Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
A fitting title
27 September 2008
Oh, how I wanted to love this movie. I even just wanted to LIKE it! "Suspiria" is one of my favorite horror movies and "Inferno" is pretty damn good too. I, along with all the other Argento fans have been waiting for a few decades for him to finally finish his "three mothers" trilogy, and at last it has been done. Now I don't ever have to subject myself to another new film by the director. The best I can say about it is there are some inspired scenes of gore. The rest of the movie is Asia Argento going from one "expert" to another and hearing the history of the titular character. There is even a scene where there are illustrations describing the scene that one narrator is telling, like something out of a PBS special. What wasn't ridiculous was boring, or downright stupid. I'm not really surprised, because Argento hasn't made a great movie since 1988's "Opera", so his track record hasn't exactly been great. I suppose I was just hoping that we would make a fitting final chapter to his fascinating mythology of witches. Then there's the god-awful music. I swear there were moments when it was seriously verging on the "Bum-Bum-BUUUUUM!" variety. Forget anything resembling "The Goblins" masterful score for "Suspiria"...this was a downright travesty of canned electronic orchestra like something out of a Full Moon production. My biggest complaint would be that the first two films were very reliant on atmosphere and mystery, while this one was pretty much a standard thriller with some gore thrown in. I've decided to just pretend like I never saw this, because I still have the first two movies to enjoy. If "Suspiria" was Argento's masterpiece and "Inferno" his flawed but still entertaining second chapter, then "The Three Mothers" would be the nail in the coffin for any expectation that he will ever deliver another great film. Bummer.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bad Dreams (1988)
7/10
RE:Underrated 80's studio horror film.
13 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Creepy, surreal 80's horror head-trip. Slick direction coupled with descent acting, effective gore scenes, and true-to-life cult activity spices up this unappreciated horror gem. Critics savaged it, and it doesn't seem to have much of a following, but it leaves an undeniable sense of creepiness and dread when the final credits roll (to an early version of Guns N' Roses "Sweet Child O' Mine.") Jennifer Rubin's sleepy demeanor fits well into this role, shortly after her stint on Elm Street 3 as a recovering heroin addict. Re-Animator's Bruce Cabot gives a decent supporting performance as the main character's doctor, who seems to have more than a passing interest in his socially defunct patient. It's not spoiling too much to say there is a twist ending that explains a lot of the weirdness going on throughout the movie. What do you expect when watching a movie about a bunch of patients in a mental ward? Good quirky performance by Dean Cameron, he of "Summer School" fame. Great tag-line, as well. "U-N-I-T-Y...Unity...Join us!" Too bad it never got an intended sequel...for 20th Century Fox was hoping to score a hit with the film as a continuing franchise, like that of the Elm Street movies. There's some good black humor thrown in for a couple of devious chuckles, but the trick to enjoying this flick is just to leave your expectations at the door and try to enjoy a good old-fashioned spook show. This is probably of the best things director Andrew Fleming ever did, as he went on to do other studio pictures like "Threesome" and "The Craft." Great Soundtrack too!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
More a meditation than a film.
27 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Pure Phillip K. paranoia
17 July 2006
Saw this film today in a theater with no air conditioning on the hottest day of the year...pretty fitting for a movie about claustrophobic paranoia. I'd been looking forward to seeing this from the first time I saw the trailer. Whatever can be said about this film, there is no denying it's totally unique look. After awhile, you begin to get used to the rotoscoping and then suddenly, there will be something thrown in that will call attention to itself and remind you that you are watching animation. I am a fan of Dick's work, but have not yet read the novel upon which this film is based. Great performances all around and kudos to Linklater for his fantastic vision. The film could be considered a bit talky to the average moviegoer, but is much appreciated by fans of cerebral sci-fi. Fascinating premise is told through interesting blend of suspense and comedy. Not for everyone, but certainly worth a look. Certain to become a cult classic.
115 out of 143 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Aww man, how'd they screw THIS up?
8 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
After sitting through this flick, I couldn't help but think that with all of the drafts that Fox supposedly went through before green-lighting this, they could've put a bit more of a story into it.

It has a nice concept, Predators use the Aliens as hunting game for training in an underground pyramid which shifts its structure very ten minutes... but after the set-up is done, so is the plot development.

Casting Lance Henrikson as Weyland (Bishop) was a nice touch, but there isn't really much to the character other than being a disease-stricken tycoon who wants to leave his mark by discovering the Aztec/Egyptian tomb underneath Antarctica.

Sanna Lathan (Blade's Ma) is okay as the lead, but ultimately not very engaging. The only other characters that stand out are Spud from Trainspotting and some hunky Italian anthropologist. Mostly because their accents are so thick, it's sometimes hard to understand what they're saying.

The creature FX are nicely done, although the unmasked Predator looks kinda rubbery compared to the original.

The set design was the star of the show, however.

That's never a good sign when the stuff in the background is what's best about a production.

