Change Your Image
crawlfan-1
Reviews
Troll (1986)
The world needs more movies like this
When I first saw this movie, I was harsh on it. Why? Probably because I wasn't used to the b-movie style. About a year later, I watch it again after seeing a few dozen other bad movies.
Wow.
It can easily be said that this movie set standards for future b-movies to follow. Why? The cheesy special effects are VERY dated, there's no doubt about it. The acting is mediocre at best, and the plot is extremely corny. But isn't that what we love about these kinds of movies? The script impressed me a bit. Ed Naha did what he could with the dialouge, which was humorous for the most part.
So basically, anyone who didn't like this movie had the wrong expectations. This may be classified as a horror or fantasy film, but it seems unfair to think of it that way. There should be a category called "Late-night-nonsense." Maybe it would get better ratings.
Cloverfield (2008)
Just plain terrible
If you enjoy your health, and dislike throwing up when you expect a thrill at the movies, avoid this movie at all costs. I probably wouldn't have minded this movie if it hadn't been shot from the bystander's point of view. I admit, this had some excellent thrills to it, and I always love films about gigantic and destructive monsters, but it was filmed like the Blair witch project. It's almost as if they wanted to take a wonderful idea and ruin it. I felt so physically ill that I kept my eyes closed for five minutes of it so that I could control the migraine that this useless piece of crap gave me. It almost felt like the director was trying to insult the general public.
Goal well met, jerk.
And now they're planning a sequel. Dear God, have mercy on us, we DO NOT deserve trash like this in our cinema. Don't let the absurd rating of 7.8/10 fool you, this movie should be ranked on the Bottom 100 list.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
A near masterpiece of musical film
Originally, I was going to give this movie a rating of 6/10, rather than 9, but a lot of things have made me reconsider. For one, the sets and visuals in this movie are downright amazing, and showed Tim Burton for the genius of cinema that he truly is.
However, I was going to give it a 6/10 for a few reasons. As an example, they removed my favorite song from the stage-play ("The Ballad of Sweeney Todd"), and the casting seems much like a 12 year old would arrange. Like Johnny Depp as Sweeney Todd; he has a dark appeal to him and a sort of sinister voice when it comes to singing, but it seems that he was cast mainly because of how big of a name he is in Hollywood. Then there's the casting of Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall of the Harry Potter franchise. Showing that the both of them were cast in the same movie shows that Tim Burton wanted the same kind of feel of Professor Snape and Peter Pettigrew. Regardless of that, Johnny Depp, Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall pull off their roles much better than I had ever expected (As a matter of fact, Timothy Spall has become my favorite actor to play the role of the Beadle in the history of Sweeney Todd, and I regret he didn't have more opportunities to sing).
Helena Bonham Carter didn't quite live up to expectations, though. As a singer, she's pretty good. As an actress, she's great. But a great musical actress? No, not quite. Lovett is a character of comic relief, and you simply fall in love with her as the play progresses, but you don't in the movie. I kept feeling like I had to picture Patti LuPone in her place as the movie progressed.
This movie is extremely well-crafted, as only Tim Burton could do. The blood seems a bit cheap and added-in, but the mood of the film is dark and, yes, somewhat frightening if you let it sink in as you watch it.
All in all, despite a few casting errors and how they cut out all the comedic wonders of "A Little Priest" and "The Worst Pies in London", there's so much in this movie that compensates for it, such as how it's the darkest adaptation of Sweeney Todd I've seen in my life, musical or not.
If you're squeamish, please avoid this movie. There's gore galore.
Hannibal Rising (2007)
Intensely interesting, mostly a study in the mind of Lecter
Everyone is well familiar with the Hannibal Lecter played by Anthony Hopkins, and characters such as Clarice Starling and Will Graham seen in Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon, and Hannibal. The character Hannibal Lecter redefined cinema, and the common idea of a "villain" as we know it. Many of the people who saw Hannibal Rising claimed it wasn't needed to show Lecter's background, but I thought it was... well, there isn't really a word for it. I've been in love with the character for years, and was thrilled to see him return to the big screen. I admit, I've wondered whilst watching Silence of the Lambs and the other films "What makes a person into something like this?" Thusly, Thomas Harris provided us with an answer. A lot of people hated this because it didn't include Anthony Hopkins. But what purpose would the film serve in featuring him? The Lecter in this movie is barely sixteen years old, roughly, making Hopkins too old for this part (though it would have been cool if they gave him a cameo at the end, with a subtitle reading "X years later") Overall, if you want to get to know the character, watch the other films first, and if you're interested enough by then, this is the movie for you.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
A hard film to really appreciate, and at the same time excellent in every aspect
I saw this movie before I went to see the live Broadway play a few months later, and up until I saw the play, I loved this film. The music is intoxicating, to say the absolute least. However, after seeing the play, you begin to turn against this film because of the sheer brilliance of the Broadway musical. They killed the beautiful atmosphere of the play, and all the characters seem a bit separated. For example, if you watch a scene with the Phantom, then change to a scene with the managers, it seems like you aren't watching the same film anymore. It's hard to explain if you have never seen the live version.
Speaking for Gerard Butler, who played the title role, he's a magnificent actor in this and really captivates you. However, his voice is severely lacking what a good Phantom should have. It's a bit hoarse, and he growls and shouts instead of hitting the notes in some of the songs. And there's the "sexy" issue, which deprives this film of ANY POSSIBLE DIGNITY it could have ever achieved. The Phantom is a deformed creep who's been living in a sewer his whole live. Something tells me that isn't drop-dead gorgeous. "Phan-girls" are utterly the worst thing to ever happen to this franchise (and if you ever visit YouTube, you'll see for yourself), because they focus more on the "sexiness" of Gerard Butler than anything else in this, completely ignoring the terrible acting of the other lead.
Which leads me to Emmy Rosum, who plays the role of Christine Daae. The way she sings for her age is breathtaking, and hard to believe. However, she hasn't got a shred of acting ability whatsoever. I mean for God's sake, I can't even describe how pathetic she is. She only makes one facial expression in the entire movie, and doesn't even TRY to act in the least. It's so ignorant, it actually angers me to see her on screen. Lloyd Webber (the composer) is nothing but a whore for money, and probably accepted this pitiful excuse of a performer before hearing anyone else in the role. Even Sofia Coppola was better in "The Godfather: Part III" than Emmy is in this.
As far as the sets and make-up goes, it's very unsatisfying. The way they try and make the deformity look is the cheapest there has ever been for a Phantom, musical or not. It literally looks like he has a tumor and a rash on his face: NOTHING ELSE. Once again, it probably had something to do with the "sexy" effect they were going for. Damn you, Andrew Lloyd Webber! The atmosphere of the whole movie really leaves you depressed, after seeing the play in which every set for every scene was magnificent.
Overall, this is the greatest musical ever to be presented, but is not the best representation of it. If you have the chance, see the play before you see this. If you have no other choice, however, it's highly recommended.
Leprechaun (1992)
"Now THAT was fun!"
Every horror movie nowadays is plain, unoriginal, and boring. Horror movie producers keeping feeding the public vampires, serial killers, zombies, etc. Nothing new and exciting, until now. In Leprechaun, Mark Jones introduced the most creative and fun horror film of the early 90s. Whereas this movie doesn't have the power to make you shriek in terror, it has more than enough to make up for that. For example, it was interesting to see Jenifer Aniston before she could act. As a matter of fact, all of the acting in this movie is pretty stale, with the large exception of Warwick Davis as the homicidal Leprechaun. This movie is extremely atmospheric and unforgettable. Several sequels (five, as a matter of fact) followed this film, and every one of them are so tremendously different from the first one that you question if it's the same homicidal Leprechaun in each movie.
Regardless, this one is well worth your time.
Retro Puppet Master (1999)
The late, great Guy Rolfe's final movie
This is where it was said that the Puppet Master series begins, but it has also been the last Puppet Master movie made before "Puppet Master: The Legacy", so in a way you can say that it acts as a beginning and an end to Full Moon's brilliant movie series. The puppets all have a new (or since this movie has the word "retro" in the title, I suppose it's an old) look to them, but not all of them do. The ones that were left out were Torch, Jester and Leech Woman (thank God). This movie relates mostly to the storyline of Puppet Master #4 and #5. There were some scenes in this movie that I found to carry on and have less action then they deserved, such as random fight scenes. If you're ever planning on watching the Puppet Master movies, watch this one first. This was actually the last Puppet Master film that Guy Rolfe starred in, which really is a shame; he portrayed the role of Andre Toulon better than any of the previous actors. Guy Rolfe passed away in the year 2003, so that means that if any more Puppet Master movies are made (other than "Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys"),an other actor will have to play as Toulon. Let's hope that person is as good as Guy Rolfe, although that will be impossible.