Change Your Image
scipio7
Reviews
The Mummy (1959)
By far the most superior version!
Forget that new CGI piece of trash (and its lame sequels)! This is the best rendition of the classic tale. Peter Cushing is amazing (as usual) as the protagonist, delivering a very sympathetic portrayal of a character who is swept up in events beyond his control. The budget is clearly low here, but the special effects deliver, making Hammer's version much more exciting than the 1932 original. Christopher Lee, as the mummy, busts through doors and windows, is torn apart by shotguns, but still persists, strangling the men who disturbed his rest. Make sure to go out and rent this if you are a fan of classic creature horror. Also, check out Hammer's excellent versions of Frankenstein and Draclua (titled The Curse of Franklenstein and The Horror of Dracula).
Score: 9/10
Bad Taste (1987)
Dead Alive's older, less intelligent brother
A lot of people who love Dead Alive have (for reasons unknown to me) not seen this film- which is a shame. Sure the effects are a lot more primitive, and the the humor is not as dead-on. Considering, however, that Jackson shot this film on weekends over the course of 4 years (read the DVD liner notes) and that he played 3 parts in the movie (Derek, the captured alien, and the alien chef), it is quite nearly a masterpiece. This is probably a good movie to watch with other people (who have a liberal sense of humor), as many of the jokes may fall flat if watched by yourself, being as tastless as they are. My favorite parts: (don't read if you haven't seen the film yet)
1) Chainsaw scene/death of lead alien: You all know why.
2) Rocket goes through building, hits sheep: classic!
3) Anything involving Derek, his skull popping open, and him stuffing foreign brains inside. Oh my god!
Rating: 8/10
The Howling (1981)
Rent a different Werewolf movie
I went into this movie with high expectations. I came out very regretful for the wasted 90 minutes of my life. The special effects are decent, and the pace is fine, and there are some nice surprises and jokes at the end. The characters were so uninteresting, though! Dee Wallace is absolutely horrid as the female lead, and isn't given much help from the stereotypical characters that surround her. I never felt that Wallace's character and her husband (played by Christopher Stone, her soon-to-be husband in real life if I'm not mistaken) actually cared about one another. They simply seemed like pawns being pushed along by the simplistic script.
Cliches abound in the movie as well. Believe me, you WILL get sick of fog by the time the film has run its course- there is enough of it to fill 3 normal horror movies! Also, the werewolves, when they finally appeared looked comical. Like a cross between a wolf, a rabbit, and a velociraptor from Jurrassic Park (they have long ears and equally long and then legs that were not present on any wolf I have ever seen). There is some good suspense involving the newswoman and a pursuing werewolf, but when the filmmakers have the chance to really knock your socks off with a good jolt of surprise, they chicken out. There are several key moments that could have been scary, but were misused.
All in all, American Werewolf in London, and it's sequel/remake American Werewolf in Paris are much better movies. Rent them first, or even The Wolf Man (w/ Lon Chaney), but don't say I didn't warn you... 3/10
Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956)
Early Warning Against Nuclear testing
This original Godzilla movie is much more solidly constructed than the laughable 1998 version with Matthew Broderick that really is more akin to Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, the poor acting and truly horrendous (even for the 50's) special effects keep the movie from being (in my humble opinion) a true classic.
The plot is merely an excuse for the scene involving Godzilla rampaging through downtown Tokyo (the film's highlight and raison d'etre). After that, the last twenty minutes of the film seem to drag by until the absolutely ridiculous conclusion arrives. I won't spoil the ending for you, suffice to say that it is even more implausible than the reason for Godzilla's appearance.
Raymond Burr's stone faced performance does not help quicken the slow first act of the movie at all. His character lacks most any sort of personality, and he doesn't really give us a reason to care about him. Takashi Shimura (famous from his roles in many Kurosawa films) is given nothing to work with here. His few lines are horredously dubbed into English, and his sad and vacant look at the end of the movie is really his biggest moment. It is such a waste of true talent...
That said, the film is not totally unejoyable. The destruction of Tokyo was altogether to short, though, and there is little of interest in the rest of the movie. 4/10
Frankenstein (1931)
The Greatest Horror Movie of All Time?
This movie is such a classic. Nearly every scene is memorable, and images like the flaming windmill, the father carrying his dead daughter, and the look on Colin Clive's face when he says 'It's Alive, will stick with you for years!
Boris Karloff is the glue that holds the film together, with his sympathetic portrayal of the monster. He is a tortured soul, trapped in a grotesque body, and commanded by strange people. When he does do harm to others, it is mostly out of naivete or fear. This is what makes the final scene in the windmill so heart-wrenching. The monster is surrounded by that which fears most. Karloff's expression of child-like terror and helplessness is truly unforgettable.
Frankenstein is also a quickly paced movie and clocks at a brisk 71 minutes. The material is explored throughly, and there is nary a dull moment in the film. The characters, if not exceedingly well-developed, are interesting and portrayed realistically. Colin Clive in particular is effective as Dr. Frankenstein.
Don't be turned away by this movie's age. It holds up flawlessly with the horror films and is one that should not be missed. Countless sequals and remakes have followed James Whale's original, but this one is still the best by a long shot. 10/10
Hollow Man (2000)
Oh, come on!
That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...
None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!
Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense.
The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!
3/10
The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)
Pacing is all wrong
After the fourth or fifth climax, I wondered when the movie would end. It seems odd to blame a movie for having too much action, but this one is it! Too much action might not be a bad thing if more time was devoted the the setup, though. The film clocks in at 2 hours, and I figure they could snip twenty minutes off of the melodramatic ending, give ten to the first act, and have a decent 110 minute movie.
It is never quite clear why Samuel L Jackson's character contacts Samantha Kane (Geena Davis)- first he's pretending to be a policeman, than he is a PI, apparently. Nor is it clear why Samantha accepts his aid. A scene was obviously left on the editing room floor where the PI introduces himself and offers his aid.
The girl that plays Samantha Kane's daughter is one of the worst child actors I have ever seen. She helped ruin the movie for me. Geena Davis wasn't so great, either. I wasn't totally convinced by her low, threatening tones when she turned into 'Charlie Baltimore.' It was almost that she was trying too hard to be bad.
This movie isn't an entire waste. Samuel L Jackson is utterly hilarious, and Geena Davis has some good lines, too. The action towards the end is just too implausible and drawn-out...
4/10
Unforgiven (1992)
I hate westerns!
I hate westerns. I fell asleep during The Searchers, and think John Wayne is one of the most overrated actors of all time. That said, I loved this movie, and I gained a new respect for the genre. Sure, Eastwood's acting is a little wooden. Sure, none of the characters in the movie are particularly likable. Gene Hackman is utterly ruthless as the town sherrif, and the movie is exciting from start to finish. The pacing really isn't very quick, but there's plenty to interest here.
It's hard to talk about much without giving away the ending, but it's great to watch the morality issues at play in the movie. Is it right to kill the two cowboys after they have already been punished? Is it right to leave your kids or your wife to pursue some reward? These questions you'll have to ask yourself as you watch. Enjoy!
9/10
Deliverance (1972)
A refreshing perspective
So many movies today have bodies dropping left and right with little regard for the deceased. Without giving much away, I can tell you that the body count in Deliverance is low. The extreme detail that is given to each death is what makes this film unique. Despite what Hollywood may tell you, there are consequences for murder, no matter what the circumstances!
The film is incredibly realistic in the aforementioned aspect, as well as in its characters and setting. The Georgia countryside looks downright lush as the cenetral characters canoe past. Another unique film about this film is that the characters change, much like the rapidly moving current. So many films have stagnant characters that are the same from beginning to end. These 4, though, are irrevocably changed by the events in the film. Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds give oscar-worthy performances!
8/10
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
This movie is sheer genius
The Hudsucker Proxy is a fond satire of 50's hollywood that is both incredibly funny and deeply movie. What I don't understand is why everyone and their mother isn't praising this movie! The acting is great with Tim Robbins in the lead and the beautiful Jennifer Jason Leigh playing a sort-of double role. Paul Newman is great, too!