All in all, the main problem I had with the movie was instead of it being a tense thriller like it's two originators, it wound up being a dull action flick geared toward teenagers who were probably in their cribs when both the Alien and Predator films were in their prime.

What's even more frustrating is reading a recent interview with James Cameron who stated that after this last film was made, neither he, nor Ridley Scott have any desire to return for an Alien sequel, (which was in the planning stages.)

Cameron stated that he felt that the team-up of the Alien and the Predator films cheapened the franchises, likening it to that of a crappy Abbott and Costello meets Whoever the F@*k.

To cap it off, the final shot, (which should be an amazing revelation) had me actually laughing out loud.

Like the rest of the movie, nice idea, but real bad execution.

Mark another one down for Paul W.S. Anderson.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Domino (2005)
6/10
Interesting concept is overtaken by style overkill...
11 January 2006
I wanted to like this one, darn it! I went crazy over the hyper-kinetic trailer which emphasized the unique style of various film stock, fever dream montages and rapid-fire editing, and apparently, that was what it was good for...a trailer. Besides the fact that the aforementioned craziness is not only on a big screen and nearly two hours long, it prevents us from getting to know the characters. The movie is called Domino, but to be honest, I knew less about her, than anybody else. The script by Richard Kelly got a lot of love online, and what is displayed in the final form seems to be ripe for a killer film...but it seems that something wasn't quite right in the execution. Don't get me wrong, I love the style that this movie employs...it's just that, like a two-ton gallon of chocolate ice cream, way too much of a good thing. I do dig the color scheme they chose, which is heavy on the yellow and green...and I really loved the casting of the film. Chris Walken is great as always, Mickey Rourke brings his usual smarmy charm to the proceedings, and there's a great American debut performance by Ramirez, as Choco. Kiera Knightly, though beautiful, seems a little bit out of her league with this one. She just doesn't seem believable as a bounty hunter to me. Fairuza Balk or Juliete Lewis would've probably done a much better job, were they "young and hot" and able to open a major Hollywood production, but alas... I do like a lot of Tony Scott's work, from The Hunger to True Romance...but he is also guilty as such hollow, vapid productions like Revenge and Enemy of the State. This should probably play better on a small screen, because the visuals are really a bit too much...though I'm sure many would disagree. This one should be known for when Tony Scott pushed his audience a bit too far, judging from the dismal box office. In summation, it seems that this type of heavily-layered visual approach works best in short form, such as Scott's BMW commercial with Gary Oldman and James Brown, or the trailer for this film itself, but not for long stretches of time. It was also used to much better effect in moderation with Scott's last film, Man On Fire. Hopefully with his next film, Deja Vu, he'll be wary of this and he'll have better luck with audiences.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Demons 2 (1986)
4/10
Doesn't live up to the first one...
11 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Saw this last night and being a fan of the first Demons, I had hoped that the sequel would have the same fun, spooky spirit of it's predecessor. This is unfortunately not the case. The set-up is similar as the first, in which a horde of flesh-eating demons burst forth into reality by being released from a horror movie being played... (The first had been a movie theater, this one takes place in an apartment building and on TV.) Once the demons are released, madness and mass carnage ensues. That's pretty much it as far as plot development goes. It worked nicely in the first part because of the ghoulish make-up FX, fast pace and unpredictability. The sequel, however, doesn't cut it. The first problem seems to be that there are way too many characters who we don't really care about one way or another. If they were annoying or idiots, then there would at least be some kind of gratification when they are inevitably butchered/demonized/eaten alive...but these people are just kind of there waiting to be slaughtered. Plus, the fact that most of the characters are in different parts of the apartment building (and out of it), they are constantly cutting back and forth between them, which kept pulling me out of the story. There are some amusing bits, courtesy of the splatter FX and campiness. Such as a constant flow of dripping blood eating through one floor's construction after another as if it were alien acid... The first demon possession of a crabby birthday girl leads to the destruction of her entire party, and a creepy demon child clawing his way into the room of a tenant who is pregnant with child. However, that sequence parlays into a ridiculous-looking rubber demon baby puppet thing that bursts from the chest of the human child that constantly flies across the room at its intended victim. I got a couple of chuckles out of that scene, but I don't think that was Bava's intention. The scene probably would've worked better if they just kept the child demon around to attack the woman, but hey... Other little things like the over-zealous acting of most of the characters and the bad dubbing don't help matters. In summation, I managed to see the unrated version on DVD, and can't imagine having to sit all the way through the previously only available R rated version, because the make-up FX and gore were the only thing I got out of it. Also notable is an early role of producer Argento's future hottie daughter, Asia. In fact, she probably gives the best performance of the whole cast and she's barely on screen. Argento/Bava fan's might want to check it out just to see it, but will probably find themselves looking at their watch, like I did. Gore fans might get a kick out of some of the fx, but will be laughing themselves out of their chairs at the most goofy-looking evil baby puppet since Little Selwyn from Dead/Alive. You could do worse, but it certainly doesn't live up to the original.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed