Caustic Pulp Reviews

Chuck & Buck (2000)

Reprehensibly bad.

[1/10 · 27 February 2009]

I can only assume people enjoyed this film because it gave them some kind of emotional response and it offers the illusion of depth and complexity where none exists, but "Chuck & Buck" is the kind of film that's more or less throttled independent cinema in its crib and paved the way for similarly dire work.

"Chuck & Buck" handles very serious issues: homosexuality, adolescent sexuality, obsession, and so on. I wouldn't dream of denying a filmmaker access to this kind of material, but the filmmaker should be using these tools to plumb actual depths, to say something or have some kind of viewpoint. This is the failure of "Chuck & Buck," and it's what makes the film irresponsible and frankly, bad. These issues are easy ways to push an audience's buttons, but the film reads like the tree rape scene in "Evil Dead:" it serves no purpose but to unnerve you.

It gets worse: the film isn't even competently made. While the acting is fine, the script is rife with implausibilities and inconsistencies, and Miguel Arteta's direction is painfully one note. The film makes no attempt to explain Buck's living situation at all and refuses to diagnose him. Buck exists as a halfway point between a fleshed out character and a cipher, and this unwillingness to commit to what the hell is actually wrong with him makes it impossible to deem him plausible or not.

Characters throughout the film will do things that seem utterly contrary to either themselves or common sense, and the infamous scene between Chuck and Buck late in the film is where it lost me for good. Likewise, the denouement of the film is far too pat for something like this, and mars an already stretched-thin credibility.

If the film had been merely bad I could ignore it. But it becomes more or less offensive when you consider the messages it essentially offers on homosexuality and to a lesser extent, women. "Chuck & Buck," whether intentionally or not, essentially equates homosexuality with mental illness and discomfort and never changes that tack. Likewise, the only female character the film seems to like/favor is Beverly, essentially a sexless, matronly creature.

My classmates seemed to enjoy the film, but I found it too reprehensible and poorly made to respond with anything other than absolute disdain. Avoid.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

"No Country for Old Men" is many things, but it's not a complete film.

[5/10 · 21 August 2008]

It's beautiful to look at. It has a lot of intelligence on display. But unfortunately, it just doesn't come together. I have no doubt this is exactly the film the Coens intended to make, and you could certainly mistake this for a profound and complete film, but it has one crucial problem: everything about it is completely disjointed.

The shots themselves are framed so beautifully that each one is a portrait, but the problem is that they don't cut together well at all. There's seldom a sense of place; characters exist largely in vacuums, either occupying a frame whose background is out of focus or is otherwise somehow confined.

Scenes have the same problem, as do character motivations and continuity, and I suspect this all stems from the film being an adaptation of a novel. The people I watched the film with were constantly impressed by the intelligence and cunning shown by the characters in the film, but the problem is that there are so many gaps that their foresight borders on precognition. People are places simply because the script says so. They cross paths because the script says so.

The film ultimately feels like a distillation of all the pieces we really like about films. The Coen brothers have burned away the "excess," leaving us with pure scenes and pure shots. The problem is that in the process, what's been burned away are the threads the connect these things and make an experience feel complete.

The ending is more or less what one would expect from the disjointed film that precedes it, but it feels like an exclamation point placed on the film's central problem: how arbitrary the whole thing feels as a result of its lack of cohesion. The ending is fairly arbitrary but perhaps most damningly, is the kind of hackneyed stuff Academy awards are made of.

It's enjoyable to watch, but like so many Academy sweethearts, "No Country for Old Men" falls apart under scrutiny.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

The Looney Tunes of the Alien and Predator franchises.

[9/10 · 26 December 2007]

9 stars out of 10 seems pretty ridiculous for a movie that has the most threadbare of plots and the most two-dimensional of characters. Make no mistake: AvP:R is a terrible, terrible film.

But it is an AWESOME movie. Anyone who goes to this expecting anything other than absolute, mindless, relentless carnage deserves what they get. Those of you who really just wanted to see a movie with aliens and predators wrecking crap and each other will have a blast.

The movie is a checklist of clichés, gimmicks, and devices. But more than that, it's a checklist of all the superficial crap fans want to see. Ever wonder if an alien's retractable jaws can punch through a safety helmet? NOW YOU KNOW! There is no logic or sense, rhyme or reason to this movie. But it IS loaded to the gills with violence. It's ridiculously, over-the-top, gloriously violent. Every time you get sick of the plot or characters, something dies. Even if you count JUST kids in the movie, there are still five kills (counting kids in utero at least) alone. Let me be clear: they killed pregnant women and children. It is hilariously, cartoonishly violent.

This is the Looney Tunes of the Alien and Predator franchises. It is modern grand guignol. It is GLORIOUS.

I Am Legend (2007)

Half an incredible film.

[5/10 · 14 December 2007]

Do yourself a favor. The instant the "Anna" character appears, leave the theatre. At that point you will have experienced a remarkably potent, emotionally devastating film.

After that, the movie takes such a stunning nosedive that it's almost impossible to believe that's how it was originally meant to end. Indeed, there are even scenes in the trailer that suggest a completely different (and vastly superior) direction to the film, and there are plot elements through the film up until this point that corroborate that direction.

And then Anna shows up. And it all goes to hell. Suddenly there are bright lights, explosions, deus ex machina for miles...the movie is completely destroyed. If you hated the ending of "28 Days Later," try to imagine that instead of the ending being five minutes of disappointment, it's the entire third act.

I really hope we get to see how this movie was supposed to end at some point, because I can't fathom the original script just randomly sucking as much as this one did at the end.

28 Weeks Later (2007)

It doesn't work.

[1/10 · 11 December 2007]

Honestly, my friend and I turned this off about a half hour in.

"28 Weeks Later" has a hell of a pedigree to live up to. Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" was a breath of fresh air, and one of the best and smartest horror films to be made in the past decade at least.

If it wasn't following Boyle's film, "28 Weeks Later" might've been passable as mediocre horror entertainment. But because it follows that film, it has certain rules to live up to, and a standard of quality. It fails miserably.

As a horror fan, I get used to the absurd. I get used to the ridiculous coincidences required to make a movie go. But I could NOT suspend my disbelief here, and I'm the guy willing to believe the judge in "Ghostbusters II" didn't notice the giant marshmallow man destroying New York City five years prior. Simply put, the way the outbreak...uh...breaks out again does NOT work. It requires a series of incredibly stupid decisions to get to where it is. I can handle plot holes, I don't expect a movie to be perfect, but if you're setting up your film as a serious horror film following a serious horror film...well, the movie doesn't play by the rules established for it. Characters need to be idiots to make it go.

There's no logic here. The instant you present the film with any scrutiny at all, it crumbles to dust.

Unless you're really certain you can shut your brain off, avoid this film at all costs.

Eastern Promises (2007)

Would be solid if it wasn't a Cronenberg film.

[6/10 · 22 September 2007]

Make no mistake: "Eastern Promises" isn't a bad film. It's engaging enough and works well enough. The problem here is that Cronenberg's style, subversiveness, and panache are by and large nowhere to be found. Instead, we have something more mundane that probably would've been better suited to a more classical director.

The problem is that the script is just not that interesting, and the story is predictable. Twists that occur toward the end of the film serve no real purpose. Naomi Watts is given a rote character, but the biggest crime may be the film's subtle and steady defanging of Viggo Mortensen's Nikolai, a character who could've been ranked among some of the most terrifying men ever captured on film, but instead is degenerated to the rank of a hit-man with a heart of gold and then worse.

And the much talked about scene where a nude Viggo Mortensen fights with two men? I've read it being hailed as one of the most visceral fight scenes captured on film and indeed, parts of it do make the grade, but as a whole the only notable aspect of the scene is the fact that Viggo is nude through the entire thing. This scene is one of the few points where Cronenberg shows his teeth, but it lacks the force and brutality that made "A History of Violence" so effective.

The movie wouldn't be such a drag if Cronenberg's name wasn't plastered on it, but we've come to expect thoughtful, subversive, and challenging films from him. I've searched this film for some of that thoughtfulness. I haven't found it. Unusually banal for a director of his talent; better luck next time.

The Hamiltons (2006)

Interesting, but deeply flawed.

[6/10 · 20 November 2006]

"The Hamiltons" has a great premise, and the ending of the film is inches from being extremely satisfying. On its own, an excellent ending...it's getting there that's the problem with the film.

The fundamental flaw of "The Hamiltons" is that it's caught between being a serial killer film and a family drama, and unlike "Suburban Nightmare" - which was similar, also an indie, and much better in my opinion - "The Hamiltons" refuses to commit to its characters. It wants you to empathize with them at the same time it paints them as violent sociopaths. In doing this I found the ending disingenuous, and most of the movie was simply too scattered.

There ARE strong points to the film. The main character, Francis, is easily the most well-developed character. Although he gets too whiny and, frankly, useless at times, he's able to make the transition into action with aplomb. His relationship with one of the women being held in the cellar of the house is particularly well-written and potent.