Visually, the movie is a marvel to behold. The scene transitions are reminiscent of 50's era hollywood and are used very effectively. Some of the events are so truly bizarre, that if anyone other than the Coen Brothers (with help from Sam Raimi) were handling it, it would be totally ridiculous. But it's not. It's ingenious! This would have to be one of the Coen Brothers' best films, up there with Big Lebowski and Fargo.
Funniest moment (I won't give away too much, I promise): Tim Robbins finds out the Jennifer Jason Leigh is also from Muncie, so he comes out of the bathroom doing.... well you have to see it!!!
Stop reading this, go out and see the movie now! You will not regret it. 10/10
Ed Wood (1994)
Ingenious comedy with memorable characters
I'll confess that though I'm familiar with Ed Wood's body of work, I've never actually seen one of his films. Tim Burton's portrayal of a man who truly loves the movies and is living his dream almost makes me want to watch Plan 9....
This is a great movie, though. The acting is superb all around, and while there are not a lot of big laughs in the film, the movie oozes warm, good-natured humor. How can you not love the always chipper Ed Wood (played by Johnny Depp) or sympathize with the washed-up, but once great Bela Lugosi (played by Martin Landau, who won an oscar)?
The only flaw in the movie is that things seem to come togther a little too neatly. For example, there is a scene where Ed is eating at a restaurant with his new wife (or is she still his girlfriend then?). In walks her chiropractor who moments later gets the role as body-double for Bela. Somehow, I don't think events worked so quickly and neatly in real life. Still, the movie is a comedy, not an informative (though it often is) documentary on Ed Wood. It almost seems fitting that events in his life come together with unbelievable ease, since most of his movies operated the same way (or so it seems). If Ed wood were to make a movie of his life, I don't think he spend an hour introducing the chiropractor and setting up his meeting with the young director.
I give it a 9/10 and a strong recommendation.
The Fly (1986)
Classic horror movie with surprising amount of humor
It wasn't until about half-way through the movie (when jeff Goldblum's ear falls off) that I realized Cronenberg didn't intend the movie to be entirely serious. There's a lot of really black humor in this movie, and along with the superb acting, pacing, and makeup effects it combines to make an excellent film.
Another thing that I really liked was how the movie presented teleportation in a way that made it seem plausible. Goldblum talks like he's believes in what he's doing, and he explains things that make logical sense (computers are dumb, because they only know what we tell them).
The only problems I had with the movie were the lack of characters (there's on 3 main characters, and the minor ones never appear in more than one scene). Besides that, it is enthralling from beginning to end. I'd give it 8/10.
Jing Ke ci Qin Wang (1998)
Historic Epic that blows away "Patriot" or "Gladiator"
After seeing dressed up action films, like the two mentioned above, Emperor and the Assassin was a godsend. This film was such a marvelous blend of action, intrigue, and personality, and I'm sure I'll see it again and again in years to come.
Some of the complaints about the movie have been the golden/brown tint and the quick, disorienting editing. However, I loved both of these qualities in the movie, though the editing did take some time to get used to. A great example of it, is when we're introduced to Jing Ke, the assassin. He is offered an assignment for five thousand, and we see a close up of his face as he demands ten thousand. The next shot shows him with sword drawn, in the house of his victims. That whole introduction to the assassin was marvelously edited, in my opinion. You have to realize that in order to fit the epic plot into just under three hours, a lot of tiny details needed to be cut out. The quick editing also makes the movie seem much shorter than it really is.
Someone said that the swordfighting in the movie (what little of it there was) seemed like high school drama, but I strongly disagree. Most of the action is captured in a few shots, making it seem much more realistic. In so many american films, we see a a flash of a dozen close ups, without getting a feel for what is even happening! Also, the constant use of slow motion in many movies gets so old. By having the fighting in this movie fast and furious, it is much more affecting.
I won't give away the ending, but it was really suspenseful and surprising. I had no idea what would happen (being unfamiliar with Chinese history helped), and was on the edge of my seat! So, to conclude, if you like sweeping historical epics, make sure to see this! I really like the films of Kurosawa, and saw some similarities here, so also if you like his movies, see this!!