strong acting resume (the first Asian to receive an OBE for services to drama). This is added to by a rich stable of stand-ins who look as close to the real thing as one can get. This adds to the already powerful performances by Connery and Caine.

Director John Huston certainly did a fantastic job on this film. It may not be as well known as "The Maltese Falcon" or "The Treasure of Sierra Madre," but it delivers as powerful of a performance as either of those two films. Huston shows in this that he never lost a step as a director or a story teller (he co-wrote the screenplay).

What I really enjoy about this movie is that it has quite a few masonic overtones. Kipling was a Freemason and certainly put masonic content into all his stories (in this film it is a major plot point). However, this story is enjoyable and poignant regardless of whether you are a Mason.

Fletch (1985)

Charge it to the Underhills.

[9/10 · 25 March 2008]

This is beyond a doubt my favorite Chevy Chase movie. I know some people out there don't really care for Chevy's work, but this movie is not Chevy Chase acting like Clark Griswald. In this movie, Chevy plays a newspaper reporter who is investigating some pretty big crimes. What really makes the film good is that Chevy is funny, but smart at the same time.

The film starts off with Irwin M. "Fletch" Fletcher (Chevy Chase) investigating drug trafficking on the beach in LA. He is picked up by a yuppie called Alan Stanwyk (Tim Matheson). Stanwyk tells Fletch, who Stanwyk thinks is a junkie named Ted Nugent, that he has bone cancer and wants Fletch to kill him so his wife can collect an insurance policy. Through the rest of the movie, Fletch has to find out whether Stanwyk is serious and why the chief of police (Joe Don Baker) wants him to stop his investigation on the drug trafficking.

The reason I like this movie so much is that it is one of the 1980s movies where an actor who was previously only known for comedy is now playing a more serious character. To a large extent, Fletch is to Chevy Chase what Axel Foley is to Eddie Murphy. Like Axel Foley, Fletch is a really funny character, but also shows intelligence and resourcefulness in difficult situations.

Through the movie, Fletch uses a string of aliases and disguises that provide comic relief to a film that could have been a pretty gripping drama. My favorites are Gordon Liddy the airplane mechanic, Mr. Poon from the SEC, and John Cocktoston the tennis player attempting to woo Mrs. Stanwyk (Dana Wheeler-Nicholson) while charging expensive lunches to Mr. and Mrs. Underhill at the exclusive club. Also look out for Gilette (George Wyner), the attorney for the former Mrs. Fletcher who provides the straight man for some pretty funny jokes. Oh, and some unknown actress named Geena Davis playing Larry, one of Fletch's allies against his boss Frank (Richard Libertini) at the newspaper. I would go into more, but there's too much in this movie to shake a stick at.

If you want to see a funny movie with a serious plot, watch Fletch.

From Russia with Love (1963)

Red wine with fish should have told me something.

[10/10 · 17 March 2008]

This movie is the second Bond film released. In my humble opinion, it is the best Bond film.

In this adventure, Bond is sent to recover a Lektor decoding device from defecting Tatiana Romanova who works at the Soviet Counselate in Istanbul. Bond knows that it is a trap, but does not realize SPECTRE rather than SMERSH (the Soviet counter-espionage agency) is behind it. Blofeld's agent Kronsteen (a brilliant chess player) devised the plan and the recently defected Col. Klebb runs the operation. She selected Red Grant to kill 007 and retrieve the Lektor. Along the way, Bond is assisted by Kerim Bey (a Turk working for the British).

The cast in this film is excellent. Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, and Robert Shaw make this film a good one. Shaw is particularly menacing as Grant. The interplay between him and Connery on the train is very memorable and probably the best Bond/villain encounter in the whole Bond series. The other great part about this movie is that the story draws the viewer in. Bond is a little more human (in that he makes mistakes) than in the other films. It also didn't seem to rely on all the gadgets that the later Bond films sometimes employ (although he does have a pretty neat briefcase with sniper rifle).

The other thing that makes this movie good is that it follows the novel. Granted, there was some deviation (there usually is), but the producers kept pretty close to Fleming's book. In addition, Sean Connery may not have been the first choice to play Bond, but his portrayal of Bond is certainly iconic. This film is a show case of not only Connery, but also the James Bond persona in total.