The problem is that the movie feels forced to bend to genre conventions, and in doing so it makes the other three members of the family unsympathetic in the extreme. The characters of Wendell and Darlene are written well as sociopaths, but the problem comes when the film wants you to identify with them and accept them as part of this family, and you can't imagine why anyone would love them even if they WERE family.

The film is worth watching, but the script really could've used another run through editing to work out the kinks.

Penny Dreadful (2006)

Pretty Dreadful

[2/10 · 19 November 2006]

The only reason this got a 2 is because the killer's appearance IS fairly chilling when he's actually revealed, and because it actually does a semi-effective job of conveying panic.

Of course, the movie itself is absolute dreck. What we have is a short film that has been extended to feature length for no discernible reason other than "hey, maybe we can make some money on this!" The main character, Penny, has a phobia of cars, something I'm sure we can all identify with. What? You can't? Well, there's your first problem.

The turning point of the film, as shown in the trailer, is when her therapist runs down a hitchhiker, so they pick him up. I'm sorry, but if I ran that guy over, I'd keep driving. He's really obviously creepy looking; well, more, he looks like Emperor Palpatine while he still has the hood on. Either way, when I saw him on the road, I thought, "Wow, I'd pick up Rutger Hauer before I'd pick up this guy." This was a stupid, stupid moment where no one, no matter how dumb, how intoxicated, would possibly think to pick this guy up. Since this scene is necessary to make the movie work, the whole thing just collapses.

There's a second plot thread involving other characters that exists entirely to pad running time and ultimately winds up having no discernible effect on the plot concerning Penny or even any relevance at all.

Most of the blame for the film can be placed squarely on the character of Penny, who is basically a futile, sniveling lightweight that seems actively afraid to do anything to help herself.

Unfortunately, she's really the fatal flaw of the film. She has a phobia you can't identify with, and she spends the entire film in this heightened state of tension, from literally frame one. You have to build your film, you can't just start up there and expect the thing to stay there, people will get tired and bored. More than that, she spends most of the film crying, screaming, and just generally being useless. From the get go she behaves like this infantile individual even though she's a young adult, quickly robbing the audience of any patience or concern they might have had for her well-being. You WANT her to die.

You don't identify with her because you're not like her, because you're proactive. You'd be trying to survive. Penny is a liability to herself, to everyone around her, and to entertainment.

Avoid this movie at all costs.

Tomie: Revenge (2005)

For Tomie buffs only.

[4/10 · 15 April 2006]

If you're a "Tomie" fan you'll find something to like here. If you have no idea what "Tomie" even is, well, how the heck would you get here anyhow? Now that it's available in all its English subtitled glory, I've had the opportunity to view "Tomie: Revenge" and to experience the kind of disappointment that's all too familiar to "Tomie" fans. The "how could they screw this up?" feeling.

To summarize the plot of "Tomie: Revenge" is an impossible undertaking simply because there really isn't one. Most of the film's ideas are scattershot, thrown to the winds. The threads that connect the characters are painfully thin, and this film has easily the worst Tomie in the series (at least until I see "Tomie: Beginning.") There are some very good scenes and concepts here, and a few exciting parts, and for what it's worth, the film does try to at least tie all the "Tomie" films together. But that's not worth much; even the source material keeps little continuity between the incarnations of Tomie.

This is the most disjointed film I've seen in a long time. Characters appear and disappear with little motivation. Tomie's personality is radically different from the manga and the previous films; so badly written and acted this Tomie is, that the most exciting scenes involving her are the ones where people are talking about her. The ones she isn't even actually in.

If you're a "Tomie" buff you're going to see this movie no matter what I say, so go for it. Just don't show it to your friends.

The Ring Two (2005)

Enjoyably headless blunder.

[4/10 · 12 August 2005]

I give it a 6 because that's only what the movie deserves. For me, it's near an 8 or a 9.

The beauty of The Ring Two is that having been a fan of the Japanese franchise, and learning this would be a completely new film, I had no idea where they were going to take it. The trailers were very interesting but again, offered no clues as to where the film was going.

There's a reason for that.

You see, the filmmakers and I had something in common. I had no idea where they were going to go with this film, and neither did they. The film is a confused mess with barely a plot thread stringing it together, certainly a hallmark low for hack writer Ehren Kruger.

But that's the charm of it, I guess. It's so confused, and wants to show you all kinds of cool stuff, that the movie itself has been lost. It's no more a clone of the original film than of any of the other films in the Ring canon.

But it IS entertaining, and charmingly bereft of a real plot. On the one hand, it's disappointing - the concept of the original is rife with possibilities for a sequel - but on the other, it's sort of grand in its utter inability to capitalize on anything.

It's a curiosity of a film that should be seen, if anything, for its utter confusion.

I loved it.

House of Sand and Fog (2003)

Insulting and overrated.

[5/10 · 22 July 2005]

I couldn't understand why this movie rated so well and had such good word of mouth when I began watching it, started to figure it out in the middle, and then gave up entirely at the end.

A film so proud of its moral ambiguity has no trouble painting the negative traits of its characters in broad strokes, only making you actually think of whatever good traits they have. The problem is that their misdeeds often grossly outweigh their good ones. A film without a single likable character, or even a character you can identify with, lacks an anchor. In this film, Ben Kingsley's character, Massoud Behrani, is the closest we ever really get. His son doesn't get enough screen time and his wife is soured entirely by an early scene.

Unlikable people doing dishonorable things would make an uncomfortable enough experience, but the entire third act is, to borrow a term coined by Ebert, an "idiot plot." The third act functions almost entirely on a premise that would fall apart if Jennifer Connelly's character actually just said what happened; once you realize this, it just becomes an insulting forty minutes of forced "drama" and fake intensity.

But that's the problem with the entire movie, and whether or not it's the point it's still the problem: no one is honest and no one tells the truth. The film is predicated almost exclusively on having characters never say the right thing, because if they did, it would lose most of its running time.

Transparent, insultingly manipulative film.

Avoid.

White Noise (I) (2005)

Already destined to be woefully under-appreciated.

[8/10 · 10 January 2005]

When I saw the rating and reviews for this movie before seeing it, I figured one of two things would be the case: it would either actually just be dull, or it would be a slow burn and probably just too ambiguous for average joe audiences. I still believe the Japanese version of "Ring" would've reviewed poorly by audiences had it been released theatrically like the American one was, and now I can confirm it.

"White Noise" is not a "turn-your-brain-off-and-score-scares" kind of movie. It plays more than fair and if you spend the time to process it, it will reward you. This is one of those films where what you get out of it is proportional to what you put in.

If you saw the trailers and were interested in the film, you should've already been able to tell this isn't your usual horror film. It was made on its own terms and it feels decidedly unique, and for that it should be appreciated. The fact that it's thoughtful and fascinating - with some very solid twists - is just icing on the cake.

The best thing I can compare it to is the rash of slow burn Asian horror films. It has the most in common stylistically with those, so if you've seen films like Kairo, Audition, or Ring, and if you really enjoyed those films, this will work out wonderfully for you.

See it with an open mind, see it if you like a good brainteaser out of your film. It's good, it just has to be approached properly. It isn't for everyone.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

Probably the most overrated comedy of the year.

[2/10 · 9 December 2004]

Do you remember junior high and high school? You remember that annoying kid in your class that kept making up stories to try and make himself look good because he was such a raging dork? And his stories were too absurd to be believable, but not original enough to be entertaining?

Welcome to his movie. You're going to get reacquainted with that kid reeeaaallll well.

Independent film as of late has become a safe haven for thought-provoking, entertaining films that exist outside of the norm. They've been a haven for the really good stuff the studios are too afraid to make. They've allowed us to see incredible talent that would otherwise have gone undiscovered.

This movie is none of those things. What it has - and I will grant it this - is a strong script. What I can't figure out is why the memorable quotes here are hilarious, but when seen in the film barely elicit a chuckle. But I have a few ideas.

The direction by Jared Hess is wretched. As you watch the movie, you'll note that the camera almost never moves. Whether or not this is a style choice or incompetence remains to be seen, but it puts the irritation of the movie's visual style on par with Battlefield Earth and its relentless tilted shots. What results is a movie uncompromisingly dull to look at.

Jon Heder gives a fine performance as Napoleon Dynamite; the problem is, he channels the character - and the guy you remember from school - so effectively that he screams "give me a swirly." You don't like him. Worse still, you never empathize with him when he gets picked on or harassed at school, because he's so gratingly irritating. And because the camera never moves, we have to sit and stare at this gawky, irritating sideshow. We have to spend 90 minutes with him. It'll feel like 120.

This is one of those movies that becomes popular because it exists outside the norm, but has very little actual redeeming value to it. There are other independent films that were worth the hype - Donnie Darko immediately comes to mind - but this isn't one.

Avoid.

The Uninvited (2003)

Stunning if approached properly.

