I bought the DVD (produced by mondo macabro) based upon the reviews posted here. Big, huge, gigantic, mammoth mistake. I don't know if the disc cut is a very different print than what these folks are talking about, but let me just say this - I fell asleep 3 times trying to watch this movie. After finally getting through this mess, I knew I had to post this review. It is extremely slow-moving, not at all creepy, and rather disjointed in parts. Quite disappointing with characters as empty as the wooden windmill in which they "act." I do entertain the possibility that the DVD producer chopped this film horribly and sells something unlike what the other reviewers have seen and are talking about. If you still want to see this movie DO NOT buy the Mondo Macabro DVD of it. Find a different print and I wish you better luck.
Reviews
13 Reviews
The Phantom of the Opera
(2004)
A Wonderful Presentation
22 December 2004
Whether you have seen the stage version or not, you will enjoy this film. Remember, it is the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera; not a horror flick like Argento's nudity & gore festival or the creepy Bob Englund version.
The sets are amazingly beautiful and diverse, which is to be expected as the medium provides for wider latitude than that which can be done live on stage in real-time.
All of the familiar songs are there. The Daae role is so much more enjoyable than Brightman's self-promotion (hmm, methinks there's actually some Carlotta in her). While Raoul & the Phantom may be a bit weaker than their original London cast / 1997-ish Toronto cast counterparts, they still do admirably well.
If your interpretation of a film musical is "get drunk & sing in the aisles" fluffy schlock like Grease, Rocky Horror, or Moulin Rouge; stay home. If you want a visual and aural feast, this is your meal ticket.
The sets are amazingly beautiful and diverse, which is to be expected as the medium provides for wider latitude than that which can be done live on stage in real-time.
All of the familiar songs are there. The Daae role is so much more enjoyable than Brightman's self-promotion (hmm, methinks there's actually some Carlotta in her). While Raoul & the Phantom may be a bit weaker than their original London cast / 1997-ish Toronto cast counterparts, they still do admirably well.
If your interpretation of a film musical is "get drunk & sing in the aisles" fluffy schlock like Grease, Rocky Horror, or Moulin Rouge; stay home. If you want a visual and aural feast, this is your meal ticket.
Snow Queen
(2002)
Lots of Art, Not much Script
13 October 2004
This 3-hour made-for-TV miniseries came home with us from Blockbuster's this weekend. The production company clearly spent a lot of money on sets, costuming (Bridget Fonda, especially), and special effects (including a great Jim Henson talking polar bear & reindeer). They should have spent a bit more money getting a coherent script. The story line was so loose that it really never came together. One can overlook Irish-accented Germans, but not herky-jerky storytelling. With senseless loose ends which included a special guest appearance by the Devil, this one is certainly not destined to be a Christmas Classic. A shame that they wasted good performances by the two female leads.
Fahrenheit 9/11
(2004)
Absolute Garbage
25 June 2004
It is a shameful day for the planet that anyone would watch this junk and consider it worth their time. If I lied this blatantly in an alleged 'documentary' film, I'd go to prison. Why is Moore permitted to continually produce such garbage? And who are the mindless cattle that give him awards for his refuse? The only thing he didn't do was cut together snippets of OJ Simpson and Adolph Hitler fingering the President as the one who killed Princess Diana, shot JFK, and piloted the plane the dropped the first bomb at Pearl Harbor. Moore is manufacturing lies in an attempt to swing an election, to the glee of his pals like Soros, the Nazi expatriate who wants a President that will subjgate the United States to the will of the UN. I grieve for any country that would be swayed this way. There is only one reward for mindlessly following Moore and his lies into voting against Bush. Terrorists will get a green light from a weak Kerry to spill lakes of infidel blood on American soil.
