Reviews

21 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Offspring (2009)
1/10
Another failed Ketchum adaptation
17 October 2009
Jack Ketchum is one of the best current horror-novelists, Stephen King and Psycho novelist Robert Bloch among those screaming their praise for his gruesome and down-right disturbing stories (it's hard to find a single Ketchum book without a King quote plastered on the jacket somewhere). However, Ketchum film adaptations haven't lived up to their original text and most of them have been forgotten...despite all coming out within the last few years. With the release of Offspring, I found myself hoping Jack Ketchum film adaptations existed within some Bizzaro universe, where good books made bad movies and bad books made good movies. Offspring wasn't a particularly bad novel, but was definitely one of Ketchum's weaker efforts. A sequel to Off Season (which hasn't been filmed yet due to a rights issue), which was your typical generic cannibal movie in book form, Offspring followed a group of children cannibals terrorizing some cardboard cut-outs from Maine. If Ketchum's more enriching experiences couldn't be duplicated in film, maybe one of his more generic pieces would lend itself better to the medium of film. Unfortunately, my parallel universe fantasy was dead wrong and what we're left with is incrementally worse than any prior Ketchum adaptations.

It's easy to forget that film-making takes immense skill, work, experience and luck to produce anything of quality. It seems like every other month there's another critically acclaimed independent film from someone who had nothing but a dream and a few grand. Unfortunately, these are the very rare exception and the reason why The Blair Witch Project, Clerks, El Mariachi, and Paranormal Activity are so famous is precisely because they are the exception. For every low-budget, low-experience success, there are numerous failures. Offspring is a harsh reminder of this. Everything about it shouts out "student film" or some deviation on the word "amateur". It's rare to see something of this low quality on the rack in a video store, let alone with distribution from Sam Raimi's Ghost House Underground and the only reason for this surely must be the link to Ketchum.

The picture is cheap consumer digital video, fluctuating in and out of focus. The camera-work is utterly bland with no sense of purpose or reason, simply shooting from one seemingly random chosen angle. Editing is sporadic, sometimes going through the standard way to edit a sequence (conversations cut almost on cue to the three requisite angles: long shot, over the shoulder 1, over the shoulder 2), other times apparently unintentionally jumpy. The lighting is so evidently off studio lights, particularly in the cannibals cave dwelling which looks like a cheap studio set. The sound effects are of the variety downloaded off the Internet, including the monotonous cricket loop, the popping gun sound and cheap thwacking sounds for axe impact. These are all aspects of film that are not always apparent upon viewing, but do make a gargantuan difference in quality and effect. Offspring, because of all this and more, appears to be a cheap student exercise rather than a real, albeit low-budget, production.

There are more superficially obvious muck-ups among Offspring though. The acting is quite frankly horrendous. Whether floundering under lacklustre direction or just simply bad, the actors appear to be attempting to outdo each other in lack of emotion or personality. However, it reaches its apex when paired with the atrocious costuming of the cannibal children. Drabbed with loin cloths straight out of Tarzan Halloween costumes and with tacky Walmart wigs atop their heads, these have to be the some of the least menacing cannibals possible. It isn't until they begin giggling like Chucky had he been sucking on helium that they become the least menacing villains possible, dethroning the killer leprechaun from Leprechaun and the killer snowman from Jack Frost. They run, scream, and jump around with the overacting zeal of an ecstatic kid playing charades.

The biggest problem however, is the script itself, which sadly was written by Ketchum himself. Few would have any doubts about his ability as a novelist (even if some critics do find his material repugnant or without any substantial merit), but his first foray into screen writing is deeply flawed. He has essentially transcribed the glut of the scenes from the novel directly to the screen with little to no alteration. An endless battle over the course of a night with cannibals worked within the context of the novel as the written form allows us to explore the characters thoughts, feelings and experiences, making it something more than just endless fighting. Here, this isn't true; the scenes are, when taken out of the context of the novel, pointless and meandering. The characters are stripped of their character. The story is stripped of all its insight and intelligence, already quite limited. Film and writing are two different mediums and in this case what worked decently well in one doesn't work in the other. We don't know why, for instance, the Sheriff so willingly helps track down the cannibals (don't worry, this is essentially the first plot point). In the book, we learn through his thoughts that it's motivated by a previous encounter with them that scarred him deeply. Here, he just does it and we don't care, true of nearly every event. The despicable menacing ex from the book comes across as a mere d-bag, the three adult protagonists as boring and shallow yuppies who speak constant cheese dialogue.

Of course there are those who will propose that Offspring is primarily a bloody, gore-fest and that if the film succeeds in delivering the carnage, it's a success. All I can say is that if baby dolls smeared with blood in plastic bags and the sporadic blood spraying of an insecticide pump filling in for a severed vein, there isn't much here to recommend.

  • Dylan, allhorrorfilms.com
21 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Halloween II (2009)
7/10
Pumpkin men, Weird Al, and a ghost horse; Halloween II is one bizarre movie
30 August 2009
It was quite the dilemma deciding whether Halloween II was a good film or a bad one. One thing is certain: it's a "weird" film, undoubtedly the most bizarre major studio release of the year. Rob Zombie's sequel or "vision" – as it's being touted – seems to have been envisioned with the aid of various hallucinogenics and mind-altering substances, withering away whatever was left of the original John Carpenter Halloween mythology after Rob Zombie's remake and leaving a nonsensical, uber-violent mess in its wake. This isn't a so-bad-it's-good movie, nor would I call it a just-plain-bad one; this is a so-weird-it's-good movie, a blood-drenched collage of absurdities and irrationality, which like a train wreck (a term some would use to refer to previous Zombie efforts), is hard to look away from. Little of the iconic original Halloween is left here – all that's left is Michael Meyer's mask, which itself is less recognizable beneath the grime and torn pieces – but perhaps it would be foolish to try to match the original masterpiece anyway. Zombie has crafted something entirely different; something quite frankly silly, dumb and, for lack of a more politically correct term, "retarded", but nonetheless entertaining, not in spite of, but because of this.

Picking up where the remake left off, Halloween II sees Laurie Strode recovering from her ordeal with psychopath Michael Meyers. Mentally-traumatized after both the Halloween day massacre of nearly everyone she knew and her own dispatching of Meyers – by way of shot to the head -, Laurie finds herself dreading the one-year anniversary of the serial killings, plagued with the irrational fear that the deceased Meyers will return to small-town Haddonfield to finish her off. Well, low-and-behold, Meyers is alive, and he makes it his mission to track down Laurie and finish what he started.

The general plot outline is as generic as can be, but it's hard to fathom or comprehend the insanity that occurs. Michael Meyers, the original mask-wearing soulless psychopath, the "pure evil" murderer, the "Big Cheese" of all horror movie villains, has now been transformed into a homeless vagrant who randomly eats dogs. Yep, that's right, he's a hobo that eats dogs now. When a film is remade, one expects some alterations, but this is akin to remaking Indiana Jones and turning him an extraterrestrial who molests children. There is practically no semblance of the original character...and the new ones just messed. As well, Meyer's is followed by his deceased mother, himself in child-form and a gigantic white horse, seemingly all figments of his imagination. Except they interact with Laurie as well...making them ghosts? Except Meyers isn't deceased, so it makes absolutely no sense for there to be a ghost version of him. Maybe Laurie is inexplicably psychic and seeing into Meyer's mind? Or maybe Zombie just ate a few too many shrooms. Either way, this mom-boy-horse trio follows Meyer's around as he kills various victims, instructing him on what to do next. It's as stupid as it sounds.

Dr. Loomis has also been changed significantly. The remake hinted at Loomis profiteering slightly off the Meyers incident, but here it has been taken to ridiculous proportions. He's now a prima donna celebrity who travels around in a jet black limo with his publicist, throws hissy fits at reporters and threatens to beat on woman. One sequence has Dr. Loomis appearing on a talk show alongside Weird Al Yankovic, with the famed disc-joker lampooning the doctor and Michael Meyers (making puns about whether this is the same guy who starred in Austin Powers) until Loomis finally explodes with anger on air at the hosts assertion that Meyers is a shark. If it sounds like this has nothing to do with the film, it's because it doesn't. This irrelevance not only pertains to the Weird Al scene, but all of Dr. Loomis's scenes. His entire role is a completely separate, unrelated tangent in which he gallivants around the country promoting his book. For that matter, even Laurie and Michael have about ten minutes in the way of plot. Laurie, up until the last fifteen minutes, never encounters Michael. The near entirety of Halloween II is Michael fighting random people – farmers, strippers, tough-guy scumbags – while Laurie lives her life as per usual.