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

The best courtroom drama of all time

[10/10 · 14 March 2008]

This is the greatest court room drama ever made. Generally, I would not make such a bold statement, but this film is fantastic. The best part is that it is based on a true story. John Voelker (pen name Robert Traver) was the defense attorney in the case the book and film "Anatomy of a Murder" is based on. Voelker managed to get a not guilty verdict for a lieutenant in the military accused of killing a saloon keeper based on temporary insanity. This case to this day is folk lore in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

I'll go into the plot briefly (I want you to see this movie for yourself rather than give a detailed account). Paul Biegler (James Stewart) is a former Prosecutor now in private practice. He is hired by a Mrs. Manion (Lee Remick) to defend her husband Lt. Manion (Ben Gazzara) for murder. Lt. Manion shot and killed a bar keeper named Barney Quill who had allegedly raped Mrs. Manion several hours prior to the shooting.

What makes the film work is the interplay between each character. Biegler is in the middle, but constantly has Mrs. Manion, Lt. Manion, Parnell (an old attorney friend), his secretary, the District Attorney and Assistant Attorney General, or Judge to play off of. Stewart does a great job of balancing these conflicting personalities with Biegler's own.

The cast in this movie is superb. James Stewart, Lee Remick, Arthur O'Connell, George C. Scott, Eve Arden, and more. Otto Preminger does a fantastic job of directing an already great production. Voelker (who served on the Michigan Supreme Court) wrote an intricate and legally savvy book, which is followed closely in this film. However, the story shows legal and ethical questions in an easy to understand light. Even though there is some content that only a lawyer could truly appreciate, anyone can understand what is going on and sense the suspense. Add great actors and great direction to an excellent book and you've got a classic. To boot, Duke Ellington performed a great soundtrack for the movie that adds so much atmosphere to the film.

The movie was filmed in Marquette County, Michigan at the courthouse where the actual trial happened. Being a young lawyer practicing in the Upper Peninsula, I someday hope to try a case in that courtroom.

On the humorous side, the door that the judge in the movie opens in the corridor to reveal a law library is actually the men's room.

Monster a Go-Go (1965)

I don't know what to say to describe this.

[1/10 · 14 March 2008]

This movie was etched into my brain several years ago and still remains there to this day. It's like that time you got drunk and decided to get a tattoo, but you got the wrong one and now can't afford to get it removed. It is the ink blot permanently ruining your favorite shirt. I could go on, but I guess I'll try to explain why this movie is such an abomination.

The plot is that an astronaut returns to earth after a space mission as a super tall radioactive killer. Scientists and the military are trying to find him and contain him. That's it. There is one brief "go-go" scene with some kids dancing, but there really is no "a go-go" in this.

You're probably thinking, "sounds bad, but no awful." Well, just watch it. The director ran out of money half way through the production, so Hershall Gordon Lewis (yes, that HG Lewis) bought the rights and finished it four years later. He should have just destroyed the damn thing. The two "halves" of this flick just do not mesh. Since they couldn't get the original actors, there are new characters who you have no idea who they are. The production value makes "Blood Freak" look like a Selznick production and the direction just plain sucked. There are too many errors to shake a stick at. The worst was when they had an actor make a noise to sound like the phone was ringing and left it in the film (yes it is that bad).

Something Weird Video should be ashamed of themselves for putting this on the same DVD with "Psyched by the 4D Witch." Watching one of these movies is enough to cause complete mental and physical collapse, but back to back is downright cruel and unusual.

The Day of the Jackal (1973)

August 1963 was a stormy time for France.

[9/10 · 12 March 2008]

The Day of the Jackal is the fictional story of an assassin hired by the OAS (a French right-wing terrorist group that was active in the 1960s) to kill President Charles de Gaulle. This film was an adaptation of Fredrick Forsyth's novel of the same title.

I've already laid down the basic plot, but I'll elaborate on the story. After a failed attempt on de Gaulle, the leader of the OAS (Col. Bastien-Thiry) is executed and Col. Rodin assumes control. Col. Rodin and the other two top OAS men decide to hire a contract killer who only they know the true identity of to assassinate de Gaulle. The Jackal has one contact in Paris who keeps him informed, but does not know who he is.

The French authorities know that the OAS is planning something and kidnap Rodin's adjunct. Under torture, the adjunct reveals the only thing he knows, the killer's code name; The Jackal. Naturally, after some investigation, French security determines there is a plot to kill de Gaulle and have Police Commissioner Lebel investigate.

This is as deep into the plot as I'll go because I don't want to give anything away.

What makes this story interesting is that French security and OAS know only of his existence and his code name. In addition, the Jackal's disguises and tricks of the trade (for lack of a better term) are fascinating.

The thing that I really enjoy about this movie is the cast. Many fine actors from both Britian and France were used (Michel Lonsdale, Derek Jacobi, and Eric Porter to name several). However, Edward Fox gave probably the finest performance as the Jackal. He's cold, effective, and calculating the very essence of a contract killer.