[9/10 · 2 November 2004]

I'd been disappointed in Korean cinema as of late. After the wonderful "Shiri," I found myself annoyed with "Tell Me Something," confused by "A Tale of Two Sisters," and outright bored with "Ring Virus." So I wasn't expecting a whole lot out of this film, whose Korean title translates literally to "4 Doll Table."

First off, it's not a straight horror film. It incorporates elements of the genre, but is principally dramatic. And it's a doozy.

It's impossible to properly articulate the plot. The plot is easy enough to follow, but it's intricate and deep, and just giving out details and summaries recklessly ignores all of the context these details have.

What I will say is that this is the most masterfully written and directed Korean film I have ever seen, and the acting for it is absolutely stellar. Admittedly it's very long and glacially paced, but it's rewarding. Scenes have purpose and even though this isn't totally a horror film, it does feature scenes that are downright disturbing and very chilling.

This is a strong, original, intelligent film that art-house fans would do well to pick up off of eBay. I impulse bought it and it wound up paying off in a big way.

Absolutely outstanding. Must see.

The Grudge (2004)

Ju-on's Greatest Hits

[6/10 · 24 October 2004]

I want desperately to like this film. I enjoyed most of its running time. I can forgive the execrable ending for the quality scares that preceded it.

But this film has a problem, and it is exactly the same problem that plagues Ju-on: The Grudge. Essentially, if you haven't seen the original Ju-on and Ju-on 2, you'll be completely lost. The problem here is that if you haven't see Ju-on: The Grudge either, you'll be completely lost.

If you can latch on to the scares, though, you're in for a treat. Mostly.

The problem is that this is as much a remake of Ju-on as Ju-on: The Grudge, but when the screenwriter put his hands together, he wrecked the whole thing. I can say with certainty that the achilles' heel of the movie is the script and unfortunately, that was the weak point of the original films. That it's compounded here brings the film dangerously close to being outright bad.

The direction saves it. The acting does not, but I'll give Takashi Shimizu leeway there too. The man does good work, and Japanese horror nuts will thrill to see Ryo Ishibashi (Audition, Suicide Circle) here.

If you have any interest at all in the original films, do not watch this movie until you've seen them. This movie will spoil the best scenes of the original low budget films. You can buy them on eBay; I got all four original films for $50 there with quality English subtitles.

Otherwise, it's a good, solidly scary film. But it will ruin the other films and is probably the first remake I've seen that actively damages the existing films. Approach with caution.

Tomie: Forbidden Fruit (2002)

Tomie's final outing is more whimper than bang.

[6/10 · 10 October 2004]

The four traditional Tomie films could probably be paired up under two headings: horror with drama, and drama with horror. The two better entries in the series - Tomie: Replay and Tomie: Rebirth - would be in the former category, and this along with the original would be in the latter.

If you're reading this, chances are you're curious about how this matches up to the movies that precede it. There are a lot of really unique and interesting choices taken by the screenwriter, director, and composer (I'm not joking), but the movie falls apart completely in the middle. Characters seem conflicted and confused - typical of a Tomie movie - but this seems to be more a result of script problems than character development.

Another major problem the film faces is its abundant lack of a real protagonist. The character positioned as the good Tomie is made sympathetic early in the film when she's relentless abused by her peers, but when she gets home she exhibits no respect for her father. Her father would be more sympathetic, too, but he has many trespasses throughout the film. Even the character Suzuki, who appears late in the film, doesn't get away completely clean. No one does, and that seriously cripples the film. The Tomie films always seemed to be about when bad things happen to good people, so why are bad things happening to mediocre people here?

The sense of dread that permeates Tomie: Rebirth (the best entry in the series by far) is out to lunch here, too. We don't feel like we want Tomie to leave our main characters alone; we just want her to go away.

The movie also should've ended five minutes before it really did. Had it done that, it would've almost completely redeemed itself. But the movie cheats the viewer completely here too.

It's certainly more interesting than the first film, but seems to be more in league with Tomie: Replay in terms of quality. See it only if you're a fan of the franchise. Otherwise, just avoid it and watch the vastly superior Tomie: Rebirth.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Mean-spirited, wretched, and overrated.

[1/10 · 5 October 2004]

I have seen "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is a friend of mine. You, sir, are no "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre."

I cannot for the life of me figure out why people enjoyed this movie. It was a full-on, predictable bore and worse than that, it wasn't enough that it meant to just "re-imagine" the original film...it attempted to place itself in TCM lore as "the real story."

Screw that.