Cold Mountain
(2003)
The lasting effects of snore on individuals
26 December 2003
The academy has been hyping this in order to try and award their anorexic little no-talent redhead aussie a film that can try and unhorse Return of the King. They've been pushing Cold Mountain down the public's throat for quite a while. My only question is: Will they refund me the $10 for two matinee tickets, $13 of refreshments, and time spent traveling to, sitting through, and racing home from this piece of garbage??? They did just enough Civil War research to learn how to spell "war." As an avid student of the time period, I was horribly disappointed by their parade of inaccuracy. They present battle scenes unlike those ever witnessed during the 1860s, because their film crew had no apparent clue about Civil War battles and tactics. It is no small wonder that they had to retreat filming overseas. They had hoped that re-enactors would give their time and effort to this work, as they had done so for "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals." Not a single living historian of the Civil War was willing to be associated with this drivel, and now, having seen it, I understand why. One is hard pressed, indeed, to find anything historically accurate, emotionally moving, or socially redeeming in this utter affront to the hundreds of thousands who died during the American Civil War. This film wants so badly to be on par with "Gone with the Wind." It would have trouble matching up intellectually with "South Park" or "Freddy vs. Jason." Don't be suckered in. There are a handful of good films in theaters right now. This is not one of them.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
(2003)
A nice retelling of the tale
18 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
As we start, let's dispense with the main question:
Is it REALLY based on a true story? Well, yes it is. My having lived in TX for 20 years isn't my knowledge base there, my knowledge of criminal history is. FACT SPOILER: The true story part is that Leatherface is based on Ed Gein, a Wisconsin murderer who also inspired the "Buffalo Bill" character from Silence of the Lambs. In it's own right, the film Ed Gein is certainly worth watching. So, sadly enough, Texas Chainsaw didn't 'happen' in Texas at all. But, frighteningly enough, there is a reality base. END SPOILER.
Is the 2003 retelling of the tale worth the time and money to see? Absolutely YES. For those familiar with the original (as I am), it is especially fun to watch the new version to see how they line up and diverge from one another. To address the question of the copious blood and gore in many wannabe films nowadays, rest assured, TX Chainsaw tells the tale without gratuitous blood. They show some, but only enough to move the story along. I was pleased that the production team veered away from a sea of red. Quite frankly, the Tobe Hooper 1973 original is certainly more horrifying, mentally straining, and emotionally twisting than this one. The 2003 version doesn't make you want to walk (or run) away from it as the ending sections of the original did. It carries you on an adrenaline high and gives a more reassuring ending. The effects and lighting arts have improved since 1973 and this film shows that. The sets are fairly powerful as well. The basement escape scene parallels the meat company cattle chutes in an eerie visual dimension. Unfortunately, that will be lost on most of the audience.
I sat in the theater and watched people jump throughout. I left with my date's faceprint pressed into my arm. I heard the crowd debating whether it could really be true as they spread out amongst the parking lot. All in all, a good film-going experience.
Is it REALLY based on a true story? Well, yes it is. My having lived in TX for 20 years isn't my knowledge base there, my knowledge of criminal history is. FACT SPOILER: The true story part is that Leatherface is based on Ed Gein, a Wisconsin murderer who also inspired the "Buffalo Bill" character from Silence of the Lambs. In it's own right, the film Ed Gein is certainly worth watching. So, sadly enough, Texas Chainsaw didn't 'happen' in Texas at all. But, frighteningly enough, there is a reality base. END SPOILER.
Is the 2003 retelling of the tale worth the time and money to see? Absolutely YES. For those familiar with the original (as I am), it is especially fun to watch the new version to see how they line up and diverge from one another. To address the question of the copious blood and gore in many wannabe films nowadays, rest assured, TX Chainsaw tells the tale without gratuitous blood. They show some, but only enough to move the story along. I was pleased that the production team veered away from a sea of red. Quite frankly, the Tobe Hooper 1973 original is certainly more horrifying, mentally straining, and emotionally twisting than this one. The 2003 version doesn't make you want to walk (or run) away from it as the ending sections of the original did. It carries you on an adrenaline high and gives a more reassuring ending. The effects and lighting arts have improved since 1973 and this film shows that. The sets are fairly powerful as well. The basement escape scene parallels the meat company cattle chutes in an eerie visual dimension. Unfortunately, that will be lost on most of the audience.
I sat in the theater and watched people jump throughout. I left with my date's faceprint pressed into my arm. I heard the crowd debating whether it could really be true as they spread out amongst the parking lot. All in all, a good film-going experience.
Underworld
(2003)
A few new notes to an old story
19 September 2003
The movie isn't bad, which is also to say it isn't great. Somewhat better than the average offering in the sub-genre. Maybe it's that it tries too much to blend the gritty-city sets of the Nicholson-Keaton Batman, with the sexy vampires of the Anne Rice trend, with all the cool gadgetry of the Blade series. The story does add some nice twists to the usual bland perspectives on the beasties, and it certainly doesn't hurt to have Kate Beckinsale running around in patent leather, butt-hugging pants. So it's down to goth/s&m vampires versus the lycans (simply because it is too much effort to say "Lycanthropes"). I sided with the Werewolves early on, and it was nice to see them lauded for technological inventiveness, even thought they managed to do their fair share of dumb things. The casting had some shiners and a few stinkers. The costumes and sets were great. The script may have *ahem* bitten off too much for a standard movie length. Worth seeing, but only once. So the real question becomes: Will this movie make it trendy~cool to be a werewolf now? Gothlings and vamp-wanna-bees beware, there's a new big dog in town.
Johnny the Genius
12 August 2003
I loved this film. Wonderfully atmospheric, energetic, spooky, and downright fun. As usual, Johnny Depp turns in a performance so immersive, you forget it's him playing the role. And as typical from the academy, I'll bet he's passed over for an Oscar nomination on it. Sure, the film isn't "high artsy-fartsy," but it is a great piece of work and Depp does a perfect job as Cpt. Jack Sparrow.
28 Days Later
(2002)
Will Haunt you for Milliseconds
12 August 2003
Not a fully repellent movie, mind you. Just not a good one. It does a fine job with the lighting and cueing and sets and film angles and all. The performances are nothing great, nothing evil. It just seems lacking something. The worst part of the advertising is the "Stay thru the credits to see an alternate ending that will haunt you for days." They lied, it's a boring, patent, obvious ending about as haunting as a freshly washed sock dried with Country-Breeze Downy. It's tacked on as if the director couldn't decide which way they wanted to end it. A rung or two lower than the (Heston) Omega Man, which was a rung or two lower than The Last Man on Earth (Vincent Price). Overall, it's off-target enough to register as a disappointment.
Hulk
(2003)
The Uncredible Colorform
25 June 2003
If you can't stop laughing at the cartoonishly bad Hulk, you can't ever try and appreciate anything else done in the film. What to call it? A live action film with a colorform stuck to the lens comes to mind. It would have looked better with a SouthPark version of Hulk. They can't seem to keep a consistent size / scale to it as it interacts with the rest of the film setting and people. It doesn't have any depth or realism to its textures and the colors are freakishly bad. Have you ever seen a colorized western, where the dust of the cattle trail causes an un-natural glow to the 'assigned' skin and clothing colors? Well, Hulk looks worse than that. There's really no excuse for such a bad CGI job. The creature was the whole point of making the film (well, after making money anyways). They shouldn't have shot a single frame of film until they had a believable Hulk. Instead, they rushed a lame job with a novice-quality main character.
The Scorpion King
(2002)
snore
16 June 2003
So bad I fell asleep during it. The acting was downright awful. Not that they had much to work with. The script was a bad version of another bad film (Conan II aka Conan The Destroyer). 1960's comic books had better dialogue and character development. For a film that was supposed to be a vehicle to make The Rock the next big action star; it proved to be the film that cemented Vin Diesel into that position.
Never Say Never Again
(1983)
Worst Bond Film Ever
19 August 2002
Without a doubt, this piece of rubbish should be banned from the Bond continuity. The supporting cast is less than amateurish - they make soap opera 'stars' look like Orson Wells. This film was just an attempt for anotherstudio to compete with the real Bond line, which was running with Roger Moore.
Junkyard with a few good things
3 June 2002
So, you can't decide if you really want to see it, huh? Rumor holds that both McConaughey and Zellweger have tried to acquire the rights so they can burn it, but to no avail. The script is rotten to be sure, but considering the material they had to work with, both did fine jobs; McConaughey especially so. His quirky character is done quite well in almost every scene. (Unfortunately, it falters in what is supposed to be a climactic point). Many story elements are blanket re-shoots of the original, which those 'in the know' will immediately recognize. The attempts to add Hellraiser-type elements are less than stupid. I still can't understand why Leatherface can't seem to work his chainsaw. It's on, it's jetting, but he uses it as a hammer to beat down a door, instead of cutting through it. Ummm .. ok. Paul Partain (Franklin from the original) has a cameo in it. Fun to watch once, after that; most guys will simply cue up the part where Tonie Perensky flashes her bustline. And they're not reason enough to own this film.
Tell Your Friends