The rest of the film is a compilation of pumpkin people, vans running into cows, "golden showers", discussions about fornicating with corpses, and sex with a guy in a wolf costume who sounded suspiciously like Michael Cera. It's weird, undoubtedly convoluted, but in the end it's pretty entertaining. It's punctuated with displays of head smashings, throat slittings, and other displays of excessively graphic violence. Nudity is slightly down from the first one, but there are still several scenes involving bared breasts. In the end, between all the nonsense, gore and nudity, Halloween II is a big-budgeted, toned-down Hollywood stab at a Troma movie. In other words, a pretty fun movie.

I'm one of the few who actually enjoyed Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween – a lot. For reasons I won't get into here I enjoyed it immensely, but at the same time I could completely understand why so many disliked it. It took some of the things that made the original Halloween so great in many people's eyes and switched them around completely. Those who despised the first Halloween for that reason will likely loathe this second installment with a passion. However, if one can go into Halloween II not expecting a Halloween movie – or even a reasonably scary horror – they might just have a good time. It's not "bad" per say – although it's hard to say what Zombie intended it to be – but it's enjoyable in its bizarreness. Worth checking out if you don't mind Carpenter's story being completely bastardized.

  • Dylan, allhorrorfilms.com
87 out of 142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One of the more bizarre films you'll see
30 August 2009
Japanese culture is as bizarre as it gets, among the various oddities that have sprung from it are game shows which consist of male contestants being whacked in the genitals and animated pornography, termed "hentai", whose various sub genres involving bestiality and lactation have become widely popular amongst the population. Hell, they even sell toilet paper with short horror stories printed on it for god knows what reason. This utterly insane culture extends into their film as well and one doesn't have to look any further than Vampire Girl vs. Frankenstein Girl for an example of how depraved, grotesque and downright "weird" their movies can get. There are very few American-produced films that can match the sheer lunacy occurring within this "versus" circus freak show. Continuing in the tradition of previous hyper-violent, excessively-sexual Japanese horrors centered on attractive school-girls (popular films like The Machine Girl and Tokyo Gore Police), Vampire Girl vs. Frankenstein Girl throws a whole bunch of other peculiarities into the mix, including blackface, a kabuki mad scientist who air guitars using his victims spinal cords, an oversexed nurse with eyeballs sewn onto her nipples, a wrist-cutting competition, and copious amounts of blood equal in proportion to the accumulation of ten regular horror movies. If it isn't one of the strangest films of all time, it certainly is of this year.

Throwing up an assortment of depravity and blood-drenched insanity into a film always makes for good fun, but never makes up for a lack of plot, lazy writing or poorly-executed film-making, a few key problems that permeate through many of these gory, low-budget efforts. These are all issues readily apparent in The Machine Girl, a prior similar undertaking which, for all its excessive gore and dismemberment, was at its core really nothing much different than most substandard Hollywood fare. Here, directors Yoshihiro Nishimura (who tread similar ground with Tokyo Gore Police) and Naoyuki Tomomatsu have crafted both an emotionally-charged teen love story and a hilarious satire of popular trends, the film elevated by the over-the-top absurdities rather than reliant on them. High-school heart throb Mizushima finds himself in the center of a vicious tug-of-war between two lovers: Keiko, his high-maintenance girlfriend whose spineless vice-principal daddy bows to her every demand, and Monami, a new student in the school who falls for Mizushima's kind personality...and who also happens to be a vampire. Of course, when the two girls get into a feud, Keiko is no match for the supernatural Monami and is killed. However, Keiko's father moonlights as a mad scientist and he reanimates Keiko, upgrading her with a variety of different physical attributes swiped from corpses. Now, the Vampire Girl and the Frankenstein Girl find themselves facing off in a battle to the death for Mizushima's affection.

There are a plethora of outlandish gags to please any hardened gore-fan. Among the best are the Vampire Girl tearing a hole in a girls face and unraveling her skin like the wrappings on a mummy, a reanimated foot-hand creature, blood drops with a life of their own and the Frankenstein Girl tearing off an arm, screwing it onto her head and using it as a helicopter propeller to zip around through the sky. This is the love-child of a three-way between Looney Tunes, an early Peter Jackson film and a Troma movie. Nary two minutes go by where someone's head isn't being crushed in or where some appendage isn't being attached to some other ludicrous concoction. It is amazingly fun, completely original and absolutely never dull. Even those who don't enjoy the film, possibly too much for their tastes, will likely be enthralled by the madcap display enfolding in front of them.

However, it's when the film steps back from the lunacy that it's at its best. The characters at their best, particularly Monami and Mizushima, are surprisingly fleshed out, likable and quite funny; at their worst, over-the-top caricatures that are usually funny and always interesting. There are a lot of laughs mined from the absurd notion of falling in love with a vampire, as well as the battle being waged for Mizushima, the tone always light and self-deprecating; one comical part has Mizushima proclaiming, as he narrates the battle, something along the lines of "Has anyone ever asked my feelings about this", which sums up the ridiculousness of the obvious lapses of logic that allow the fight, and pretty much the entire film, to occur. Perhaps the funniest scenes involve those lampooning current teenage trends. The "emo's" are part of an after-school wrist cutting club. The trend of imitating black culture is taken to absurd limits with a trio of girls not only in black face, but with afros, over-sized lips and the refusal to drink any coffee but black. Not only isn't there a boring minute, but there isn't one that's not either laugh-out-loud hilarious or just plain crazy.

The only shortcomings are the occasional limitations of the low-budget paired with the wide scope of the films imaginative dismemberment. Some of the effects, although most often not, are poorly executed. As well, the arterial spray of blood throughout the film is less than satisfying due to the reliance on CGI effects, which look both incredibly cheap and silly (in a bad way). The entire film also carries a somewhat cheap vibe to it, which leads me to believe it was either digital video or inefficiency behind the camera. Regardless, these are small prices to pay for the amount of imaginative fun and hilarious splatter that Vampire Girl vs. Frankenstein Girl delivers, making it one of the better exercises in this type of frenetic insanity that so often falls on the wayside.

  • Dylan, allhorrorfilms.com
36 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best Christmas horror films
4 January 2009
Ah, Christmas. Although it has become increasingly commercialized and sometimes appears to be nothing more than a huge crash-grab for multi-million dollar corporations, Christmas have remained popular year after year. While the underlying message the holiday carries with it of caring for one another has been overshadowed by companies desperate attempts to launder more money out of consumers, the holiday-themed films often still carry these reaffirming messages. There's a reason that "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" air on TV every year to solid ratings: in today's dour times, where even our popular movies have deviated from escapism and taken on a depressing quality, it is refreshing to see a film that can make us feel good about ourselves and life in general.

This is also why Christmas-themed horror movies are often more disturbing than their regular themed counterparts. Christmas has become representative of joy, cheer and ignorant bliss, and even the most jaded of adults can remember with fondness the excitement they felt as children at the idea of Santa. When you give Santa an axe and have him hacking people to pieces, he might as well be hacking up all our good feelings for the holiday. Christmas is supposed to be happy and people can't stand to see it represented as otherwise. This is why "Silent Night Deadly Night", a slasher that is no more violent than your average Friday the 13th film, was targeted by a massive protest during its release in 1984 and subsequently pulled from theatres and home video. People couldn't stand to see the feel-good time of year used in such a depressing manner and their childhood idol, Santa Claus, turned into some sort of psychopathic murderer. It wasn't just ultra-conservative Christians that fought to have this movie banned: even Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel shamed the entire cast and crew on their show.

The movie starts out with a series of tragic events on Christmas Eve that instill a warped view of St. Nick into young Billy. First, Billy's family pays visit to his clinically insane grandfather, who warns Billy that Santa will punish him for his naughty behavior. Then on the drive back from the institution, a criminal dressed as Santa murders his father and rapes his mother, slitting her throat afterwards and leaving Billy and his baby brother without parents. The two children are brought to an orphanage, where head-nun Mother Superior consistently punishes young Billy for the rest of his childhood, especially around Christmas time, which is usually when Billy begins acting out with memories of his parents murder still fresh in his head. By the time Billy has reached his eighteenth birthday, he lands a job at a local toy store. However, when he is required to don a Santa's suit for Christmas Eve and the co-workers begin referring to him as Santa, Billy goes over the edge, setting out to punish those who have been naughty...with the help of an axe.

Silent Night Deadly Night is another entry in the long list of eighties slashers, and while some may see it as nothing more than Friday the 13th featuring Santa Claus instead of Jason, it differentiates from other slashers in several ways. The over-the-top gore, often a staple of the slasher film, is toned down here, with much more tonally realistic violence, excluding an instance of death-by-antlers. However the biggest difference is the subject matter, which is much more grim than usual, including such topics as rape, sexual abuse and child abuse. Juxtaposed against the cheery Christmas setting, these factors propel Silent Night Deadly Night to a disturbing level that most other slasher films don't ever reach. Sure, some of the deaths are good old fun, but the murder and rape of Billy's mother, as the young child watches, is fairly shocking, as are several of the other sequences throughout. The grainy camera quality smears another layer of sleaze and grunge over top the film. While Silent Night Deadly Night isn't quite as vile and disturbing as the notorious Maniac, it is pretty darn close.

Slasher films have never been known to feature the most likable characters, and Silent Night Deadly Night is no different. In fact, here the films sole attention is on the murderer himself, Billy, with his victims usually getting nothing more than a minute or two of introduction before being snuffed. And while Billy isn't likable (and I would be a little scared of anyone who said he was), he generates a certain amount of pity, stemming from the fact that he is not a bad guy. He is a good guy who has been driven insane by the constant abuse he suffered as a child. He is a product of his environment, and while he may not induce much compassion as he begins to pull a box cutter on a child, he is a sad case of the effects child abuse can have on a human, and generates empathy despite his heinous crimes. There is more depth to Billy than Jason or Freddy, and that is part of the reason the film is more disturbing than most other slashers.

The final aspect of Silent Night Deadly Night that really propels it above most other slashers is not a variation from other slasher genres (like the previous things I have mentioned), but an improvement on most others. This is to say that there are actually some very creepy and frightening sequences, particularly the ending which sent shivers up my arm. The infamous protests that greeted this films release may lead people to believe that Silent Night Deadly Night is nothing more than some sort of exploitation piece. This is not what it actually is though. It is a depressing, quite suspenseful and well-done entry in the sleazy slasher genre, and possibly one of the best Christmas-themed horror movies out there.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the worst sequels of all time
4 January 2009
Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is the film version of those terrible recap specials that come every couple seasons or so on a popular television show. Comprised of recycled clips from previous episodes, these specials usually are close to un-viewable. They take the best clips from the series that most people have already seen and place them one after another out of context, thus stripping them of any of the original comedic value or suspense. Likewise, Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is mostly comprised of footage from its predecessor. In fact, over forty-five minutes of the footage has been cribbed from the original. This has never really been done in any movie before, and there's a good reason for this, even beyond that these clips have to be viewed in their original context to retain the same power. Most people watching the sequel have already seen the first entry. No one wants to sit through the same stuff over again. Sequels are supposed to continue the story, not rehash it. This is why while the original Silent Night Deadly Night is a personal favorite of mine, this film is possibly one of the worst sequels of all time.

Silent Night Deadly Night 2 focuses on Ricky, the younger brother of Billy who was the original "Santa Claus" killer from the original. Ricky has followed in the path of his brother and become a serial killer as well. Now detained, he recounts his story to a psychiatrist. Cue footage from the first film, used in the form of flashbacks. Not only is this boring, but it makes absolutely no sense at all. Ricky's flashbacks date back to when he was less than a year old in some cases, where it would be almost impossible to have any memory. In other instances it is certainly impossible for him to remember several of the flashbacks as many don't even involve him. The fact that Ricky has memories of things that he was never a part of and would never have a way of finding out, is just one of the many enormous plot-holes.

After about forty five minutes, Ricky begins recounting his personal story of growing up. Thankfully the recycled footage ceases and the audience is presented with something new. Unfortunately, it is insanely stupid, venturing into so-bad-it's-good area half the time and just bad area the other half. Despite not being old enough to have been emotionally scarred by the same events that sent his older brother over the edge, Ricky has also become a psychopath. The difference here is that while his brother was set off by the sight of Santa Claus, Ricky gets murderous tendencies whenever he sees the color red. When he sees a red truck he subsequently murders the owner with it. When he sees a red umbrella, he uses it to impale a gangster in what is possibly the lamest death sequence ever. When he sees a red blanket, he nearly has a heart attack. The problem with this is that it's virtually impossible to avoid the color red on a daily basis, meaning young Ricky would have heart attacks every time he got a test back graded with red marker. Not to mention that this makes for a fairly pathetic serial killer. All you have to do is put on a red t-shirt and he will probably wet himself (although by the end he has inexplicably gotten over this fear and dons a Santa suit).

