Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Punchline (1988)
4/10
I wanted to like this
15 January 2008
It's hard to envision a time in Tom Hanks' career where he had roles in 5 critically panned, as well as commercially dismal films. While I find Joe Versus the Volcano to be a genuinely remarkable and unique film, and Turner and Hooch to be a K-9 ripoff that is a lot more fun than any James Belushi vehicle, Punchline falls flat in too many ways to even get an A for effort.

Hanks is woefully miscast as a guy who's supposed to come off as a selfish jerk (it doesn't help that I can't help but imagine Tom asking viewers to donate to a WWII veterans memorial). When he borders on the icy cold determination of someone who believes they are bound for greatness but are relegated to mentor and also-ran, the movie and Hanks hint at greatness. But ultimately the role should have gone to someone more adept at playing selfish jerks: I imagine a young Kevin Spacey or a world-wearied Richard Belzer.

The real problem is the utter flatness of Sally Field's crowd-winning "jokes." Was I the only one groaning in horror at her Z-rate, HBO late-night schtick? The idea that she's a stunning new talent in the cutthroat world of 80s stand-up is unthinkable (I can't remember what documentary it was, but I saw an excellent collection of comedians talking about the desperate need to be the "next Eddie Murphy" and later the "next Roseanne/Seinfeld"). That's where the movie fails: it suggests that Hanks is just too unrelentingly cruel and embittered to attain stardom, while Fields good-natured "hilarious" insights into real-world pressures make her a guaranteed crowd-pleaser. Neither fully embody their roles convincingly, and the writer just doesn't know good comedy.

Jay Mohr described the creative nadir in comedy: when the typical comedian was bland guys sporting a neon blazer, standing in front of brick walls blurting out tired clichés like "you ladies know what I'm talking about." It's obvious that David Seltzer (writer of the gut-busting Omen series and The Other Side of the Mountain) thinks the world of these garden variety hacks, and without convincing leads, remarkably funny stand-up routines, or the proper balance of convincing drama and humor, the movie just falls flat in every way. I'm giving it a four based on the gleam of promise in Hanks' otherwise unconvincing turn and the faint hope that he could actually portray a genuinely unlikable character in the future (though I doubt it considering a similar misstep with Bonfire of the Vanities and his lovable hit-man in Road to Perdition).
17 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Halloween (2007)
7/10
The Best Possible Vision of an Inevitable Remake (with a few missteps)
31 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
That Halloween would be remade was an inevitability. With the success of the Texas Chainsaw and Hills Have Eyes reboots, the grandaddy of all slashers was bound for revival. That being said, Rob Zombie's love of the original is what saves this from the pitfalls of the aforementioned films, i.e. going for "music video" editing on TCM (abandoning the grainy, voyeuristic feel of the original) and sheer brutal violence in Hills (nowhere to be found is the family vs. family story that made Craven's story a classic).

Fans of Jamie Lee Curtis' turn as Laurie Strode in Pts. 1, 2, 7, or 8 (though if there are any real fans of 7 or 8 I have yet to meet them) be warned: this is definitely a Michael-centric story. As a longtime fan, I found this to be appropriate. The dynamic established in the first film and subsequent sequels was much more Loomis-Michael than anything else. And while McDowell is not as iconic as the late, great Donald Pleasance, finally seeing those mysterious years hinted at in the original series is not disappointing, like the Star Wars prequels, but a true treat for fans of the franchise. While some is left to the imagination (Loomis' failed relationships and being ostracized for investing so heavily in Michael), Loomis, merely a harbinger of doom in the original series, becomes more tortured and human than ever. Kudos to this addition.

Now onto the biggest plus for this re-imagining: Daeg Faerch and Tyler Mane. The man and boy behind the monster will be forces to be reckoned with in genre film-making. While Faerch overacts a bit when confronting the school principal, his believable portrayal of hard material carries the first act. And when Michael reaches the point of no return (in a predictable but nonetheless jarring scene), his transformation is shocking. As for Mane, he is to Michael what Kane Hodder is to Jason: the definitive version. Some fans are upset at the 6'10" build of this new incarnation, but his size transforms Michael into a force of nature, rather than a supernatural boogeyman. He can take punishment simply because he is a killing machine, surviving on the will to destroy. And Mane's natural progression of the character established in the first half is noticeable: he is still fascinated by the violence he inflicts, perhaps repulsed but compelled to destroy nonetheless.

