Change Your Image
rob30316
Reviews
Requiem (2018)
For the love of God, why?
It probably took me nine hours to trudge through the six hours of incoherence this series offers - I had to take frequent breaks. It's boring to watch and, far worse, tedious. The acting is mediocre and the characters - well, there are people on the screen, but none of them really have any character. This show is just awful.
Jekyll & Hyde: The Musical (2001)
Unbelievably bad
I saw this show twice on its pre-Broadway tour and while it may not have been Sondheim, it was solid, and it was a lot of fun. This version is a tragic mess. I'd heard that the Broadway version didn't compare to what it used to be, but I was shocked at how awful it became. The best numbers are either gone (Alive!) or missing their best parts (Lisa Carew) or given new arrangements that totally ruin the song (His Work and Nothing More). Yes, those are all songs from the first act - I'll force myself to watch the second at some point, maybe.
Now the fun part...Hasselhof needs to be served a cease and desist against acting. He has a surprisingly strong voice, but his lack of acting ability trumps that. At best, when he's singing, he looks like he's struggling to remember his lines. When he talks...oh my God. It's painful.
In a way, it's perfect that Hasselhof is in this. J & H was a very promising musical, if somewhat campy, until it hit New York. I have my suspicions that the producer and accountant were planning on flying to Rio when it failed on opening night.
It's really, really, REALLY bad. Unless you thought the Broadway version was decent - even with David Hasselhof - avoid it at all costs.
I don't think I've ever ranked a movie as a 1 before. It's that bad.
The Return of Jezebel James (2008)
Why is it so bad?
I've always loved Parker Posey, but this show makes me understand those who find her annoying. She's really, really irritating in this. Maybe she's just hoping to get this travesty canceled--she deserves so much better. I disagree with previous commentators, though--I think the laugh-track greatly adds to the humor. Without a laugh-track telling me someone said something funny, I wouldn't have even realized this was supposed to be a comedy.
This show reminds me of the worst 80's sitcoms. It's so contrived and poorly written and the characters are paper thin. I think the show has such a fast pace to keep viewers from realizing that no one is saying anything funny, insightful, or dramatic.
I really hope Sherman-Palladino pulls it together before JJ gets canceled (or she gets dragged off into the night by a torch-wielding mob that blames her for destroying Posey's career), but she can't have much time left. This show is terrible.
And just so you know, I loved Gilmore Girls.
Halloween (2007)
Worse than I feared
Remaking Halloween is a daunting task, but I thought Rob Zombie, of all people, would at least show the original the respect it deserves. Not so. The most terrifying aspect of Carpenter's classic is that Michael Myers is never explained--he exemplifies that aspect of human nature that we try to ignore. While making Michael the abused product of disgusting white trash creates a sympathetic villain (which is always interesting), it also undermines the real horror of the film. No amount of violence and gore can compensate. And there's violence and gore galore. So much, in fact, that half way through the film I was yawning at the brutality. I just stopped caring. And why would I care about the spoiled, obnoxious protagonists? Without warning, you're plunged into the shallow, myopic world of high school cheerleaders. Laurie Strode doesn't even come off as being smarter than or 'above' the others; she's equally annoying and pathetic. I was disappointed that she didn't die. This may be the worst installment in the Halloween series. Despite the extreme violence, despite the high body count, it's a castrated version of the original. Carpenter's film was much scarier and far more insightful. I give it 3 stars instead of 1 because of the scenes with Sheri Moon Zombie--not because she was in them, but because they were really emotional. You had to feel for her trying to love such a disturbed child. The other star is for what I think of as Zombie's trademark--no one in his movies dies without making you sympathize with their pain and fear. In most slasher flicks, the victims just die--Zombie really shows them hurting and afraid. It's very unpleasant, but I have to give him credit for not glossing over murder. That's my 2 cents, anyway.
Empire of the Sun (1987)
Not the film I remembered
I saw 'Empire of the Sun' a year or two after it came out, and at the time, I was absolutely blown away by it. So I watched it again last night. I can't say a word against the cinematography. Visually, it's a superlative film. For the most part, the acting is terrific. But to me, this is a feel-good movie masquerading as a gritty war epic. See Jim make the best of a bad situation! See Jim learn Japanese and ingratiate himself with the guards! See Jim's dreams come true as a B-51 flies so close to him that he can even see the pilot even waving at him! I felt nauseous at the end, not because of the magnitude of suffering and death depicted, but because in spite of it, the movie is nothing more than yet another paltry triumph-of-the-human-spirit-over-adversity flick. There's nothing uplifting or inspirational about war.
The Ring Two (2005)
Disappointing, but I'm still really hoping for The Ring Three
Okay, so it doesn't compare to the original. I'm sure I'll get booed for saying this, but they shouldn't have let Hideo Nakata direct. I've seen the original Japanese trilogy, and I really don't think the first two were good at all ("Ringu 0" was a pleasant surprise, but doesn't come close to "The Ring"). The original installment in the American trilogy (hopefully) is one of my favorite movies. How many horror movies creep you out with symbolism? "The Ring Two" can't hold a candle to it, I'll admit that now. But, there's a bit more delving into Samara's past, which I hope will be brought to light in a third film. I'm keeping the "Scream" trilogy in mind--when I saw "Scream 2," I thought it was awful. "Scream 3" brought everything together so well that I can enjoy "2" now. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they can do the same. I agree with Sean that David Dorfman was better in the first, but he had kind of a hammy part. Naomi Watts, on the other hand, seems to have matured as an actor. She was terrific in the first, but I thought her performance in "2" was more refined. To see, or not to see? Depends on how much you liked "The Ring." The first 5 minutes or so are pretty bad. The rest of the first half is decent. The second half of the film is actually very good; it just doesn't answer any of the questions left unanswered at the end of the first, and raises a few more. Here's a toast to "The Ring Three."
Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004)
A great movie in its own right
Neither sequel has been nearly as good as the original, but considering how brilliant "Ginger Snaps" was, no one could reasonably expect that. Actually, my main disappointment with both sequels is that I wanted what GS had--horror, humor, hipness, irony. But anytime there's a sequel that tries to be the original, it fails because it tried to emulate the first installment. Both sequels have completely different story lines and character. The only real continuity is in the characterization and the themes. And that's a brilliant decision. I probably liked "The Beginning" better than "Unleashed," but I just finished watching the former, so I can't be objective. It is, in its own right, a really terrific film. All of the films have had their fair share of visual panache, but this one is so beautiful it reminded me of "Sleepy Hollow" at times. I almost wish they'd been released under completely different titles--I can't help but compare the sequels to the original, and they're not really sequels. They all feature the same two leading actress; they're all about werewolves; "Unleashed" even picks up after the first left off. But you could watch "Unleashed" without having seen "Ginger Snaps" and still know what's going on, and since the third starts close to 200 years before the first, you obviously don't have to see the others. They're separate films connected by actresses and themes, as I see it. Speaking of the actresses--Emily Perkins and Isabelle Katherine are, of course, beyond reproach. Their direction is wrong; they don't fit in to the milieu they're put in, but I think that's a director error. Or the director's way of maintaining the integrity of the characters we know from the first two movies. Ginger and Bridget can't exactly be Puritans, can they? Next to the drop-dead brilliant score Mike Shields composed for the original, this soundtrack doesn't stand a chance. But it works very, very well with the setting and the action. I had to watch one scene towards the end (the fire) twice only because of the music. One thing I absolutely loved, though found a bit campy--Ginger spends half the movie dressed as Little Red Riding Hood, though her hood, and the rest of her clothes, are black...It makes for some stunning cinematography, though. So basically, after "Ginger Snaps," it's a bit of a letdown. But not taking the original into account, it's an incredible film that you shouldn't miss.
Out (1982)
Not a bad movie...
...a singularly terrible movie. I couldn't finish watching it. Incidentally, is it possible to write a spoiler for a movie with no plot? It wasn't even the absurdity or randomness that annoyed me so much as the pretension. The whispered, overdubbed dialog; the random 'important' phrases being repeated ad nauseam; the cheezy dream sequence, also repeated ad nauseam. And the alphabet soup? The acting is mediocre at best, there doesn't seem to be any direction, and there's almost no music, though a movie this boring needs a strong score. I actually watched this movie because I was intrigued by the horrendous reviews it got on this site--don't make the same mistake! It's not worth it. It's just painful.
Sangue per Dracula (1974)
Dreadful, but not in the way a horror movie should be
This wasn't as bad as "Flesh for Frankenstein," which was so abysmal I couldn't bring myself to comment on it, but it's a bad, bad, terrible, horrendous movie. What makes it all the worse is that it has a terrific theme...or would have had, but the script was so atrociously written that every socialist subtext was forced screaming to the front to beat you over the head. That said, a terrible script doesn't excuse acting as bad as this. The 'actors' are about as convincing as the housewife and the delivery man in your favorite skin flick. And in a way, this is a skin flick--it's a feeble attempt to infuse promiscuous sex into a story originally focusing on the Victorian demonization of sex. In capable hands, it could have worked. These were not capable hands. In my own humble opinion, every copy of this movie should be destroyed.
Nightbreed (1990)
Not so much about the movie...
I can't rate the movie because I read "Cabal," the short story by Clive Barker on which it was based, years before I knew it had been made into a movie. And I'm not going to say that if you'd read "Cabal," you'd think the film was brilliant, because it's not. At best, it's a decent B-grade horror flick. Actually, I just wanted to mention that "Cabal" is quite possibly the most moving, disturbing, riveting, distressing, beautiful, depressing, uplifting and transcendental piece of literature I've ever read. Don't judge a book by its movie. If you haven't already, read "Cabal." At risk of sounding like a stoned hippie--it can change your perception.
The Ugly (1997)
The Lunatics are Running the Asylum
What an amazing, disturbing, brilliant film. I don't even know what to say; I've never seen a film quite like it. This is the second Scott Reynolds film I've watched this week ('Heaven' was the first), and this man is obviously a genius. For a while, the bar for serial killer films has been set at "The Silence of the Lambs." I think this manages to raise the bar. Again, I don't know what to say. The acting is brilliant and the direction is even better. The story may not be an entirely novel concept, but I've never seen it done better, and it left me staring at the screen in amazement when it was through. This is a good movie, kids. As for the tag line--well, you'll just have to watch the movie to get it, won't you? :)
Desecration (1999)
What a terrible, terrible movie
I couldn't find one redeeming quality in this pretentious mess. The plot is nonexistent and the acting is atrocious. And then there's the imagery...Yes, clowns can be creepy. Here, they're not. It doesn't make any sense for them to be there; I know it's intended to be surreal, even absurdist, but it comes across as forced, trite, and clichéd. The dead nuns get redundant pretty quickly. And, as a couple other reviewers mentioned, the murderous toy airplane is totally laughable. Personally, I thought the flying scissors were pretty inane as well. I marked this as containing spoilers, but really, what is there to spoil? With no plot and no tension, there's nothing to give away. Don't waste your time on this; it's not even worth satisfying your curiosity. It's just dreck. 0 out of 10 stars.