The movie does not completely follow the book. Some say the movie is awful, some say the movie's good despite the differences. Personally, I am of the latter opinion. Why not find out for yourself?

Either way, it's a lot better than the Bruce Willis version.

Casino Royale (1967)

Not Bond, not funny

[3/10 · 17 September 2007]

I saw this film first when they played it on some James Bond marathon when I was 10. I thought it was somewhat funny (I guess I was pretty easy to amuse as a child). A week ago it was on again, and I figured I'd give it another viewing. For me, it turned into one of those "why did I like this?" moments.

To begin with, the idea of making a James Bond spoof in the late Sixties was not a bad one. Secondly, they had a great cast (David Niven, Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, Orson Welles, Woody Allen, etc.). However, this movie just didn't come together. Maybe it is because the director's chair was the proverbial revolving door. Maybe it was because Sellers wanted to play the straight man and wasn't his zany self. Or maybe it is because the jokes were the usual schlock that one would expect from a low budget vaudeville comedy act. I think it was all of the above.

Here's the plot kiddies. Sir James Bond (Niven) is summoned out of retirement to stop the killing of agents whose identities have been sold out. This "Bond" is the typical English Gentleman who shuns the excesses that we all know and love Fleming's James Bond for. His plan is to recruit spies and give them all the name James Bond and number 007 (this is where things get confusing and not very funny). Sellers plays a card pro who is recruited (yes they named him James Bond) to play against Le Chiffre (Welles) and bankrupt him thus exposing his embezzlement from SMERSH. Sellers is aided by Vesper Lynd (Andress). Also, there's Woody Allen (Jimmy Bond, Niven's nephew) who provides some yuks. There are also quite a few cameos from big name stars (John Huston, George Raft, William Holden, to name a few).

The big joke in this thing (everyone being James Bond) really fell short of the funny mark. As a matter of fact, all the jokes land short of humor. I think this was the main failure of this movie. All in all it had a lot of potential, but just wasn't executed well.

Queen of Blood (1966)

John Saxon battles the alien undead, or not

[3/10 · 8 February 2007]

This flick is pretty low budget and a rip off of most 1950s alien plots (you know, humans in the future go to Mars and encounter an evil alien presence). However, it seems to be an homage to the older low budget sci-fi thrillers. It doesn't get campy (this could be considered a fault if looking for something to crack jokes at), but is obviously cheap.

Here's the plot gang, in the year 1990 humans receive an alien signal from Mars and send a crew to investigate. They experience difficulties and have to make an emergency landing (of course) leaving them stranded on Mars near an alien space craft. Brenner (John Saxon) and his buddy convince Dr. Farraday (Rathbone wondering what happened to his career) to send them in a rescue ship to an orbiting moon where they can get to their marooned colleagues. On this moon, Saxon and friend locate a living alien being. To make a long story short, Saxon leaves his buddy on the moon and links up with the marooned humans and brings alien queen with him. She ends up sucking the blood out of the captain (Brockman) and the young crewman (Dennis Hopper trying to break out of crappy roles) leaving Saxon and his love interest (Judi Meredith) to cope with the queen of the alien undead.

I won't give the ending away, but you can probably figure it out.

The film wasn't that good, but the actors and actresses do a good job. I'd definitely have to say it's good if you're in the mood for a low budget 60s sci-fi film.

2001 Maniacs (2005)

The South kind of rises again

[5/10 · 14 December 2006]

As a big fan of the HG Lewis "Blood" trilogy, my heart leaped for joy when it saw this title. It didn't hurt that Robert Englund was starring in it and that it looked to have more gore than the original. I thought this would be an updated sequel that would be purposely campy but still deliver on the gore (much like Blood Feast 2). I was rather disappointed. The gore was pretty good, but it didn't have the same sense of humor that "2000 Maniacs" did. It also seemed to be more of a remake than an homage to the original.

The plot is pretty much the same as 2000, but throw in an interracial couple, a bi-sexual guy, and college kids. These folks are lured into an antiquated southern town for a festival, which has very dark undertones (I think anyone can figure this out pretty easily). Englund plays the mayor/civic leader/pater familias/ whatever of the back water southern community. Anyone who has seen the original should already know who will get the chop and when. There is a small twist at the end (in addition to the same twist as was in 2000 Maniacs), but it's pretty predictable.

I didn't think this was a bad movie. Some of the gore was pretty good, and there was decent acting (Englund is always a stable horror actor). However, I think that what really let me down is that I expected the same tongue-in-cheek humor that the original had. I don't think that HG Lewis had anything to do with the production and it shows. Not to say that it's bad, it's just doesn't deliver on the fun aspect as much as one would have expected.

The Black Dahlia (2006)

When will Elizabeth Short's murder get some good press?

[4/10 · 28 September 2006]

Since I was a child, I have loved film noir. I think it started when my parents made me watch "The Maltese Falcon" at age 5. Needless to say, I have jumped at just about every detective film set in the 1930s, 40s, or early 50s. I even like the neo-noir stuff. When I saw that this film was coming out I almost jumped through the roof. It looked like it had everything I like. There was a true unsolved murder, it is a noir-esquire film, and even the cast looked fantastic. However, for some reason this falls far short of the mark.

The story revolves around two detectives (Josh Hartnett and Aaron Eckhart) who have been assigned together. The story is told through Bucky Bleichert's (Hartnett) narrative in true noir fashion. Blanchard (Eckhart) and his live in girlfriend, Kay Lake (Scarlett Johansson) take Bucky in, but it becomes apparent to him that they are hiding some dark secret (get used to having dark secrets fly around like kung fu fighters in a John Woo film cause this movie's got a lot of them). Bucky and Blanchard begin investigating the murder of Elizabeth Short, nicknamed the black dahlia by the press, (Mia Kirshner) and Blanchard becomes obsessed with finding the killer. Bucky's investigation leads him to a dead ringer for the dead girl, Madeleine Linscott (Hilary Swank), who has her own secrets. Bucky and Madeleine start having an affair (he discovered her at a lesbian nightclub). This is just a bare bones version of what is happening. If I were to go into the rest, I could be here longer than it would take to watch the film.

I think one problem with this movie is that it is going in too many directions at once. Granted, noir films often have multiple plots, but this one seems to have had too many. I think it may have been manageable if it weren't for the fact that the thing didn't seem to be that well directed. The actors and actresses, to their credit, do a good job, but something is still missing. The production value is high, but there are fatal flaws. The Dahlia murder is in the movie, but with all the other goings on it seems to be more of a footnote than the essential string holding it together. In addition, I don't think that this film was really the proper style for Brian DePalma. Not to pass judgment on his talents as a director, but there is something about the direction in this film that just doesn't feel right. Again, this probably goes back to the fact that the plot is tough to find. It seems like they got too wrapped up in the emotion and forgot the story. If you were going for "Chinatown", you got "The Two Jakes."

It's really a shame that this production didn't work out that well because I think it had quite a bit going for it.

If you want neo-noir, watch "L.A. Confidential" or "Chinatown."

The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974)

It was kind of a mess.

[5/10 · 9 May 2006]

I was expecting something a lot worse than what I got. Not to say that this film was that good, but I expected something a little cheesier. First off, it looks like Hammer wanted to capitalize on the growing popularity of martial arts films but keep to their monster movie roots. This is acceptable because I know that Hammer was starting to suffer because their previous formula of making Gothic horror films was not as lucrative as it had been in the 1950s.

Professor Van Helsing travels to China to teach about vampires at a university. He gets roundly rejected by the faculty, but a young student tells him that one of the legends that Van Helsing referred to did occur. The student enlists Van Helsing to help him and his seven brothers and sister defeat the vampires. Oh, and earlier a Chinese priest who worshiped the vampires went to Transylvania and was taken over by Count Dracula. He went back to China to make the vampire group strong again.

The plot obviously suffers because they're combining two kinds of films that don't always match up. There was some decent production value and the actors and actresses were all very professional. However, the film suffered because of the way that these two types of film were mixed. It tries to be serious and deliver on the martial arts action, but at the same time it gets campy in places and seems to almost parody itself. The problem is that it seems like they were trying too hard to make a hit.

Caligula (1979)

What happened? It had so much promise.

[3/10 · 21 April 2006]

Caligula is an example of a film that was trying to go in too many different directions and ended up tearing itself apart. Anyone who looks at it on paper should realize that it does have some very strong points. The basic story was written by Gore Vidal. The cast is superb (Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole, John Gielgud, and Helen Mirren, just to name a few). The scenery, sets, and costumes are excellent and may be as close to authentic as one will find. However, this film fails because it had too many clashing personalities working on it behind the scenes. Gore Vidal left because he didn't like the way Tinto Brass (director) was going with the script. Brass left because he was not allowed to edit the film. O'Toole and Gielgud were unaware that hardcore sex was going to be in the film (otherwise they wouldn't have done it) and McDowell has since commented on what a mess it is. It seems that producer Bob Guccione was more concerned with filming hardcore sex scenes to show the debauchery of ancient Rome than with making an accurate or entertaining film.

The plot is basically that of the life of Emperor Gaius Julius Caeser Augustus Germanicus (Caligula was his nickname). It starts at the end of the reign of Tiberius, who ended up giving Caligula half of his estate to be shared with Tiberius' grandson Gemellus. Caligula either goes power mad, or actually insane, history isn't quite sure which, and begins behaving in very bizarre ways. Caligula slept with his sister Drusilla, married a prostitute, had numerous senators executed for questionable reasons, declared himself a god, and had his army pick up sea shells as spoils of war.

Most of Caligula's "legacy" is conveyed in the film, but the film itself seems to be more of an excuse to make a high class porn film than an actual study into the life of the emperor. In addition, the film makers made some large historical errors.

First, they have everyone calling him Caligula. Caligula hated his nickname and was not afraid to get rid of anyone who he didn't like, so anyone calling him this to his face probably would have been executed.

Second, they have some kind of large machine that looks like a house but moves slowly to decapitate its victims. There's no evidence anywhere in history that such a machine was developed in ancient Rome.

Third, Praetorain Cassius Chaerea did strike the first blow in the assassination of Caligula. However, it was not done in the palace but rather a tunnel leading from the stadium where he was watching gladiatorial games. Chaerea also had several accomplices who were of the senatorial class, and the assassins fled shortly there after because Caligula's guards were going to either kill or arrest them for the slaying. Similarly, Chaerea took no part in the crowning of Claudius as emperor, Chaerea wanted to kill him.

These are just a few errors, I'm sure I could find more if I sat down and watched the film again. I really have no urge to because it is a mess. This film could have been great, but it ended up being extremely disappointing.

If you want to learn about the early Roman emperors watch "I, Claudius." If you want to see hardcore sex, rent a porn.

Spun (2002)

That's gotta hurt.

[8/10 · 18 April 2006]

Spun is all about methamphetamine addicts and their supplier (the Cook). The film is an incredible mix of humor and desperation showing addicts losing everything to get their fix. All of the characters are at the lowest rung of society whether they realize it or not, but somehow the movie finds humor in a place that most would describe as hell.

Ross (Jason Schwartzman) is a meth addict whose girlfriend has left him. His connection, Spider Mike (John Leguizamo), keeps losing the supplies that he gets from the Cook (Mickey Rourke). Among Spider's usual gang of idiots includes his significant other, the annoying Cookie (Mena Suvari) and Frisbee (Patrick Fugit) who seem to just want to hang around and get high. On one visit, the Cook's girlfriend, Nikki (Brittany Murphy) recruits Ross to take care of the Cook's transportation needs (Ross seems to be the only one of them who owns a car). Frisbee gets busted by the cops and is set up as an informant to get Spider and hopefully someone further up the chain.

The film is what I assume being on meth is like (I've never done it and have no urge to do it), it's fast paced at times, but seems to be intentionally slow at others. The director used quite a few clips of things that already happened, hallucinations and animation to show what is going on. Sometimes directors go overboard with these techniques, but here it really works. You feel like these things are happening in the characters' heads and that they're on a roller-coaster. What really makes this film work is the cast. This is definitely an ensemble. In addition to the actors I already mentioned; Deborah Harry plays Ross' lesbian neighbor, Rob Halford of Judas Priest plays the porn shop clerk, and Billy Corgan plays a doctor. Eric Roberts makes an appearance as the Man (the Cook's boss), and Pete Stormare and Alexis Arquette as a pair of cops who want to bust the meth ring.

I really enjoyed this film, but it is a trip. After watching it, you feel strung out.

Incident at Loch Ness (2004)

An interesting and funny mockumentary

[7/10 · 17 April 2006]

I first rented this film because I am a fan of Werner Herzog and had a suspicion that this was going to be a mockumentary. I guess that this kind of peaked my curiosity because Herzog seems to be such an unlikely person to be involved in a project like this. Herzog always seemed to be a very serious director and film maker. For me this is what really makes this film interesting. Everybody knows the stereotype of the German director; stern, resolute and at times tyrannical. I don't think that Herzog at any time fitted this stereotype, but he's always came of to me as being a serious film maker. This was different.

The story is that Herzog is brought on a production by Zak Penn. The project is to make a documentary about the Loch Ness Monster. They actually got some pretty qualified people to be involved in it. At first it seems to be really serious. However, things get goofy as Penn tries to make a commercial production out of the endeavor. He brings in a crack pot scientist and a former Playmate who is supposed to be an expert on sonar (the fact that she was wearing an American Flag bikini while setting a sonar sensor in the water should give everyone a hint as to why she was there). Tension builds between Herzog and Penn because of the attempts to turn the documentary into some Hollywood production. The crew begins to realize that the Loch Ness Monster may be real after strange things begin happening to the boat during the production.

All in all, it's pretty funny. Herzog did a good job (even though he was playing himself) and the others were pretty believable too. At times, the jokes seemed a little too set up. At one point, Penn points a flare gun at Herzog's head and orders him to film a fake monster (anyone who has heard about the rumor that Herzog did this to Klaus Kinski should realize that this was too perfect to not have been set up). Penn also makes a joke about dragging a boat over a mountain (Fitzcarraldo joke). They intentionally misspelled expedition (expeditition) on the back of their jump suits for God's sake. At other times, it is much more subtle. The production value had to have been at least decent, even though it is intended to be a B campy movie. If you take it seriously, you're not going to like it.

Oh, and check out the commentary on the DVD. If you didn't believe that this was a fake before, you'll get it after the commentary.

The Devil Bat (1940)

I know, we'll use Lugosi

[6/10 · 11 April 2006]

Bela Lugosi stars in this piece of 40s horror cinema. At times the acting is pretty hammy (the guy playing the photographer got a little annoying as did the reporter) and the budget had to have been really low. However, it is kind of fun to watch. Lugosi gives a good performance (he's pretty much the glue holding this picture together) and the story isn't that bad.

Lugosi is Dr. Caruthers who is working for a cosmetic company. For years the company (owned by two families) has been making millions from his formulas but only giving him a stipends as their chemist. Caruthers hatches a diabolical scheme to get rid of the family members using a giant mutant bat that goes crazy over a curious sent that he discovered in Tibet (it seems that every thing that was mystic in the 40s came from somewhere in the Himilayas or central Asia). He uses this scent in a shaving lotion that he has his unfortunate victims test. After the first murder, a Chicago news paper dispatches a reporter and photographer to cover the story. From there, the reporter develops a love interest with the daughter of the cosmetic magnate.

It's pretty easy to follow, and has all the predictable 1940s plot turns. There's a lot of problems that are pretty easy to forgive in the film because it was made in the 1940s and on a very limited budget. All in All, Lugosi fans are the real winners in this one. He gives a solid performance. It's too bad that his career didn't go very far after this one.

The Killer Shrews (1959)

Killer doggies dressed in rags and some boredom.

[3/10 · 6 April 2006]

Ray Kellogg made some pretty cheesy monster films in his collaboration with Ken Curtis. Granted, Kellogg and Curtis went on to do some better projects, but this film and Giant Gila Monster were pretty hammy. I wouldn't say it's the worst that I've seen, but it's definitely not good. The acting was OK (although at times the actors were inaudible). The budget as probably next to nothing and it shows. The shrews are either puppets or dogs dressed up to look like shrews. To add to this, they use the same damn "trapped on an island with killer mutants" plot that was in every other movie at that time.

Captain Sherman (James Best) and his trusty first mate are delivering supplies to a doctor on a remote island. The doctor, his daughter, two laboratory assistants (one engaged to his daughter) and a butler. They've also got a problem with giant shrews on the island. Eventually, the daughter and scientist start to tell the captain about what is going on, but not after the first mate becomes the shrews' dinner. The pace doesn't start to pick up for a while. For about five or six scenes the plot seems to revolve around the daughters' fiancée being jealous of the good captain and drinking heavily. As a matter of fact, the entire cast seems to have a weakness for the liquor (I guess if you're stranded in the middle of nowhere you've got to do something). The ending wasn't that much of a shock or deviation from the usual monster movie tripe.

I wouldn't say that this film is a waste of time though. It's bad, but definitely fits into the so bad it's good category. Besides, it was made in the 50s, so there has to be a certain amount of forgiveness for the cheesiness.

Fangs of the Living Dead (1969)

Yawn.

[2/10 · 5 April 2006]

In the late 60s into the 70s, Anita Ekberg's career really took a nose dive. She was still very beautiful and had talent, but she ended up playing in Z-grade exploitation fare like this film. I don't like this movie. I can't explain why, but it just sucks. Usually, I enjoy haphazardly put together vampire flicks with attractive women and overacting. However, this one is just kind of pathetic.

Ekberg inherits a castle from her dead mother who was of aristocratic stock. She goes to see the castle and her uncle (who as luck would have it, is the undead). She is warned numerous times by the usual scared villagers that there's a curse on her family (typical vampire movie plot fodder). Her uncle ends up trying to get her to become a vampire so she can fulfill her destiny. Her fiancée and his idiot friend come in from Rome to try to talk to her, but get the usual cold shoulder. They have to work with a local doctor to try and save her.

It seemed like they tried to be campy, but really failed. The plot (as previously outlined) was really weak and they tried to throw in a twist at the end that was totally unnecessary. If they were trying to build suspense, they royally screwed up.