The supporting cast is great. The teenage trio is believable (if you don't think so, try driving your younger sister and her friends somewhere and just listening in on their conversations), the cameos are appropriate and add to the film, and the violence is shocking but not overdone. Zombie abandons the relatively slick look of Carpenter's original (no steadicam here) and adds his exploitation-influenced style, without going overboard on grainy pseudo-artistic noodling. Still, Zombie is finding his own voice as a director, and the jarring hillbilly/dysfunctional-family-breeds-soulless-killer first act can be overly reminiscent of The Devil's Rejects, which aside from some blatant CGI violence is a flawless exploitation film.

*SPOILER ALERT* The sometimes inappropriate retro soundtrack is distracting, specifically a bizarre juxtaposition of young Michael and his mother set to Love Hurts, as well as Michael's first scenes as an adult outside of the sanitarium, in which Rush's classic "Tom Sawyer" blasts through a truck stop. At least it wasn't more Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Many fanboy critics will likely lambaste Zombie for one of 3 things: 1) It is too much of a Zombie film in the first half. 2) It is a predictable retread in the 2nd half. 3) Michael is a psycho killer, NOT a boogeyman, but how does he manage to find Laurie?

What a conundrum for Zombie. While he seems to have constrained himself to making a fairly faithful remake in the second half, he does buck expectation by making Michael human, and perhaps a bit superhuman. He is driven to kill when stabbed and shot, and he manages to find long lost sister Laurie by sheer instinct. Okay, so he is STILL a bit of a boogeyman, but I was able to suspend my disbelief on this point. *END SPOILERS*

The movie is not perfect, but not the soulless retread fans could have received (TCM and the execrable TCM: the Beginning). For this longtime fan of the series, it's nice to know someone who loves Michael Myers was able to take the reigns as director and show that love on screen.
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Surprised? Certainly. Astounded? Absolutely
23 July 2005
The Devil's Rejects hit me like a sucker punch. Being a fan of 70s horror in general, I was a big fan of House of 1000 Corpses when it came out. For all the major bashing it took for its campiness, borrowing from other sources, and pseudo-art house aspirations, I found it to be enjoyable, simple horror that didn't take the genre TOO seriously, without being mean spirited. When I sat down in the theater for The Devil's Rejects, I wasn't really prepared for the genius bit of cinema Rob Zombie created. While the touches of camp humor and over the top violence linger, the film itself was beautiful, multi-layered, and unique.

While Corpses set up the deranged Firefly family as a stock group of serial killers, straight out of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, TDR refined the characters, making for a movie that was much more realistic. Sheri Moon drops the annoying cackle this time around, in favor of sly deviousness and frantic bloodlust as Baby. Sid Haig as Captain Spaulding becomes the villain everyone suspected he was in Corpses, while providing most of the movie's comic relief. But it is Bill Mosely who is the true standout as Otis Driftwood. While the Otis of the previous installment is terrifying at times, many of his mannerisms and lines are derivative of Charles Manson, pushing the boundaries from crazy to just plain funny (the lines about "scooping ice cream for s**theel friends" still makes me crack up). This humor is mostly gone from Otis. He is dark, deranged, and murderous, but the love and protection he offers to his "family" truly challenged me as a viewer, and awed me to Mosely's subtle and amazing performance. Granted, he still has a few great, hilarious lines, specifically one referencing that OTHER madman in theaters right now, Willy Wonka.

Aside from the Firefly clan, the supporting cast is terrific. William Forsythe is powerful and chilling as the sheriff driven by his brother's murder to enact revenge just as grisly as the Fireflys' crimes. The gang from "Banjo & Sullivan" are utterly believable and help create some of the film's most haunting moments. Ken Foree is a delight to genre fans who will recognize him as the young cop in the original Dawn of the Dead, here portraying a struggling pimp with ties to Captain Spaulding. Danny Trejo and Diamond Dallas Page provide some truly sleazy moments as the Unholy Two, bounty hunters who are just as amoral as their prey. A truly stellar ensemble cast indeed.

Rob Zombie nearly upstages this cast, however, with a script and style as visceral as the grittiest of 70s slasher originals (Last House on the Left, the Hills Have Eyes, and Texas Chainsaw all come to mind). Make no mistake, the Firefly family is vicious, unrepentant, and probably deserve the worst punishments Sheriff Wydell has in mind. They are rapists, killers, and sadists; in short, they are the darkest heart of America, and humanity itself. Why then do we pull for them? Why yearn for their escape? This is what puzzled and confused me, challenged me to think, and in short why I left the Devil's Rejects speechless. While some complained that it was not really scary, I found it truly frightening; that Rob Zombie could give a glimpse into the darkest acts of human depravity and still find some kinship with the perpetrators of such evil scared me. Unlike the over the top killers of House... this Firefly clan has bonds as strong as any family, and scant remnants of redemption beneath layers of evil.

Visually, the film is stunning. Stark without being clichéd, Zombie pulls no punches and delivers a haunting vision of the heart of America. While some have complained it is "not a real horror film," Zombie's vision is more frightening than any pilfered Americanized Japanese horrors of the past few years. Cannot come more highly recommended from a fan of the genre. If you're prepared to take a chance and be repulsed and drawn in to a world of depravity, see the Devil's Rejects.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Birth (2004)
2/10
I guess I have no taste...
8 July 2005
Because the makers of Birth obviously think it is the epitome of "high art." After viewing this film, I felt not only disappointed, but insulted. A condescending, contrived, and elitist piece of drivel, I had to rent a brainless movie that at least knows it is brainless ("Cursed") to even out my system.

The plot of Birth focuses on Anna (Nicole Kidman), an upper class widower who is finally remarrying after ten years of grieving for her dead husband Sean. When a 10 year old boy also named Sean(Cameron Bright) appears claiming to be her dead husband, Anna is torn between what is right and taking a chance to be with her lost husband.

What starts as an interesting premise is bogged down in self-conscious direction and wasted talent. With a cast like Nicole Kidman, Lauren Bacall and the oddly effective Danny Huston as Anna's gradually unhinging fiancé, I thought I was in for a cinematic treat. However, the supporting cast is utterly wasted, with fourth-billed Anne Heche relegated to 10 minutes on screen. Nicole Kidman would be heart-wrenching and effective if only she wasn't such a hapless victim. The sensibilities of this film are utterly Victorian, with Anna as a hopeless wreck, in being defined by the men of her life. Kudos to the efforts of the actors, but a bad script makes for a bad film.

As for the direction, Jonathan Glazer and company spends a painful amount of time ponderously focusing on minutia while bombastic orchestral music plays in the background. This type of pseudo-intellectualism typifies the film. In a film that is ultimately about nothing, every detail is elevated to mean absolutely everything. Yes, a simple gesture can capture a character, but an extreme closeup on Anna for a full minute does not stir empathy, but intolerance: not towards the character, but the director for being so self-indulgent.

Note: The elements of pedophilia within the film are no more than extensions of the said "art" of the film. It did not offend me in the text of the story, but its use: as a shock tactic in a bland, condescending movie.

That all said, give me a crappy film made with HEART, not trying to impress me with elitist sensibilities and depressing malaise for the sake of being artistic. Avoid this trash.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Pretty freakin lame
31 March 2005
I recently had to watch this film for a "mass media/culture" class in college, and I have to say it was pretty bad. While Schumacher is not one of my favorite directors, I did not expect the trite, preachy piece of crap which this movie turned out to be. Tomlin, Grodin, and Beatty do their best to follow a god-awful script, which beats you over the head with insanely liberal thinking (AND I'M A LIBERAL!). Basically, the film says CONSUMERISM=BAD while pandering to a consumer market. Any film with such a simplistic plot (SHRINK THE WORLD'S POPULATION?!) and dumb comedy has no right to be preachy. C'mon people, a monkey? While the first half hour or so was amusing and pretty right-on satire for the early 80s consumer mindset, the film got too bogged down in its own pretentiousness and quickly fell apart.

What really bugged me, and many others in the class (including the professor) was the horrifically stereotyped maid, Concepcion. With her slutty Latina ways, ignorance of English, and simpering Mexican friends, I was surprised Hispanic rights groups were not up in arms. I thought it was akin to the loyal, watermelon-eating, "Yessuh yessuh" black servants of movies through the 1950s. It was truly as offensive as those horrific depictions and even more out of place in a movie with such liberal, high-minded subject matter.

All I can say is the actors try, they really really do. And for about half an hour, the film succeeds. Then tanks miserably. Do yourself a favor and watch something intelligent and funny with a similar theme instead of this garbage. I would suggest Terry Gilliam's Brazil.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow, was this a great surprise...
28 September 2004
Like most avid fans of the original Dead trilogy (especially Dawn), I was heartbroken when I saw they were remaking one of my all-time zombie favorites. However, when I saw the 2004 version on opening night I was in awe. Though it didn't capture the attack on consumerism of the original, the remake was astoundingly good. It contained the dark humor of the original trilogy, while having a surprising amount of gore for an R-rated movie. When I left the theater I was so happy that someone who obviously loved the original went to the lengths they did in making this film. Not only do we get a great cast, but cameos from 3 stars of the original.

All in all, a worthwhile and fun zombie movie. 4/4.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Simply a-FREAKIN-mazin!
17 September 2004
I managed to catch a sneak peek (here in the US) tonight and Shaun of the Dead has skyrocketed to the top five in my favorite zombie movies ever! This movie has it all. As many laughs as the Evil Dead trilogy. Some awesome gore. And, most surprisingly, amazing performances. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are the standouts as Shaun and Ed, two dimwitted losers that become unlikely heroes when a zombie plague ravages England. If you're thinking 28 Days Later sounds very similar, that's where the similarities end. Shaun becomes determined to save his ex-girlfriend (Liz) and his mother while trying to win back the former's love. A movie with both humor and heart, Shaun of the Dead is just amazing on so many levels. It has a killer soundtrack, some side-splitting laughs, references a million different zombie classics, and most surprisingly, plausible dramatic and touching moments. Wheras most zombie movies have the typical yelling/crying/whatever, this one really works. These people can really act. If you didn't have the chance to catch it in the states tonight, definitely go out and see it next week. Four stars.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Whatta gonad!"
25 August 2004
Man oh man is this movie terrible. It's like watching a trainwreck, but in a totally endearing way. Playing like a Lord of the Flies with an anti-communist message, Summer Camp Nightmare has to be one of the worst movies ever made. The acting is the worst ever. Chuck "The Rifleman" Conners is so amazingly terrible as Mr. Warren, the camp director who's "lost touch with the youth." Charles Stratton plays Franklin Reilly, the "crazy anarchist" who starts the lamest revolution of all time. Tom Fridly (Cort a.k.a. the kid in tiny shorts in Friday the 13th Part IV) is Mason, the most homo-erotic rapist ever. Runk the Punk is by far the lowlight of the movie, serving both as Mason's obvious man-slave and Reilly's thug (albeit the least intimidating thug ever).

The storyline is pretty simple. Mr. Warren takes over as camp director, but is a real stickler for order. After blocking all but the "religious station" on the rec room's TV, he cancels the dance with the nearby girls' camp. Rebellion soon ensues, as Reilly falsely accuses Warren of molesting the younger boys. Soon, both the boys' and girls' camps are taken over by the regime. All order falls apart, etc. etc. etc. There really is no cohesive plot, just a lot of bad acting, some sort of moral, and the sluttiest teenage girls ever! They can't keep their hands off these weird, ugly, ambiguous guys. Kind of creeps you out.

However, with all the blatant homo-eroticism and crappy acting, it sets itself up as one of the greatest movies to mock with your friends ever. It's on a par with Plan 9 from Outer Space, but has more appeal for those who can remember torn jeans and teenage boys with feathered hair. If you do manage to snag it though, watch with friends and be prepared to laugh like hell, if Mystery Science Theater 3000 is your idea of a good time.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Village (2004)
8/10
It's sad that people hated this
1 August 2004
As I left the theater after seeing "The Village," I heard one person after another say "God that was the worst movie ever," or, "That movie totally sucked," but most common among complaints was, "That wasn't scary at all." Alright, I can see disappointment, but being angry that "The Village" wasn't scary does not qualify it as the "worst movie ever." Lord, if you've seen Chronicles of Riddick, you know that the Village isn't even in the same league as the other contestants for the Worst Movie Ever. Frankly, I thought it was a very well made film, with fine acting and a storyline that was concerned more with making you think than with making you jump. Shyamalan weaves an intricate plot that conveys a profound statement on facing fear in its many forms. Beyond any cheap dime-store horror movie plot, he tells a story based on character development and atmosphere. The cast is stellar. Bryce Dallas Howard and Joaquin Phoenix give standout performances as the hopeful youths who think beyond their small village, while William Hurt some of the best acting he's done in recent years. The score by James Newton Howard is beautiful and greatly enhances an already solid film. My only complaint lies with the way Adrien Brody's character is finally dealt with. I won't give anything away, I just wasn't really pleased with that. Anyway, if you're going expecting a scary monster flick, of COURSE you'll be disappointed. Wait a week for Alien Vs. Predator if that's your idea of good movie-making. However, if you want to see something a bit more subtle and much deeper, go see the Village. My Rating: 8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed