drnrg31 Reviews

2012 (I) (2009)

John Cusak is Superman

[5/10 · 20 November 2009]

I give this movie a 5 because of Special Effects. They are spectacular, but I also reserve some points for actor John Cusak. Not only is he fastest human being ever, but he can defy gravity, withstand explosions and apparently is a better driver than the Indy 500 racers. I will not spoil the movie, but there is one scene I must tell you about.

*Spoiler* he is apparently outrunning flaming fires in Yellowstone Park to get to a camper where he must find the map to the location of the arks of salvation. Naturally he finds it in time, but just as the ground opens up and swallows him and the camper up.....but wait, that's not so..no,no,no, somehow he held on to the concrete(even though it must be smoldering hot) and managed not only to climb out ,but to muster up enough strength to catch up to his family in the plane. But here is the best part..His clothes were picture perfect. Not even a little dust. Mind you this was the same clothes he had on when he apparently almost fell to his fiery death. I'm convinced John Cusak is Superman.

If you enjoyed this scene, then there are about 10 more on the way.

If you are a John Cusak fan; like me, then you will enjoy his performance, if not, then you are in for a crappy time, because the rest of the movie was just an unbelievable, cliché filled, emotionless, disaster movie. Way to go Hollywood.LOL!!!!!

Mutants (2008)

what crap

[1/10 · 9 November 2009]

First of all I'm gonna use the only other member who thought it would be an act of mercy to review this movie, because his premise is good.I say act of mercy, because this movie is pure rubbish. It seems like a reject that not even the Sci-Fi would be dumb enough to run.

"The greedy Braylon (Richard Zeringue) owns the Just Rite Sugar Company and has hired the unethical scientist Sergei (Armando Leduc) to conduct an experiment to make an addictive sugar stronger than heroin or nicotine to increase his sales. Sergei uses invisible people as test subjects, like beggars, addicted junkies and illegals, in the clandestine Shadow Rock Mill. When Braylon's men mistakenly kidnap Ryan (Derrick Denicola), who is the brother of his secretary Erin (Sharon Landry) and son of his security chief Griff (Louis Herthum), and Hannah (Jessica Heap), the youngster becomes an important non-contaminated subject. However, Erin receives some mysterious e-mails from the unknown Cinderella with a picture of Ryan and a hint that he might be in Shadow Rock and together with her father, they decide to seek out Ryan."

Now that you know the premise, let me tell you why I chose to purchase this movie. This is a quote right from the cover." The French does zombies? Hey, Why not? The Irish did zombies and so did the Scottish, so now it's the Frenchs' turn. Word to the wise. There are no Zombies in this movie. It's just as the above premise reads. It's that boring. I will however add that once again some douchbag director has decided to completely waste the talent of Micheal Ironside. He plays a tough guy soldier and does kick ass, but common; his dialog is more suited for Van Damme. Anyway the movie is completely haneous even for a Sci- Fi entry and for some oddball reason it even stars Stevan Bauer. Yeah...that's Manny from Scarface.

Do yourself a favor and pick the toe jam out of your toes before watching this flick.

Friday the 13th (2009)

New look on an old classic

[8/10 · 21 June 2009]

I'll straight out say that I have chosen the spoiler option, because it's very hard to review this movie without mentioning key parts of the movie. There are many things I liked about this remake. Actually the word remake is not correct. It's more like an overhaul of the original 4 first parts of the series. Like I said; there are many aspects about the movie that I really enjoyed, but there are a few which I completely despise. One being how Jason finds his hokey mask. A six year old could have came up with a better scenario than the one used here, but first the things I liked about the movie- 1. Interesting way to combine the first four chapters, while at the same time adding in a few twists. Most notably the first 15- 20 minuets. It's almost a mini version of parts 1 & 2. Actually part 1 was to already have taken place, since we are introduced to Jason's mom being beheaded in the first 5 minuets. the first group of campers are offed very nicely in the first 15 minuets of the movie with one of those actually being spared. I will get to that in the second half of the review. The gore is nice and the kills are very gruesome...and of course we get some T&A to make the formula believable. If you have seen the Bloidy Valentine remake, then you can compare those two beginnings.

2. Not a comedy: This is indeed good horror with the proper atmosphere in a horror movie. Think back to part 6; which for me was when the original series became a joke. The five campers playing paint ball and the fact that Jason started killing in broad daylight was the darkest day in Friday history. You won't get any of that in this movie. No one dies in plain daylight and while there will be a few characters who add comic relief; there time of demise is never a joke.

3. Acting; I liked it. To me there was good character development. At least in the second group of campers there was. Chewy, Laurence, Clay and even the obnoxious Trent were all fun to watch. There characters are likable, but not so much that one will cry when there time is up.

4. Backstory: I'm not usually a fan of this, but this one told the story in a pretty convincing way. We actually get to s4e the young Jason see his Mother decapitated and go retrieve her remains. This certainly shows his maniacal vengeful ways on unsuspecting campers.

5. The Kills: very original and exciting ways to die. Pay close attention since the majority either expand or give a new twist to older killings. The killings never truly seem rehashed and that's why they are very effective. Theree is also plenty of blood and gore for the hounds to admire.

6. Attractive cast: here is where they borrow from part 4, since it also had a very attractive and well known cast. This remake has very nice female as well as male actors they they stay true to what teens in horror movies do. Drink ,have sex , and party.

7. Jason: I really did enjoy the new Jason a lot. Kane Hodder did an excellent job in the Friady series, but towards the end he started to become the butt of the joke. Here we have a new Jason. This one seems to be actually pretty smart for he constructs some sort of underground tunnels for easy access in surprising the never ending group of campers who just seem to be to brave for their own good.

...things I didn't like: 1. the mask: As I already mentioned, I really despise how Jason comes across his iconic facial apparel. It really turns out to be a great let down, since the way he finds it: reveals nothing new nor exciting. It's a also a real sorry way to insert one of the most bile characters in the series. Some backwards inbred F**K who has sex with mannequins. I was only too happy to see him go. Here is where Jason finds his mask. Literally; he just finds it under some materials in the barn. Epic fail in my book.

2. Jason keeps a hostage: never in his dead life has Jason ever opted to keep a victim alive. He just has no use for them. Herew is seems that he actually feeds her to remain strong enough. We never quite figure out Jason's intention, only to add on another storyline behind the Storyline. It could also be to insert the "looking for my missing sister" theme? Either way the sister in question; Whitney, must have really sweet talked Jason into not killing her, because in the first 15 mines of the movie we last find poor Whitney seconds away from being sliced and diced. Did Jason stop his machete in mid air and say "I think I'll keep this one?" I think not.LOL Those were the only two aspects that I really despised form the movie, but over all, I thought it was one of the better remakes in the last few years. Between this and the Valentine's remake; I prefer this one. Incidentally both this and the aforementioned Bloody valentine feature the two main actors from the series Super Natural in lead roles. Coincidence? What I'm really hoping for is a remake of parts 5-10, with part five being totally eliminated this time around. That's the one, where Jason isn't even the Killer. What I would like is for this new remakes to completely hack away the tongue in cheek humor of those movies and just stick to good ogle horror. Do that and your half way there.

Freakshow (2007 Video)

A real Freakshow

[9/10 · 5 May 2009]

My summery title might seem negative, but it's really quite positive. I read all reviews to see if someone might mention it, but no one did. The 1970's movie called "Snuff". I'll get back to that later.

Freakshow is a supposed remake of Tod Brownings cult classic "Freaks" I can't recall seeing that movie, but it's plot seems familiar. Freakshow borrows from that storyline, but of course in a much more gruesome and vindictive way. There are no good and bad people in this movie and here is why. While the group of criminals working as hired help at the circus were clearly conniving individuals with horrid intentions; they never actually killed anyone up until they felt threatened by the presence of a young mongoloid. The Freaks on the other hand; really got pleasure out of murder.

Now while the last 10 minutes do merit the actions taken against Rebeka Cochan; it still baffles me as to why the Freaks ; who were supposed to be the "good" ones had to do it? I often compare movies to other ones in certain parts. This one has a bit of Ruggero Deodato's "Cannibal.." in it. You have the group of explorers who find the young natives and torture and humiliate them for kicks. Here two of the hired hand find the young mongoloid girl in the tent while they are looting it and decide to shut her up by killing her and leaving her on the ferris wheel for the others to find. First off; this is really stupid. I mean who else are the Freaks gonna think did it? The same kind of revengeful action is taken on the criminals as was in Deodato's film. The Freaks hunt down each criminal and murder them in Circus fashion. Sledghammer to the head, knife thrown at the gut. Lee;played by Mark Preston Miller even has one more fling with the cannibal girl before she rips at his throat.

The one who gets it the worst is poor Rebekah. Though, she was the one who plotted the whole thing and pardon the expression "used" Lon for her own get rich scheme; she still didn't kill anyone.

So far the movie has been very enjoyable. There is vintage music in the soundtrack, giving it a real old circus feeling. The way it's filmed also had a slight orange hue to it. Giving it a classic look and the majority of the "Freaks" were actually real oddities. This might be the only reason the movie was banned in 43 countries, but read on....

The last 10 or so minutes are what caught me off guard in every sense of the word. When the group finally discloses Rebekah and her scheme; Lon's partner or wife, we never really know, tells him that he can keep his trophy wife, but she needs to become part of the family. What follows next is one of the most gruesome transformations of a human being into a freak I have ever seen. You can best compare these scene to the now underground cult classic "Snuff" or maybe even "Maniac" The poor Rebekah is sliced diced and sewn together to literally become the show's newest attraction...."Worm Girl" Horror fans should definitely get a jolt out of this scene. While it might repulse those who are squeamish it is definitely sweet revenge and the unexpected finale to the movie Freakshow. Appalling, gory and shocking. That makes a good Horror film.

Funny Games (2007)

Angels or Demons

[9/10 · 11 November 2008]

I just read one review which really caught my attention. I was originally ready with a different premise for my review, but upon reading this one review, my aspect really changed about the movie.

The reviewer in question refers to the two young sadistic young men as angels. I couldn't understand why this one reviewer thought that; then it dawned on me. One: we are never really told where they come from. They just appear. Two: they are dressed completely in white. Tennis apparel and white gloves, but non the less in white. Three: The two young men somehow have the ability to break the fourth wall and alternate the film to their liking....but why angles? Why not devils? They certainly show no characteristics of Angels whatsoever. In one scene they ask Naomi Watts to pray to her GOD for salvation, but in such a fashion that only ridicules her even more. So these angels are suddenly and without a question demons.

Keeeping that in mind, the movie will make a lot more sense, once you realize you are not watching the latest Tarrantino like film. Even the casting of Tim Roth might make you believe just that. The movie is actually a remake of Michael Haneke's own Australian version. I have never seen that version, but this one struck me short of Brilliance. No over the top action or explosions, but rather a sort of "arthouse" film with many quirky scenes, that seem like the updated version of AClock Work Orange or even an acted out Manson murder spree.

The two Demons in question are played brilliantly by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. I remember Pitt from the movie Murder By Numbers. His role isn't to far away from that one. Only that instead of a High School outcast he is now a a straight out evil Deity. Brady is equally stunning as the less dominant, but still evil counterpart to Pitt. They seem to be brothers, but we are never really absolutely sure? The great thing about their roles is that they are unsparingly polite. Gramatically correct and perfect to a tee. The kind of young men any parent would welcome to their house. This is when everything becomes completely twisted. For while they seem Angel-like, there is still an aura about their presence which leaves the viewer feeling uneasy and almost expecting the unexpected. The turn of events when the Angels become devils is almost to perfect not to detect their immediate transformation.

The rest of the cast consists of the family being tortured. Naomi Watts, who readily plays the role of Mother and Father, since Tim Roth; who plays the father is incapacitated early in the film. Their young son; Devon Gearheart, does an incredibly convincing role as their terrified 10 year old son.

I will say that Funny Games is anything ,but funny. If you want a happy American ending search elsewhere. This is a harsh statement on the American society's fascination with Horror and torture and displays just that. Gore hounds will also be disappointed, since all the death scenes take place off camera, but if you are looking for an entertaining film with originality and brilliant performances than give it a watch. Definitely one of the best from that year.

Home Sick (2007)

Home Made Gore

[9/10 · 23 October 2008]

This is a great movie for all gore fans. It has wackiness, Horror ,a bit a of dementia and plenty of gore and blood.

The premise is pretty crazy; as a room full of friends get together for a reunion of sorts. They are soon visited by Mr. Suitcase; who is wonderfully portrayed by Horror icon Bill Mosely. If you are familiar with his Otis character, then you know what to expect. He shows up with a suitcase full of razors,asks the kids to name specific people they hate and then performs a manic self inflicting blood letting act on himself. This somehow has conjured up some Demon like beast right out of Tobe Hoopers Fun House to kill off the said mention hated people. One of the friends actually just names "Everyone in the room" out of spite, not knowing what he has caused. Bill Mosley's scene reminded me of the crazy hitch hiker in 1976's Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The only other two actors I recognized are Tom Towels as the twisted Red neck uncle and Tiffany Shepis as the vixen. She bares her boobs and soul as she actually does a great performance upon finding her dead mother.She really has developed into a horror scream queen herself and I really wish Rob Zombie would get her to act in his next film.

The rest of the actors are their for support mainly and they act bad on purpose. It's so over the top, that you know the director calls for it. These kids are really messed up. Dark circles around the eyes, maniacal laughter and are gore hounds themselves....and they die in the goriest and nastiest fashions imagined. I also found it funny to see that the one level headed character; Mark, played by Forrest Pitts; actually has a sort of Brad Pitt look and Accent.

Did I mention the gore? Buckets & Buckets and yet still looked Tom Savini worthy. there are also bone crunches, decapitations, and head bashing. In fact the head kills seems to be the demon's first choice when hacking and slashing.

All in All this flick is a great entry into Horror/Gore cinema. I recommend for all fans of the genre.

Righteous Kill (2008)

best film of the year

[10/10 · 21 September 2008]

What the hell is it about this film that some people don't like? It's a great film anyway, you slice it. Bad plot, bad acting, bad directing. What makes you people experts.

This movie is a Godsend, it really is. You have two icons of film like DeNiro and Pacino together in a semi action cop thriller. These two put together are what is great acting. It's pretty straight forward without any confusing plots or characters. Everyone is pretty much a bad ass with not many much emotional ties to anyone else. It's a dark raw movie. If you are looking for sentimental crap, stay clear. Everyone suspects everyone and vice versa. The most sentimental character is Al Pacino, so that should tell you everything there? There are plenty of references to their other films to keep the audiences. I think the same flaws that these so-called critics find in the film ,will be the most enjoyable aspect of the film to others.

For starters Pacino and DeNiro are true to their characters. These roles are not a very big stretch for them to play. I mean two tough cops on the brink of retirement so sick of the corrupted system that they are willing ti take matters in their own hands to achieve justice. Great role casting in my point of view. The acting is flawless and finally these two icons share 100% screen time. I would have liked more shooting and showdowns Scorcese style, but for what it is it suffices.

I must also add the two supporting roles of Wahlberg and Leguezamo are very good. I would love to see them get their own spin off film as well. I think it would be just as good or better. Definitely more action and shoot out.

The one flaw has to be without a doubt, 50 Cent. This guy cannot sing, so why would anyone cast him in a film? Luckily his screen time is very short and neither adds or takes away from the film.

Final words. A great film long overdue. 100 times better then a senseless comedy or mushy drama. There is so much crap on the big screen , that this film is a gem in a ocean of crap. It's a film that one can watch many times over without ever being bored or tired and that is an important aspect when I wanna add a movie to my collection.

Dead & Rotting (2002 Video)

This flick is Dead & Rotting

[3/10 · 8 September 2008]

I've seen some bed films. Scarecrow, Awaken The Dead etc.., but this is bad Bad bad! The only aspect and I can't specify this enough,about this movie that I enjoyed is Horror scream queen Debbie Rochon. I'm a huge fans of her movies, so she is amazing in almost everything she does.

She looks great and we get to see her naked, but I've seen her in 100 of other better films than this.

The rest of the cast is a crew of armatures that I can't even recall. From blue collar construction workers to street hoodlums. I'm almost positive the rest of the cast actually works at what they play their role. No acting skill whatsoever.

The plot you ask: Three dumb-asses try to scare each other by driving to the local witches house, they are chased away by Pox, the local geek/freak. When they confront him again in a bar they, kick his ass, which prompts the witch to put a spell on the 3 dumb-asses. Of course they wanna get back and in the process kill the witch's cat. You can imagine the rest as Debbie Rochon makes an appearance of the vengeful witch in a beautiful temptresses body. That's all the sneak peak you guys get, but if you are smart, you'll turn it off, because what follows is a 45 minuets of the worst excuse for revenge ever.

Pew, this flick is Dead & Rotting!

Prom Night (I) (2008)

Prom Night 90210

[5/10 · 4 September 2008]

Nothing and I mean nothing to do with the original ,save for the title and the fact that it takes place on Prom Night. A formal apology should be presented to Jamie Lee Curtis for this atrocity.

Was this R? Heck no, it's more like PG 13. No Thrills, No Gore, No T&A, no 15 chase scene with the villain and heroine, no plot... and the Killer. For Petes sake wear a mask. Groucho Marx, Willam Shatner, even a black ski mask would have been better than a baseball cap.

The supporting actors are just written in for the sheer sake of dying. Pretty boys and girls with their pretty shallow Beverly hills lives. For that alone they deserved to die. If this movie was geared towards teenagers, then I'm glad I was one in the 80's. At least my horror movies were scary.

best part of the movie were the end credits where the song Paralyzed was played. Exactly how I felt after watching this wannabe horror flick.

Please,no more hacking and slashing of our precious horror classics. There is just no way a remake can surpass the original. Unless the original was a flop to begin with. Now if this gets a make over in say, 20 years, it will surely be better.LOL! Final thoughts: This would have been better suited for television on say ...the WC network. I actually saw one of the actresses on the premier last night of 90210 and on the WC network.LOL!

Dead Clowns (2004)

Dead Clowns should stay dead

[7/10 · 1 September 2008]

here is my question: Why do clowns always get a bad rap in horror movies.

I'm now 3 for 3. Fun Park, Tormanted and now Dead Clowns. I've yet to see a good Clown horror movie that doesn't look like it cost $5.00 to make. I'm pretty sure both Brinke and Debbie split $2.50 between each other and bought a taco after filming.LOL!

The premise goes as follows. A train wreck filled with Circus personal falls off a bridge during one of the town's most devastating hurricanes ever. The cab where the clowns resided is never recovered and thought to be lost underwater. Some years later ,the clowns rise form the dead and go on a killing spree throughout the town on a really bad stormy night. Great idea and the clowns themselves don't look half bad. Aside from the spotless and may I add;very dry clown suits, they actually resemble Zombie clowns. Actually even taking a history page from Lucio Fulci's Italian zombies. Sounds like the ingredients for a pretty decent horror film ,right? Wrong. Dead wrong!

Here is the thing, you cast two scream queens like Debbie Rochon and Brinke Strevens and you expect at least some screaming. I've never seen the actresses so uninterested in acting as this time around. At least Brinke gets to tell the premise of the story and dies in the first half hour. Debbie doesn't even get one line. Not even a character name. She is billed as tormented woman and spends half the movie under the stairs.

The rest of the cast is just thrown in for story sake. Four synchronized story lines to be exact. Brinke and her husband, Debbie, wheelchair guy , druggie security guard and fugitive couple who have just killed a priest or something.

Al four stories are are totally inane and ridiculous. Not one of the actors shows and emotion or horror as they are chased around their houses by Zombie Clowns. It's almost as if they are playing hide go seek with their nephews. Did I mention that 3 out of the four story lines don't even contain dialog. This would make Tarrantino throw up.LOL! The one good thing is the gore. I've seen reviews complaining about little to no gore, but the version I watched had some pretty gory scenes. Cheesy, but gory. One of the victims provides a ten minute buffet for the Clowns. Again done in Italian Fulci fashion with a little Ruggero Deadoto cannibalism thrown in. This saves the movie from total abomination, but still could have been so much much better.

Final thoughts. Directors and producers, don't be afraid to spend a little when making a horror movie. Lighting, sound, script and for Pete's sake a little dialog, especially when you manage to cast Debbie Rochon in your flick. She is a certified SCream Queen!

Death Race (2008)

Oronically way tamer than the Original

[9/10 · 29 August 2008]

As a huge fan of the original; I can safely say it's much more meaner, badder and demented then this new vamped up version for the 2000's First of all, we have here a politically correct movie. Paul W.S. Andersons clearly leaves out the most crucial aspect of the original. Running over pedestrians for points, so naturally Death Race must be set up in a prison so we don't get too attached to it's racers as they get eliminated by each other. Ironically, this time the racers are the victims as opposed to the original.

Now we have the key players.Hennesy; a soulless, cut throat female warden who will go to any lengths to keep the legend of Frankenstein alive and put out the highest pay per view ratings around.

Jason Stratham, who plays Jenson Ames is framed for his wife's murder in order to provide entertainment for millions as he takes over the persona of the deceased Frankenstein. He does great as his role and he is without doubt the actor to fill the shoes of action greats like Swartzeneger and Stallon, but he still needs to find that one character that will provide him with the blockbuster franchise.

Next we have Tyrese Gibson as Machin Gun Joe. While many will admit that Stallon's original role was that of a whiny Italian sausage; you can't say he didn't have charisma. Gibson does provides Machine Gun Joe with a more bad ass attitude,but does not necessarily make him a better version. He talks the talk, races the car, but will he be consistent or soft up at the end?

Next we have coach. Ian Mc Shane does a great job, but really, who wouldn't have rather seen Stallon play this role? He has matured and his character really would have showed some wisdom. Plus you got the perfect link to the original.

The rest of the racers consist of Hoodlems and Cholos. I know this takes place in prison, but a little diversity would have been better. The original had Calamity Jane. Attila The Hun and even racing great Don Steele play himself.One character form this new version; Grim Reaper never once reflects his persona and is even the first to die.

Finally, I must not forget the navigators. Beautiful female convicts who add nothing more than spice to the show.

To sum it up, I enjoyed the movie a great deal. I'll definitely get the DVD or Blue Ray or whatever, but doesn't compare to the real massacre of the original. David Carradine would take all these jail birds to Death Race 101 old School any day!

Slaughterhouse (1987)

Bacon Bits

[8/10 · 23 August 2008]

This was one of the better horror films of the late 80's, While almost every other horror flick was played mainly for laughs, this one broke away form the norm and actually injected a little gore and dementia to it's characters.

There are really a lot of cool aspects about the movie. Take for instance the female leads name; Lizzy Borden. Why anyone would name their child after an infamous murderer is beyond me. Especially since she is the daughter of the town's sheriff.

Another cool thing are the masks the two dumb boyfriends wear. I couldn't recognize the old man mask, but I'm sure it's been used in some other horror flick, but I definitely recognized the cobra mask from terror train.

The murders are also a bit gory for their time and not at all funny. In fact the movie its self ,which is categorized as Horror comedy; is really just good old early 80's horror. A little on the demented side when you compare it to classic like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but never over the top comedy like Return Of The Living Dead and such. There are funny parts, but totally unintentional.

The best part is the ending, I won't give it away, but it's a well known cliché in horror films.

Final Words: Good old 80's Horror, just done the right way.

The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008)

X-Files Reopened

[7/10 · 2 August 2008]

I will basically say that if you are waiting to see explosions, burning buildings and hi-speed car chases, then you are in the wrong theatre.

This is the X-Files, folks. None of that was ever in t5he series and likewise neither in the movie. What you will get is good old Fox Moulder being as stubborn as ever to believe anything extraordinary and Dana Scully trying her hardest to bring him to his senses.