We're given one-dimensional characters with no motives, reason. Leatherface is stripped of any kind of real characterization. This is a soulless husk of a movie that equates sadism with horror and unfortunately, this concept doesn't work. If we cared about the characters, what happens to them would seem horrific. Instead, it just seems cruel and mean-spirited, like kicking a dog. Horror is the emotional reaction we're going for; for a film that really seems like it's shooting to rise above the genre it seems to be sinking quite well into the worst qualities of it.

Here's an alleged "arty" film wherein the last half hour is spent finding ways to keep Jessica Biel's shirt wet, and so help me if you actually pay attention you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

And these may be the most damning aspects of it. The film is dishonest from start to finish, not once respecting the viewer. It's an offensive geek show masquerading as a serious horror film. The shoestring plot serves only to string unpleasant situations together. But it's shot as though they were going for something more. It's too haughty to be good exploitation, and too cheap to be good horror.

I'm not too stuck up or soft for this movie, I own meaner movies than this. But the movies I've enjoyed ("Audition," "Freeze Me," the original "TCM") are at least willing to justify their content; this is just an ugly film, just an excuse to create characters and abuse them.

This is quite likely the worst film I've ever seen. Avoid at all costs.

St. John's Wort (2001)

It's like watching someone else play a video game.

[3/10 · 5 October 2004]

The idea of a video game as a movie (not a movie adaptation of a video game) isn't a wholly new one, and there have been efforts made on both shores to properly adapt the concept without adapting a game itself. "St. John's Wort" is in that vein.

"St. John's Wort" takes what it can from games like "Fatal Frame," "Silent Hill," and "Resident Evil," but unfortunately loses its way when forced to hold up the movie end of the bargain. Picture one of the aforementioned survival horror games and remove the interactivity. Just watch someone else play it. Someone who sucks at it. That's a pretty fair description of the movie.

It's clearly going for that "videogame as a movie" concept, heavily evidenced by the visual stylistic choices made by the director. Unfortunately, these choices are uniformly unappealing to the viewer. Scenes are high contrast, and frequently exhibit a very strong hue. This is not your television set, this is just an ugly movie.

The plot doesn't fare any better. The first twenty minutes at least is just watching our main characters wander around the haunted house. That's it. I wish I were joking. It's not even suspenseful, either; no hints that the house is haunted, nothing. By the time the alleged "scares" are supposed to kick in, you don't care what happens to these two. Any stabs at an actual coherent plot in the film seem forced and contrived.

The direction and plot were clearly going for more suspense than your average survival horror film, but they fail and the movie is a dull eyesore.

If you want to see a more lively, entertaining "videogame as a movie" I strongly suggest seeking out "Biozombie." Content-wise it isn't comparable, but the match in style is there except for an important distinction: "Biozombie" is watchable and entertaining, and "St. John's Wort" is not.

Tomie: Re-birth (2001)

Best of the series and required viewing.

[9/10 · 20 July 2004]

Having watched the first three films (Tomie, Tomie: Replay, and this, Tomie: Re-birth), I can say this is far and away the most accessible and interesting of the group.

For sure, this movie is, like the others, almost glacially paced, but those with the attention spans for it will be rewarded.

It's hard to describe the plot, but it essentially revolves around the effect that the title character - Tomie, the girl who can't die - has on the people around her. Tomie "enchants" men in so much as they become powerless, madly in love with her, to the point where they kill her, and she is reborn.

But the character is so much more complex than that, and this iteration of the series makes her the most accessible and expands her well beyond what the previous films had.

For sure, this is horror, but it's more psychological than anything. There are gruesome scenes, but the whole film is effective because the characters are rich and deep and interesting. While the first two films focused almost entirely on the effects Tomie had on the men she encountered, this one expands beyond that, touching on family and friends, and even deigns to show us what happens when a man resists her charms.

It isn't enough that it's a solid horror film, but the quality of writing on display is outstanding and puts it on par with other classics like Ring and Kairo. This is a matured Tomie film - not dull like the first or overtly Americanized like the second - but raw and intelligent.

Absolute must see.

The Good Girl (2002)

The Mediocre Girl (Contains Small Spoilers)

[9 April 2003]

This is what's called an "actor's movie." That is to say that it's great for the actors involved, who get astoundingly good scenes to work with, and they all do outstanding jobs with what they have.

But there are four major problems with the film that prevent it from being anywhere near as good as people claim.

The first is that Jennifer Aniston's character, Justine, completely lacks any kind of motivation in getting from scene to scene. Her performance is excellent, but the movie seems to give her only one motivation for doing some of the things she does: "it's in the script." I can be thankful that this is a breakout theatrical role for her, but this should have been a lot better.

The second is the lack of accountability that any of the characters have. Nobody is held responsible by the end of the movie, and it gets to the point where we see Justine for what she really is, and we may find her despicable for it. At the end, I knew I was supposed to be happy for her and like her, but for the life of me I just couldn't figure out why.

The third is that the comedy aspect of the movie is woefully misplaced. The movie is so ineptly written that almost none of the punchlines are at least played for punchlines; the movie seems to be so in love with how clever it is that it's sitting there, snickering to itself, while the rest of us are going "I'm supposed to laugh here, right?" Doubly problematic is that some of the characters are too complex for the kinds of jokes being made at their expense. Many of the gags seem in poor taste when they arrive, and we just don't laugh. As someone who found Very Bad Things, The Rules of Attraction and it's kin American Psycho absolutely hilarious, it speaks volumes that I just can't laugh at how bad these situations are.

Finally, in depicting a boring world populated with boring people, the movie does an admirable job being as boring as possible. And there's your paradox: how do you show something's boring without making it boring?

See it once just for the sake of seeing it, but don't expect anything as mindblowing as people claim it is.

American Nightmare (2002 Video)

A pleasant surprise of a slasher film.

[7/10 · 22 November 2002]

This film is by no means a great film. What it is, however, is bordering on some of the best you can get in its genre with its budget (just $56k!), and I marvel at just how well-conceived this film is.

A lot of the dialogue is pretty cornball and self-referential to the point of nauseating, but the self-referential crap runs dry about a quarter of the way through as our slasher goes on the move. Where most good Hollywood films are just consistently witting and entertaining the whole way through, spread out evenly, this one moves almost in fits. There are lulls in the dialogue, and then absolute sparks of brilliance and a lot of tongue-in-cheek laughs.

The directing style is fairly utilitarian, which may or may not be your cup of tea, but suits me just fine. Some of the edits are poor, but most of it is dead on, and a scene where a character begins to space out and freak out is shot very well.

The script itself? Apart from the sometimes stupid dialogue, there are a lot of shining gems in the dialogue and indeed, while some of the characters may not be perfectly fleshed out, they're very realistically written. We don't really have stupid characters in this movie, surprisingly enough. They speak intelligently, and act intelligently and realistically, and I appreciate that.

In terms of gore - 'cause I know that's what all the rest of us horror fans are after - there isn't much. T&A? A decent share.

What's really on parade here is how well-written a lot of it is and how well-acted the film is as a whole. The plot has a lot of tweaks of inventiveness (a genuine female slasher!), a couple grisly scenes...the movie just works.

If you think you can get past its stumbles, I would strongly suggest you check it out. This film's a must-see for horror buffs.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

All in a piece of fruit.

[1/10 · 31 May 2002]

The fundamental flaws in Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones are pretty much summed up in a single scene in this film. Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala are sitting at a dinner table (?), and decide to share a piece of fruit. And during this entire scene, the piece of fruit is completely computer generated, and it shows. It's horribly obvious when Anakin slices it in half, and becomes downright inexcusable when Padme takes a bite of it. We can see the actors are just miming the motions. God has killed a kitten because of this.

That piece of fruit symbolizes everything unholy about this film.

It symbolizes the hollow acting Lucas deliberately set out to draw from each performer. We have talented actors here, we know they can do better than this because we've seen them do better than this. Well, except Hayden Christensen. A friend's mother really gave an accurate assessment of him when she said that he was really good at what he did: going berserk and then crying about it later. "I don't wanna fight." His performance was as forced as everything else in the film.

The script? Don't even get me started. People who defend this film from its detractors as saying "Star Wars never had good dialogue, that's not the point" are certainly semi-justified, but what they aren't realizing is that there was at least a small standard of quality in the first trilogy. There's a reason The Empire Strikes Back is actually considered a good film. No, the dialogue and acting were never really that great, but they were tolerable, and light years ahead of this dreck. Every plot development seems forced, every line cliche. The worst part is that this is even a step backward from Episode I, and is liberally sprinkled with painful one-liners that are supposed to be witty exchanges. Folks, when I want one-liners, I'll watch Army of Darkness. If this is going to be a serious film, they need to take a hiatus.

Perhaps the piece of fruit is most symbolic of the film overall in that the film, like the fruit, looks beautiful but somehow horribly false and impossible to believe (the CG looks like a step DOWN from Phantom Menace, I swear), and is ultimately nothing but air. It's hollow, there's no substance here. The sense of fun present in the original trilogy, and even a little in Phantom Menace, is totally gone. It looks and feels like it was a chore for everyone involved to make, including Lucas himself.

I suspect Star Wars fans will finally wake up to this one like they did to Episode I and it will plummet off the top 250 here. The reality of it is that the only true Star Wars films are the original trilogy, and this senseless new trilogy will probably ultimately be disowned like Alien 3, RoboCop 3, Halloween III (noticing a pattern?), and other poor sequels. ...all in a piece of fruit.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Absolutely incredible.

[8/10 · 7 September 2001]

This is another shot to the dome of Hollywood, another good horror movie to watch this summer. This...this is what the real horror fans have been waiting for.

Forget your beautiful people lining up on the movie poster. Forget people having sex and getting killed. Forget your newfound horror conventions and think back to something pure, raw, and simple: two people see something they aren't supposed to see, and now they have to pay for it.

This movie is genuinely disturbing for the first half hour and even offers some good scares up until the unsettling climax. A lot of the comments here are complaining about what a horrid ending this movie has, and I really have to disagree. They hate it because the ending is NOT neat and tidy, it is NOT what they expected, but it is DEFINITELY clean cut and leaves no margin of error. You KNOW what happened. I walked out of the theatre stunned.

It's better you know as little as possible about this movie when you see it. Don't have the highest expectations, but if you have an open mind and a keen love of horror, this will definitely slake your thirst for a good horror movie, signaling the end of Hollywood's drought of ideas. No more Valentine, no more Soul Survivors, no more Final Destination, no more Scream, no more I Know Who You Shagged Last Summer...this is how horror movies are done.

An excellent cry to the halcyon days of horror. Strongly recommended for anyone with a strong stomach and an open mind.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Good, but hopelessly flawed.

[6/10 · 30 March 2001]

I'm not a Kubrick fan. I'm not going to bend over backwards to praise this movie because I still feel the man is in love with his own directing style. Still, this movie is good.

It's not great, but it's good.

There's real meaning and wisdom in this movie and metaphor aplenty. It isn't for everyone but I felt it was intelligent and if you get it, you'll like it. Sydney Pollack's performance seems to be the best one in the movie, and for once, I don't disagree with Kubrick's direction. For the most part.

One of the problems is the movie is horribly paced and could have ended at 100 minutes instead of 158. It tacks on an extra hour of basically unnecessary story. Some of it is important, such as how the movie begins starkly likening unsafe sex to death. It's well-done, provocative, and intelligent. But it's too long.

Another issue I have with the movie is with the two stars, Cruise and Kidman. There isn't much chemistry between them and whenever they're close to each other, it has this dry "yeah yeah, we've done this before" feeling to it. No real passion. Cruise proves once and for all in this picture that he cannot act. He is incapable of it. He gives a hollow performance comparable to Christian Bale's in "American Psycho." The difference here is that Bale's was intentional and effective, whereas Cruise's is simply empty and inept. Kidman seemed to ham it up a little too much for my tastes when she was intoxicated in this movie, and for the rest of the movie did her very best "I wanna be Julianne Moore" impression. We could have had better performances and more amiable characters if they'd actually cast Christian Bale and Julianne Moore. Cruise's Dr. Harford is weak and spineless; Kidman's Alice Harford is vile and sadistic.

I think another thing that bothered me about this movie was how gratuitous some of the nudity was. A lot of it, such as Alice Harford undressing in the opening credits, was unnecessary. I'm a man, I like naked ladies, but the movie bordered on gratuitous at points. If you want to make a statement, don't throttle it with eye candy.

Ultimately a great deal of the plot is grossly unrealistic and exceedingly hard to swallow. You'll have trouble believing most of it.

But with all that's wrong with Eyes Wide Shut, there's still a very real, very potent story and message in it. I don't know what exactly it is to assimilate from this movie, but you will feel something from it.

I just wish this story had been given more capable hands to mold it. Kubrick, Kidman, and Cruise have nearly ruined what could have been a much better movie.

I give it a 6/10. An A for effort, D for execution.

The Powerpuff Girls (1998–2004)

Smarter than you think.

[25 March 2001]

Even though it's marketed for kids, it's really not a kids show. There's just too much in this show for the older generations to catch and honestly, I think it's too ultraviolent for the demographic they're trying to market it to. I mean come on, this was originally called "Whoopass Stew." Try marketing that one.

Seriously, though, this is the funniest cartoon I've ever seen and I think it's about as clever as The Simpsons. Every now and then in an episode, they magically wrap it up in some strange and ultra-convenient way and I keep getting the feeling that they did that intentionally. The whole thing is a spoof on superhero shows, Japanese and American alike. It must be seen to be believed.

It's just too twisted for little kids, but for teenagers and younger adults, it's good stuff.