Don't waste your time.

I, Claudius (1976)

Fantastic production about the early Roman Emperors

[10/10 · 5 April 2006]

I first read the novels "I, Claudius" and "Claudius the God" when I was a sophomore in college. I instantly fell in love with them and it sparked my interest in Roman history. Naturally, I jumped at the chance to watch this mini series based on the books shortly thereafter. Eventually, I decided to buy it, and it still remains one of my favorite DVD box sets.

In the mini series there are some minor anachronisms and some events are out of sequence, but it still captures the political intrigue of the imperial family in ancient Rome. I'm not going to go into the story more than this because it gets very complicated and it is very long.

What really made this series stick out was the cast. Sir Derek Jacobi leads the cast as Claudius. Most of the story is told through his eyes as he writes a history of his experiences with the imperial family and some incidents that happened prior to Claudius' birth. Some other cast members include Brian Blessed as Augustus, Sian Phillips as Livia (Augustus' wife, and Claudius' grandmother), George Baker as Tiberius, John Hurt as Caligula, and Patrick Stewart as Sejanus to name a few. Fans of British cinema will be able to pick out even more familiar faces (I can't really go into all of the cast because there are so many excellent actors and actresses in this).

What really makes the story work is the interplay between the characters and the almost constant intrigue that goes on around the Roman political scene. The best part of it is that what happens is for the most part true or at least based on the writings of historians of the time. I recommend this highly to anyone who is interested in learning about Roman history and wants to get their feet wet.

On a somewhat amusing side note, Patrick Stewart (with hair) makes out with Magenta from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

Last Stop on the Night Train (1975)

Last House on the Left was a better rip-off of Virgin Spring

[2/10 · 4 April 2006]

Anyone who has seen Last House on the Left doesn't need to bother with this film. LHOTL was taken (admittedly) from Ingmar Bergman's film Virgin Spring.

The plot in that film was an old Swedish folk legend about a girl who is raped and killed by three highwaymen. The highwaymen then end up having to stay at the girl's parents' place. The parents notice that one of the murderers has a personal effect of their daughter's, and the father enacts his revenge on them for the murder.

Night Train Murders was taken from LHOTL (so they're both really ripping off the Swedes). LHOTL does it much better and keeps it relatively artistic. I didn't like this film that much. Here, they keep the two girl formula used in Last House, but has them traveling on a night train from Munich to Italy to visit one girl's parents for Christmas. The killers are two street thugs and a sadistic woman that they hook up with on the train. The girls switch trains in Austria and so do these folks. If you've seen Virgin Spring or Last House, you know what will happen.

It seems to try to keep the shock value up, but doesn't deliver highly on the watchability. The first half is rather boring (it tries to set up what is going on, but is really more trouble than it's worth). Granted, there is some sadism, sex and violence, but it's not that shocking or really necessary. Last House was considered to be very shocking when it came out. This film seemed to be playing off of that success and throw in some more shocking things. This formula didn't make it good, or even enjoyable. It seems like they were just shocking to be shocking.

Don't waste your time.

Night of the Bloody Apes (1969)

Where were the other Apes?

[3/10 · 4 April 2006]

This film was a Mexican made horror film from the late 60s. It's not that good, but really not so bad either. There is plenty of schlock and it is padded pretty heavily with nudity and violence, but it had a plot and at least tried to keep to it (even if the plot was the same damn Frankenstein inspired "don't tamper in God's domain" b-movie fare). There was some padding mixed in with the female wrestling, but it was made in Mexico and wrestling does seem to be popular in Mexico.

The plot is that a doctor wants to save his son, who is dying from leukemia. The other doctors have given no hope for the poor guy, but dad has the idea of transplanting a gorilla's heart for his son's to save his life (I don't know, I'm a lawyer not a doctor). The transplant works, but sonny-boy ends up becoming a man-ape who terrorizes nude women and kills anyone who gets in his path. There's also a subplot involving a cop and his girlfriend who is a wrestler (this really didn't add too much, but if they wanted to throw in some masked female wrestlers here's a good reason to do so).

The film was kind of cheap, but not too bad for a b-movie of the day. The plot was basically just recycled and there were a few things that weren't tied in that well. However, this film is kind of fun in its own way (I don't know why, maybe because it's a Mexican horror film and sticks out in my normal bad movie diet). I guess it may be because it's a mix and mash of some very weird things.

Watch it if you like cheesy foreign films, nudity, and female wrestlers.

The Brain from Planet Arous (1957)

John Agar solidifies his place in B-movie land.