X-Files: I Want to Believe is a smart movie delving deep into the world the organ trading black market, but also in to the mind of a psychic priest , who also happens to be an ex pedophile. The question here is , if GOD has actually chosen this "Fallen Angel" to be his eyes and help the FBI locate a missing FBI agent who may or may not be alive. As the story unfolds the viewer will realize that the priest and culprits are more connected than meets the eye. Amanda Peet also gives a strong performance leading the investigation and almost to a point filling the void Scully left when she departed the FBI. Both her and Moulder act as a team, which sadly comes to an abrupt end before even blossoming.

Dana Scully also has a semi story line as a doctor trying to cure a young boy with a mental disease. In a way she is only involved in the fore-mentioned FBI case ,because of Moulder. For she truly has no interest in that "dark side" any longer.

As usual , many questions are proposed to the viewer, Moulder and Scully and will surly provide interesting conversation on the drive back home from the theatre. Especially among Christians.

To sum up, this is a really good movie, that will no doubt satisfy die hard X-File fans. In other words "Those who got the series" On a final note, I think Moulder should have left his Beard. Is it me or did it make him resemble the late great John Ritter?

The Happening (2008)

A Wake Up Call

[8/10 · 7 July 2008]

I guess I would fall under the crusader type reviewers here. Shayamalan's movie's have always given me something to think about. I hold respect for him as a director for this. Weather it be that we walk with the dead in "Sixth Sense" or that we are not alone, like in "Signs". Even the fact that there are super extraordinary individuals among us, as in "Unbroken". All these films have one thing in common. Realism taken to the next dimension. The one we are afraid to admit.

This movie again touches on a very serious subject. Yes we are killing off the planet. Yess it's 90% the governments fault...and yes a higher power must prevent us. Or at least the planet itself. It's an amazing plot when you really think about it. The plants have always been dismissed as decorative symbolism, but they are much more than that. They were here on this planet way before the first human touched foot on land. Watching and analyzing the way ,us humans are destroying our planet with toxins, pesticides, etc...Who says they can't think? They react to sunlight, darkness and weather just like all of us. Shayamalan takes this theory one step further and presents the plants as heralds of bad tidings. They communicate with each other, alter our thoughts and ultimately show the population what will happen if the o-zone layer is completely wiped out. That's right, I said the O word. That is really what the message the film is trying to convey.

On with the acting, While I will agree with the ,lot and say that perhaps Wahlberg was not at his strongest, he did pretty much carry 80% of the film on his shoulders. A little more attitude would have really given him a commending performance, but as a high school science teacher, he couldn't be that tough. Another favorite of mine is John Luegazamo(I apologize for bad spelling). His character had some real promise, but was completely deduced to a confused, desperate supporting role. John usually brings Sass and Attitue to a film. Another miscast on Shayamalan's part. Both of this actors were restrained to an extent that I could only call ridiculous.

The female lead, played accordingly by Zooey Deschanel was surprising to the least. I had never seen her act before and to be honest I was about to dismiss her as the typical wife role. To my chagrin ,she turned out a pretty charming performance. Her gorgeous next door girl looks really helped a lot as well. In fact, my friend completely mistakened her for Mary Elizabeth Winstead as first glance.

The rest of the aspects of the film were above level, but not amazing. Quite a few flaws in direction in that we are left hopelessly to use our imaginations on a lot of "Off Camera" scenes and it did leave me with a somewhat dissatisfied feeling. The end was another big question mark. Somhow the film wanted to achieve that feeling of satisfaction from a Twilight Zone episode, but fell short of expectations, especially in the final scene with the French. Who adds Foreigh dialog and no English subtitles? It also completely dismisses the original theory of the " wake up call" What did work ,was the pace. Keep moving forward or East, as used in this film. What I did like was the hopeless or dead end feeling I got as the survivors move from state to state ,only to meet their demise. It brings up an important factor. The plant life completely overpopulates us and if this scenerio was ever to happen, we would be completely over taken by the planet.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Almost Perfect film

[9/10 · 4 July 2008]

I have a read a lot of reviews for this movie. The mostly say the same thing. I don't need to praise Anton Chigure any more. He is brilliant as the psychopath. The best part is how he either builds up for the kill he is about to commit or leaves you with your heart in your mouth as he decides to spare their life.

Josh Brolin is equally brilliant. He does what any man in his shoes would do. I don't care who you are, if you say you would turn the money to the authorities, you are a stone cold liar. Not even the authorities would turn it in to themselves. That said, he does the best he can at the being the guy on the run. Most of the time guarding the money more than his actual life.

Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Ed left a bit to be desired. He seemed like the guy trying to help Llewelyn, but at the same time taking any detour to avoid actually coming face to face with Anton, which ultimately leads to Llewelyn'd demise. He didn't do half as much as he could to protect him.

Woody Harrelson as Carson is a role that many question. I totally understood it's brilliance. He was hire by the Mexican mob to find Anton, kill him and return the money. he was damn good at what he did. He found Llewelyn with no problem at all. The only problem was he didn't count on Chigure finding him first. Once he is caught off guard; he totally loses all angle of his character. The hunter becomes the hunted. It's actually at this point that the viewer realizes that whatever happens , Chigure was never gonna be apprehended.

The biggest flaw and reason I do not give it a perfect score, was not Moss' death. That was a given, but I didn't get the ending with Tommy Lee. It was one of those lame artsy Sopranos endings, that the viewers just despise. So why use it? I think The Coen brothers realized they had created a monster that they just couldn't kill off. I actually thing Anton was meant to die in that car crash, before they decided to rewrite the whole scene. So ultimately there was no real ending to the movie.

If it had been filmed in the 90's; Either Sheriff Ed would have been killed early on , with Anton and Llewelyn shooting it out in the final scene or Anton ultimately killing Sheriff Ed, but in no alternate ending would Anton have been killed. Therefore nothing was left ,but a lame ending done in Sopranos style. Kinda poetic when you think about it.

Creepshow 3 (2006 Video)

Crapshow

[3/10 · 1 July 2008]

No that is not a typo; It's what this movie should have been called. How Romero and King are linked to this is beyond me, but I can only imagine they lost the rights to the title at a bad bet or gamble. I don't know, what I do know is that this movie is beyond inane.

5 stories or is it 6? The whole production is such a mess I refuse to care. Take the first one; Alice. It's supposed to some twist to the popular Alice In Wonderland tale. Professor Dayton; who is also responsible for half of the instruments altering peoples lives in the movie; provides Alices' family with a remote control, which each time is pressed, causes Alice to appear in alternate realities. In one of them she is even mutated. In the end she turns into a bunny. This one leaves you with a big What the F**K just happened? This is the first story with no real ending. The first of many. 1 point gory makeup.

2. The Radio is a bit more captivating as a security guard living in the slums(by the way all the prime characters seem to either live or frequent this slum), purchases a radio from a bum(a radio that Professor Dayton invented)that speaks to him in a sultry ,sexy voice enticing him to commit a chain link of crimes ,which ultimately lead to his demise by the one call girl he trusts....and she isn't even the one who ends up with the money. Interesting story that goes horribly wrong in the end. 5 points for the hooker and sexy voice on the radio.

3. Call Girl. Actually the only one I really liked. It has the whole "Tables turned" theme. A Call Girl who gets off by murdering her "Johns" gets an in call by a strange young Man who is house sitting his parent's house for the weekend. Or so it seems. Everything is fine until she kills him.The thing the ticked me off, is that the story was the shortest of all and it also had most of the potential.

4. Professor Dayton's wife. Interesting concept, but this time is ruined by horrible actors. The professor invites two of his former alumni to meet his soon to be wife, only they think she is an android. They decide to surprise the good Dr. by dismantling her and putting her back together. A lot of blood and gore makes this one kinda fun, but again ,it's missing a proper ending. 4 points for gratuitous blood and gore

5. Haunted Dog. By far the worst of the lot. A stupid ,uncompassionate Dr. is sentenced to work a free clinic. He goes out to buy a Hotdog from, you guessed it the wannabe Creep in disguise. The dog fall, he gives it to a homeless man ,who dies and comes back to haunt him. Stupid take off on "The Hitch hiker" from Creepshow 2. This story somehow manages to incorporate the young man from segment 3 and show that he indeed runs a brothel full of vampire prostitutes. a sorry rip off of "From Dusk Till Dawn" The Dr. frequents this establishment each night before he goes to work, but somehow is never bitten. What The Hell? 2 points for the brothel sequence. Did I mention this movie has a real sleazy feel to it?

The whole film is full of inexplicable dumbness like this. No horror, , no scares and pretty much no story. Nothing to do with the famous Creepshow and Crypt Keeper comics, which made this franchise so popular. Actually, I'd be surprised if the franchise manages to make a comeback after this train wreck.

I know have added all kinds of spoilers, but believe me I'm not spoiling any fun whatsoever. This movie is already rotten and putrid. Way beyond spoiled.

Knock Knock (2007)

Good Fellas meets Maniac

[5/10 · 21 May 2008]

In order to make this movie seem remotely watchable, I've added spoilers to the max, so if you don't want to know what happens you can stop reading now.

This Knock Knock movie was seriously funny. The gore and killing were great, but the rest was just a very bad joke. The acting was horrendous. The starlets seem like strippers and the men look like the strip club owners. I'm not kidding. The men all speak with Brooklyn accents and look like mafia guys. The main detective was pretty ,but couldn't act herself out of a box. The story had some cool ideas. I'll mention those redeeming qualities.

1. The beginning. Great 5 minutes of the movie. The guy knocks on the door and waits for the unsuspecting damsel to answer. He repeats this process 3 times and every time she opens the door , there is no one there. Finally she decides to catch the guy in the act by peeking through the peep hole, just as she does this, the killers' arm crashes through the door and grabs her. Even I jumped.

2. The killings. Not only the gore, but also the way he props them for the parents to find. One girl is strapped to the shower and gutted. another is cut up into pieces and shoves into his Father's locker. There was no computer generated effects, so pretty good make up.

3. This retarded janitor, who we meant to believe could be the killer , has all these Barbie dolls. He cuts off the faces off the students pictures and pastes them on to the dolls. Then he reenacts the murder seen, because fir some reason he always seems to be there, but he isn't the killer. If you have seen Maniac, you would appreciate this idea?

These are the good parts. I would reedit this movie keep all those parts and cut out all the detective solving parts and especially the female detective and mafia fathers.I would probably add some more T&A and try to develop these characters at least to cardboard worthy personalities.

Watch only if you like cool gory effects, otherwise...Fuggetaboutit.LOL!

10,000 BC (2008)

cave men never looked better

[5/10 · 22 March 2008]

My summery is meant to be sarcastic. My biggest problem with the movie is how the producers portray the cave men. Evolution had apparently already become perfect as everyone in the movie looked like a model.

I may not know too much on history ,but this movie mixes what seems to be African, Egyption and Cave men tribes all in one movie. Was this meant to confuse us? Oh and did I mention that they all speak perfect English. A language that wasn't even invented yet. I would have preferred growls and grunts with neat subtitles.

The most exciting parts of the movie where the prehistoric beasts. Although most of the time they seemed out of place . I kept waiting for Sinbad to pop out and save the day. Seriously this movie would have worked better as an Eye Of The Tiger remake.

As for the plot line or story, if you can call out that. A love Story under cloak. Leave this kinda mush to Woody Allen.

In closing. Save your money and time and wait for a rental. better yet wait for the remake of Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger. nuff said:(

Carver (2008 Video)

Proud to be labeled Torture Porn

[7/10 · 10 March 2008]

I saw a bunch of great reviews on page one ,and then a bunch of bad reviews on page two. Well ,I'm taking it back to the great reviews time.

To all the losers who gave it a low grade, stick to your block buster crap. As the one fan said ,this is movie only for die hard horror gore freaks.

What it lacks in filming, and camera abilities, it makes up in Gore one hundred fold. There is blood ,gore, torture, screaming. Great stuff. This one really should be proud to be labeled Torture Porn. It's sort of a slap in the face to the critics.

What I found interesting is that it revolves around the subject of Snuff films. For all you losers who don't know what snuff is; read up on it. I'm not here to school you, but it is the main focus point of the film and the fact that is is based on true events makes it even more enthralling.

My only gripe would be the video cam filming. Kinda like Full Moon Video uses at times. It makes it look kinda amateur, but you can take that same amateur feel and compare it to old 80's grind house flicks. If this was filmed on regular film, it would be even more effective.

The villain himself is scary, but only when wearing his vintage air pilot goggles. They kinda look like something worn by pilots in the WWII era. When he has it off; he comes across a retard and when he speaks, he sounds like a grocery store clerk. Not far from an actual Red Neck stereo -Type.The rest of the cast; including Krystin Green(Rachell), Neil Kubath(Bryan),Janathan Rocket(Zack)Ursela(Kate). play their roles with genuine horror. they really come off on screen as being terrified.

So if you love gore, and are not squeamish at vile and and disturbing torture and death scenes, then give it a try. You might be pleasantly surprised. That's Right! I said PLEASEANTLY!

Underdog (2007)

Did I just say Underwear?

[7/10 · 22 January 2008]

So Disney makes a remake of the 1960's cartoon. Does it work? I thought so. It was smart , funny and entertaining. As far as remakes go, I can never hate them if I like the original in the first place.

What I like best was Jason Lee's witty vocals for Underdog. He was kinda sarcastic and dumbfounded at times, but that's what gave Underdog his charm. The beagle playing underdog was likewise talented and really seemed to be fun to work with

Another aspect that enjoyed was James Belushi. He has done other dog movies like K-Nine and even though he isn't actually the character who befriends Underdog, he is likable

I also liked the fun Disney poked at itself by spoofing the Meatball scene from Lady & The Tramp. I don't recall Underdog having a lady dog friend , but Polly was a nice addition to the plot. It gave it that Superman /Louis Lane vibe.

Final thoughts. If you basically like remakes and dogs, then this movie is for you. It should also entertain the children ala Shrek style.

Flesh for the Beast (2003)

Truly catches the 70's Grindhouse sexploitation vibe

[8/10 · 25 December 2007]

I'll make mine short and sweet, because I wanna watch it one more time before I go to bed! It was given to me on Grindhouse double feature this Christmas. The second film is Shadow, Dead Riot , which I will review accordingly on it's movie page.

First off all the losers calling it porn, obviously shouldn't even had the chance to see it. Furthermore, most reviews are missing the point that this movie was trying to convey. If it looks like a cheap b- movie, then good ,that is just what it wants to be. It's a homage to the horror sexploitation films of the 70's. It succeeds on all levels in that sense.

Tru story. When I saw Caroline Munroe make a cameo appearance, I thought to myself, she looks pretty old, but it must be the makeup. Take into account that I really thought this film was from the 70's. So when I searched it and found out it was from 2003, I was blown away. I dare say it caught the Grindhouse vibe better than the Rodriguez/ Tarrantino vehicle of 2006.

With that said, this movie is F***king great. If you can't appreciate that , then go back to your over the top big budget Hollywood crap Horror.

Death Tunnel (2005)

Babes in nighties and pumps in a haunted sanitarium. What's there not to like?

[7/10 · 20 November 2007]

First off, I'm not a person directly connected with making of the film.

That said, This is actually a good movie once you've seen it more than once. It's one of those movies where you pick up something new each time you watch it.

The setting takes place in an actual sanitarium in Kentucky that was used for experiments on victims of the infamous "White Plague" or "Romantic Plague" since it took them when they were young. That line is actually from the movie.

The movie has some real fancy camera work and the colors capture the essence of an old abandoned Sanitarium. There is a lot of quick cutaway edits and flashbacks and though they may not always work as effectively as say; the "Saw" movies; they seem to be the direction that Horror is going nowadays. Don't expect gore, because that is not what the film trys to convey, but do expect C.G. ghost graphics throughout the movie. Not as cliché as Korean horror ghosts, but rather more menacing and creepy looking.

For those of you who are fans of Zombie's "House Of 1000 Corpses", you will see some similarities in the whole Dr. Vanguard thing. Like in Dr. Satan, esp. the creepy gurney guy with face mask.

Those of you who are tired of seeing ugly, homely looking female victims, are in for a treat, Not only are these five girls gorgeous, but they they are in Nighty's and pumps throughout the film. What's there not to like?

Hatchet (2006)

"Not as fun as a bag of dicks"

[7/10 · 24 September 2007]

That line is actually used in the movie and for me to give a 7 to a horror flick means I was somewhat disappointed.

When I first saw the advertisement say " OLD School American Horror is back", I thought, Hell Yea! Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday The 13th, The Burning, Halloween. Sorry folks, but true Horror fans of the 80's; I'm 37 years old, will see none of those elements in this movie.

First off, those 80's flicks never tried to be funny deliberately. The Cheesiness of the camera work and edits is what made them funny, but they never lost their horror credibility.

Second: Horrendous acting. I mean bad. A bunch of kids who spend more time cutting each other down(verbally), than Victor Crowly spends cutting them in pieces. That Asian tour guide is the most annoying of all. Joleigh Fioreavanti is stunning gorgeous, but needed more screen time.

Third: Victor Crowly. I love Kane Hodder, but Victor looks like Jason in overalls. At least be more creative with the slasher's image if you want him to join the ranks of Jason, Leatherface, and Micheal Myers.

Fourth: The movie parody's almost all Slasher horror films of the past. Ex: The Burning, Wrong Turn, House Of Death, All Fridays and especially Scream, with all it's comedy, but what really disturbed me was Green's obsession with parodying movies from Troma, like Toxic Avenger( Throw up scenes). Right there & then you lose all credibility for a truly American OLD SKool horror classic.

What I did love was the gore. Straight out over the top sick s**t like Maniac, Pieces, American Werewolf In London. Also the T&A was fabulous. Gorgeous girls flashing their headlights was always a plus, but no one has sex. In OLD School the rule is, You fool around, then the killings begin.

I think Adam Green should take his talent of gore, watch a few more truly scary old Skool horror flicks and try again, but without so much comedy and "Bad" actors. Team up with Eli Roth and make that "Thanksgiving" flick a reality.

Kudos for Tony Todd, Robert Englund, and especially Kane Hodder.

Did I like the film? I enjoyed parts of it. mainly the bloody parts flying around, but I'd rather "Skin my own dick" then pay to watch it again. Also a line from the movie.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Great Actors, but maybe just a tad too much to take on?

[9/10 · 22 June 2007]

Don't get me wrong I understood the whole thing and how the stories came together, but it felt a little too rushed. Maybe it should have been a two part movie like the Matrix series. Anyways that said, my review will consist mainly as a review on different actors and the characters they play.

We start with M.J who is played by Kristen Durst. She does her part well. She is believable in her emotions like when she is fired from her Broadway "gig" and when she is strung up on a huge Venom Web while our other heroes are fighting below her. What I didn't believe too much was the fact that she was presented as a rather Jealous individual. I know Spidy's Kiss with Gwen was unforgivable(the same way he kissed M.J. in part 1), but she really didn't give Pete a chance. and the way she just ran into Harry's arms afterwords is just wrong. She also seemed to be very envious of Spiderman's current popularity among the citizens, but I guess this was a way to show her human side.

Next is James Franco who plays Hobgoblin? Well, actually New Goblin, because he never even wears the real costume. He plays an excellent role as Spiderman's best friend- turned bitter enemy, because of his own father's death. He does really well with the see-sawing job of emotions his script calls for. First he is pure evil on verge of destroying Spidy, then loses his memory to amnesia, then we see him all friends with him, but at the same time he kisses his girl. Then he is back to his avengful ways, then teams up with Spiderman, before finally getting killed in one of the movies most satisfying scenes. Wow that takes great acting.

Sandman is up next played wonderfully by Thomas Hayden Church. He looks like a carbon copy of the original comic. His story is great and played with delicately well. I myself never considered Sandman a real ruthless villain. All his actions are driven by his sick daughter's health. Even the money he steals is just so she can be cured. The fact that he is the actual person that killed Peter's uncle only adds to the sympathy one fells for him, after his story is told. He is actually a victim in the movie. His powers are punishment enough and it's only right that Spiderman lets him go.

Topher Grace is Eddie Brock, but not Venom. He is perfect for the obnoxious Eddie Brock(even though he is considerably skinnier than Marvel's version), but his lines at the Bugle and the way he outshines Peter on screen is Marvelous(no pun intended) The only gripe with his role was his Venom transformation. I think showing his face on Venom was inadequate to the characters menacing nature. I mean he is Eric Foreman. Yeah he can play Eddie Brock, but Venom. I think once Venom absorbed Eddie it should have been that. End of Eddie. Does everyone else think he looked like a buffed up Vampire.

Toby as Spiderman. He is the embodiment of The Spiderman character. Only this time we get to see his evil side, because of the symbionite, Venom. His darker side is actually what I expected ? Still kinda nerdy guy who thinks he is cooler than he is. Only his Landlord's daughter actually dug him. The whole going out with Gwen to make M.J. jealous only shows how inexperienced Peter was at being bad. Still, the scene at the club was very entertaining and the transformation from cool EMo dancing guy to furious violent EMO guy was great acting from Toby, but please no more crying.

All in all the movie was a great Roller-coaster ride. Spectacular Effects with the Sandman character. His scene of the transformation at the experimental site was simply astonishing. The way he struggles with himself to control his newfound abilities was really Human.

Everyone did wonders with their parts, but were given too little time to develop them to a full extent. Venom got the short end of the stick with less than 15 mins on screen. I really hope they bring him back for a later installment.

I think at this time the series is going very strong. It got the biggest Box Office opening in history(that may well be surpassed by Fantascic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer), but nonetheless the Spiderman series is definitely the best. Drama ,Action ,Comedy and even some Moral lessons were all rolled up into one incredible FUN TIME ride. Enjoy!

28 Weeks Later (2007)

A Great Roller-coaster ride

[7/10 · 18 June 2007]

Let me start off by addressing all you losers who always complain about the "Logic" factor in movies. Like always ,I say stay home and don't go to the theaters. Movies are meant to be fun ,not logical. Besides how much can the poor movie get to explain in less than two hours?

With that said; this is a worthy competitor to its predecessor. All the original scares are their, The lurky dark scenery and mega fast mindless killing machine zombies. Except in this one there is the "family unit" concept. Meaning that right from the start of the movie we are introduced to a couple who within minutes of the film are separated in what has to be one the best fast-paced horror scenes to emerge since the "Aliens" scene were all the military are wiped out by the aliens. The scene really hits home, because instead of using the burnt out hero cliché, Robert Carlyle's character does something totally human and leaves his wife behind ,while he flees for his life, chased by 100s of those rage infected crazies. This was totally believable and geared me for a great movie.

After that super adrenalized scene, we are taken 28 weeks later to find out that London is now a vast wasteland filled with infected ,who have died of starvation. Carlyle is reunited with his children and the U.S military(What can't they stick their nose into) has set up a "Safe Zone" for Britans few survivors. I found the Military concept in the movie to be strictly for Hollywood purpose. ...and once again they are portrayed as the "Bad guys" in the film. Those who've seen "28 Days Later" know what I mean. It's laughable, but in one scene the military basically opens fire on all infected, including civilians. The military takes out more civilians then the actual infected do. I guess this was all done to introduce the sole soldier with a conscience...and I mean sole, because in one scene another soldier almost refuses to pick up the other survivors that are accompanying him.

One other highlight of the film is the gore. If you like bloody gory films then you will be happy to see that the MPAA does not get to spoil the fun in this one. My only "beef" would be the two scenes shot in the dark. I like dark scary scenes, but this one takes the concept a little to far to a point where you basically find yourself in the dark and not being able to see anything for about 10 Mons. The director uses this same effect later in the subway, but not even that can spoil a really good sequel.

My final words are to look out for Robert Carlyle's "Zombie". He not only gets into every military access building, but always finds a way to get to his family. ..and has the last laugh at his wife. Payback is a B**CH!