Cthulhu Spawn Reviews

Frailty (2001)

In my humble opinion: too predictable

[22 September 2002]

I was more than a little underwhelmed by this film.

I had figured out the *ahem* "twist" within fifteen minutes of the young Adam and young Fenton characters being told of their Father's vision.

I thought the acting performances were for the most part, sufficient. McConaghay did alright, and Powers Booth was suprisingingly good. I would consider Bill Paxton to be out-of-his-league in everything he has done since Aliens. Plus, I saw some noticeable flaws in the performances of the two boys, but I am much less critical about child actors. In such cases, I fault the director for not trashing the bad takes, and trying to get the scenes again.

All in all I found this film to be somewhat trite. I'll try not to itemize why so I don't potentially spoil the film for any readers, but I found the plot resolution to be disappointing.

It almost read like it was written by a Paranoid Christian who desperately wanted something to justify his own faith.

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

Just leave your memory at the door

[31 May 2002]

I saw this film today, and I had to say it was very entertaining.

I would strongly caution fans of Tom Clancy's book(s) to please ignore everything you may have read before entering the theatre. There are significant changes to existing storylines and timelines.

There are several familiar names Pres. Bob Fowler, Bill Cabot, John Clark. But a great deal of the character dynamics have been altered, some to a significant degree. So, it is in the best interest of fans not to have any hope of the existing continuity to be maintained.

First and foremost, the film is set in present day, and Jack Ryan is young, and single. Which means none of the other films stories have happened yet. Although they are set earlier in time. As you can see, the film simply doesn't fit in the storyworld, so trying to make it do so will cause terrible headaches.

As far as the Politically correct decision to change the nature of the antagonists. I think viewers of Arabic descent should be more insulted by the portrayal of arabs in the film now, than they should've been had the original story been maintained.

The arabs in this film were showcased as primitive, moronic, dupes of the antagonists. In the book, they were motivated and disciplined. I don't this change was for the better. But I understand the decision, as a great deal of the book rested on the relationship between Israel and the Middle East, the story was far too involved to be made practical, for filming. So I do understand the change even if I don't like the outcome.

The decision to set the story in the present day is one I seriously disagree with. The only rationale I can manage is that the film-makers wanted to show off techno toys like the palm top computers and the laser guided smart-bomb footage, but in my opinion, the fact that this film rebuffed the entire existing story-line cheapened it in a very real way. I don't think the film would've been damaged if had been set in the past, the audience knows it's not real anyway, so does it matter if the story is present-day?

The special effects, sound effects and explosions were top notch, the characters in the film developed nicely and the action was entertaining. So all-in-all, I think the movie, by itself, delivers. The directer did a great job with what he was given. But, the film is a great disappointment to me nonetheless, as I feel this production was hamstrung, before a single scene was shot.

Druids (2001)

Take it from me, don't bother

[1/10 · 12 December 2001]

hmmm, how to begin....

This is the worst film I have seen in a very long time.

There is nothing redeeming about this film, from the low production values, to the non-sensical plot, or the "artistic lisence" taken to history, this film is trash.

I believe this to be the most poorly edited film I've ever seen. Most of the cuts fly back and forth between different locations and happenings with no logical progression. There is a distrubing lack of transition into and out of major scenes that leaves the viewer guessing "where is this taking place" thoughout most of several conversations. The exposition is also severely lacking. I felt the movie should have come with a person to stand in front of the TV, telling me about all of the important events that occurred "off-camera", explaining to me the inexplicable time lapses, and finally begging forgiveness as I beat him senseless for the time I wasted watching this fetid pile of crap.

The action scenes in this film were at best, tedious. The acting was horrible, Lambert trying to protray someone with leadership and chrisma, was a laughable farce, and most of the bit player were as bad.

I feel violated for watching this film and it is a feeling that I wish to share with as few people as possible, so please, avoid this film like the plague.

Ghosts of Mars (2001)

remember the good ole days, when villains mattered

[3/10 · 26 August 2001]

Instead of expounding on the myriad of weaknesses this movie contains, I'd like to focus on one problem the I felt was significant. In my opinion, this film lacked a noteworthy villain.

It did have an antagonist, apart from the bad CGI dust storm flowing over the cheap-ass models, but he was devoid of any depth or development. In order for me to enjoy an action film, I feel there is a certain need for a useful villain. Someone who is.... Charismatic, sympathetic, devious, or awe-inspiring. When an unruly horde of evil doers is lead by someone, I want some inclination of why, he, in particular, is leading them. I like to feel for the plight of the villain, trying to envision the world from his or her perspective and gain an understanding into why they would do whatever evil that they do. Or, I like a villain that is likable enough to root for, where you find yourself not caring which side wins the inevitable showdown, because you like 'em both. These factors are necessary for a good movie, but that pretty much exempts Carpenter from trying.

The antagonist in this film was a shallow, pointless, muscular guy with imposing piercings, the only look we get into why, he in particular, is leading the throng is the scenes where he bellows at his legions before beheading some victims.... Leading us to conclude, Martian culture was ruled and shaped by those who both yelled the loudest and possessed a good fore-hand. The villain, who was named.... oh that's right, he wasn't, I'll just call him Bob. Anyway, Bob had a serious lack of lines and spends the movie bellowing incoherently at the camera, the extras, the heroes, the setting, the caterer, at just about anything around, I guess when he found out he wouldn't be allowed to speak, Non wanted to throw his hat into the Oscar ring by being louder than the rest. I suppose it was too much to hope for some subtitles as Bob motivated his troops, I for one was curious about the depth to which the human-martian conversion went. I would have liked to know if the martians, Bob's army, possessed the communicative skills and reasoning to apply tactics in combat. Or if all of their skill with metalworking was merely a freakish coincidence, and they really were the mindless horde they behaved like when the combat started. (sigh) all in all I have to say, I wouldn't recommend this film, I didn't hate it, it just seemed to fall short of what it could have been, and that thing that it could've been and wasn't..... cool.

Also, I don't think it's fair to characterize the bad-guys as "Marilyn Mansons" I think they are also equal parts "Captain Howdy" from Dee Snyder's strangeland and Sting from the WCW (i think).

Skeletons in the Closet (2001 Video)

Aw he's scared, It's okay Mr. Cameraman, you can come closer....

[29 July 2001]

The film was better than I expected. I have to admit I was skeptical when my Brother's fiance brought this film home. But we were bored and she seemed enthusiastic to see it, since she evidently met the lead actor (Jackson) once.

Right off the bat I was taken aback by a visual display that was far from impressive. I had a problem watching the film because of the (in my opinion) unprofessional camera-work, which became so distracting in parts that I had problems relating with the characters in the film. Some of the interior scenes are shot from a different room than the one the actors are in (literally "peeking" around a corner), seeming to suggest a director of photography with a serious fear of intimacy.

All of my problems with the camera-work aside, I thought the acting in the film was impressive. I have seen several Treat Williams films, and I never thought much of him as a dramatic actor. This was his best performance to date, which isn't saying all that much, but he did a decent job. I am not familiar with whatever soap opera produced Jackson but this film proved all the potential he has. His acting range was impressive and his delivery is exceptional. The only negative thing I can say about the part of Seth, would be, did they have to use so much make-up? I don't think male characters really need to be wearing "fire-engine red" lip-stick.

After all was said and done, I wasn't upset that I watched this film, which means it exceeded my expectations. Plus, with the right crowd, it is a down-right blast to make fun off. But that is only if you are actively trying to antagonize your future sister-in-law.

Shakes the Clown (1991)

Body of Binky

[10/10 · 29 July 2001]

This is one of my all-time favorite movies. As shallow as it appears on the surface, this film delivers with some subtle laughs.

As far as casting goes, this is the only movie in which I liked Chris Elliot. The character of Binky cracks me up every time I watch the film. His absolute self absorption and megalomania lead to some very "quoteable" lines and terrific cinematic moments.

Also, the fact that Robin Williams' name doesn't appear in the credits makes me smile. In the credits, Mime Jerry is played by "Marty Fromage" making me wonder if, at seeing the final product, he refused to have his name attached to it. Or, if Mr. Williams is willing to play jokes with his very name when he doesn't have a great stake in the success of a film.

I consider this film a masterpiece of dark comedy, and it has made me eternally loyal to Bobcat Goldthwait. I only hope he runs for President someday.

The Mummy Returns (2001)

I only regret that one is the lowest rating

[1/10 · 4 May 2001]

This movie hurt me in a way that I have never been hurt before. I feel it was the worst movie that I have ever seen in a theatre....

The Mummy Returns is a non-stop thrill ride of plot holes, superficial acting, poorly done special effects, and scenic rip-offs of well known movies. Only one other movie I have seen drove me to the point of screaming while I watched it, I was overcome with a desire to warn others that they should not see this film.

While I sat in the theatre, I was wistfully remembering horrid films that in comparison outshine this.... this.. ugh, words fail to describe this monstrousity. I remember films like: Congo, Ishtar, Howard the Duck; I found myself thinking about how much fun I'd be having if these films were on the screen instead of the Mummy 2. I wished for a power failure, earthquake, hurricaine, anything to stop the pain that was throbbing behind my eyes.

I won't spoil the storyline, mainly because I felt the movie lacked one...maybe there is a rosetta stone buried somewhere in Hollywood that fills in the tattered swiss-cheese plot. Or maybe the makers of this film are true sadists and have planned a Mummy 3 that will run along the same time frame filling in the holes in Mummy 2. God, I hope not.

My friend I watched the movie with summed it up very well when he said, "You have to treat movies like this like you would treat a bear attack... Just try to go limp, hope you survive, and try to cover up your genitalia."

I'll conclude with a plea to anyone who is listening, don't go see this movie, if you waste the price of admission on this terrible movie, you'll likely never forgive yourself.