[2/10 · 3 April 2006]

The 1950s was a great era for making low budget monster movies in California. All you needed was a camera, a cheap monster, and Bronson Canyon, and boom, you've got a monster movie. This film is no exception. It definitely has a place in there with "Teenagers from Outer Space," and "Robot Monster," but isn't quite so bad. Don't get me wrong it delivers the cheese, but somehow it isn't quite as bad, it's just kind of boring.

John Agar plays a nuclear scientist who works too much. He and his assistant discover radiation emitting from a mountain in the middle of nowhere and go out to investigate. They end up finding a brain from outer space that uses Agar as a host and kills his dorky assistant. The brain takes a hankering to Agar's fiancée and tries to woo her by making him act like an even bigger idiot than he already was. The alien brain has the power to unleash atomic explosions using Agar's eyes. The brain has a scheme to take over the world (every evil alien brain does) by blackmailing the governments of the world. Oh, and there's a good brain from the same planet that comes to help the fiancée and her father stop the bad brain by living in the family dog (I kid you not).

The special effects weren't that good (you could see the wire when the brain was "floating") and the special effect with Agar's eyes was pretty lame, but they needed to do something to show the change. The acting was alright (nothing to write home about) and the plot was the same old space monster thing.

If you need to see some cheesy space monster movie, this isn't that great.

Glen or Glenda (1953)

Puppie dogs' tails and big fat snails.

[3/10 · 29 March 2006]

As many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer/producer/director/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.

The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).

All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the "it's so bad, it's good" feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing.

Satan's Sadists (1969)

Sadistic bastards.

[4/10 · 29 March 2006]

This film is a kind of guilty pleasure of mine. It's not that good, but it definitely delivers on the drive-in schlock that made the late 60s and early 70s exploitation films fun. The cast was mostly unknown at the time (most of them still are) with the exception of Russ Tamblyn (still can't get plum roles like in West Side Story). I wouldn't say that it's a true biker film, but it's still pretty wild.

The Sadists stop at a gas station/diner in the middle of nowhere in Death Valley. At this diner there is the old man who runs it, a waitress, a middle age couple on vacation, and an ex-marine who is traveling to California. The gang decides to have a little fun at the diner, but things go sour when the old man tells them to leave. They take it badly and go on to kill everyone except the marine and waitress. The marine kills two of the gang, and then he and the waitress escape into the desert. Of course, the gang chases them down because they don't want any witnesses.

The acting wasn't great, but it sufficed for a low budget biker film. The bikers, of course, were stereotypes of the typical members of biker gangs at the time. There's the sadistic leader (Tamblyn), the acid freak (cleaverly nicknamed acid, those zany bikers), the tough guy, the sex fiend, and leader's strung out girlfriend. Most of these characters were pretty one dimensional, but you really don't need to know much more about them anyway. The plot of the film keeps moving at a decent pace, so I can't find too much of a problem with it. Of course there are some psychedelic scenes (it was the 60s after all) and some interesting deaths. Overall, it wasn't great, but it suffices as an exploitation film and if you get into it it is kind of fun.

MST3K fans look out for the teacher in "Angel's Revenge" as the waitress, and Acid (Greydon Clark, the director of "Angel's Revenge").

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

In space, no one can hear you groan.

[3/10 · 29 March 2006]

Everyone who grew up in the 80s remembers these franchises (whether you loved them or not is a different story). I think that at one time or another every kid who saw these movies thought, "man, it would be cool to put the aliens against a predator." In fact, there were comic books, video games, etc. about what would happen. Naturally, when I heard they were making this film the child inside me though "that's gonna be awesome." However, when I saw it the adult in me (also the b-movie critic in me) said, "geez that's awful." It's not that it was poorly made (the special effects were very good), it's just that the story was kind of dumb and it was rather dull.

The plot is that a Weyland Company (the company from the Alien series) satellite finds a heat signature in Anartica and sends a crew to investigate. They know that there's an ancient pyramid buried under the ice, but don't realize that it's an ancient hunting ground for the predators. The predators used the pyramids to hatch aliens (using human hosts, you know, the chest bursters) and hunt the aliens. Essentially, it was a giant game ranch for the intergalactic nimrods. Of course, all hell breaks loose and the crew is either mowed down by the predators or become hosts for more aliens. I won't give away the ending, but will say that it is kind of lame and somewhat predictable.

The acting was alright, as was the direction and special effects. I think that my major criticism is that the whole thing is that their execution of the plot was lacking. All the twists were somewhat predictable and it seems that most of the shock value is decreased because if you've seen the other movies you know what is going to happen. It's not that they didn't try or have some good ideas, but it just wasn't that great of an idea.