In one mind-boggling sequence, Ricky takes his girlfriend to the movie theatre to watch the original Silent Night Deadly Night. Keep in mind this is a sequel to Silent Night Deadly Night that continues the exact story from where it left off. Even Ricky has a "huh" moment as the film starts and is revealed to be the first entry in the series. How can Ricky, who was in the first film and has crystal clear memories of events that occurred within it, go and watch the first film in a movie theatre? Does this mean that Ricky is delusional and the events from the original never happened? Or does this mean that Ricky has crossed over out of the movie-universe and into the real world. No, all it means is that the writers were probably snorting cocaine while they typed out this script.

It doesn't go much lower than the movie theatre sequence, but there are still plenty more examples of stupidity sprinkled throughout the rest of the film. Eric Freeman's ridiculously over-the-top acting as Ricky, accompanied by eyebrows that seem to bounce around his face like they've been injected with acid, turn his "Garbage Day" rampage into a laugh riot as he blows up cars with his pistol and shoots at people taking out the trash. The scene has since become a viral video hit, garnering hundreds of thousands of views on sites like Youtube. By the end of the film the director seems to be trying to turn Ricky into some sort of classic horror movie villain, as he is practically unfazed as he is remedially shot in the chest. While this works for inhuman villains such as Jason Voorhees, it makes absolutely no sense for Ricky to be brushing off shots straight through his chest like they are bug bites. Then the ending comes around and it truly is just plain retarded.

Silent Night Deadly Night 2 could have been enjoyable in a so-bad-it's-good way. There are certainly some instances that made me laugh out loud. However, over half of the running time consists of boring, recycled footage from the original Silent Night Deadly Night, which makes it not worth the time to get to the "good" stuff. If Silent Night Deadly Night was a nice, little Christmas gift, Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is just huge lump of coal
35 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A failed attempt at "creating" a cult film
4 November 2008
To call Repo! The Genetic Opera a cross between Rocky Horror Picture Show and Saw isn't entirely accurate. While it is a rock opera like the former, and has its fair share of dismemberment and gore (courtesy of Saw IV director Darren Lynn Bousman) like the latter, "Repo!" is really unlike anything that's been done in not only the horror genre, but the entire medium of film. It's nearly impossible to categorize the film – it's a sci-fi, a horror, a musical, and a drama all in one. In fact, the only category the film can be filed under with certainty is as a failure. What could've been one of the most original entries in the horror genre for this decade, ends up being nothing more than a mish-mash of stringed-together musical numbers with some blood and guts thrown in.

It's the year 2057 and an epidemic of organ failure has spread across the globe. However, Rotti Largo sees an opportunity to make money from this epidemic and thus, GeneCo is created, quickly becoming a multi-billion dollar company. GeneCo offers transplants for faulty organs, which must be paid off in installments, similar to an automobile agency. When people fail to make their payments, GeneCo sends out a Repo Man, whose job it is to get said organs back, usually by slitting open his intended target and tearing them out. However despite starting the successful business, Rotti Largo feels as if his time is limited, and he now has to decide which one of his three delinquent children he must hand the reigns to. Once he realizes none of his own offspring are suitable, he eventually sets his eyes on Shilo, a teenage girl afflicted with a life-threatening disease. What follows is a series of intertwined story lines revolving around Shilo, Rotti and the Repo Man himself, as Rotti pursues Shiloh to be the heir of GeneCo.

The premise is one of the most original in any horror film this year, and the ideas of conglomerates taking over the jobs public services, such as hospitals, to help feed a peculiar organ fashion trend, is a chilling comment on the nature of North American society and its media-controlled environment. The plot is very much a horror twist on classic dystopian literature, such as "Brave New World" and "1984". Unfortunately, the movie pays little attention to developing the story, preferring to spend more time on mind-numbingly boring musical numbers. Understandably, an opera usually is comprised of songs in place of regular dialog; however, here it comes at the expense of the story. Not much happens throughout the films running time – maybe about forty minutes worth of story in the whole hundred minutes – and the rest is just overdone, overwrought music video sequences. Throw in the fact that not enough time is spent developing the seemingly endless amount of characters, and you've got yourself a film that falls way short of its potential.

Repo! is being marketed as a "cult" film and cult films aren't always known for being the strongest films in terms of character and story. Unfortunately, Repo! is just too tedious for there to be any fun to be had. The musical numbers are a jumbled mish-mash of opera, industrial, punk-rock, and heavy metal. Although I'm personally not one of those "Rocky Horror" fanatics, the tunes were catchy; they stayed with you. With Repo!, there's nothing that will stay with you once the films over, let alone anything that sounds remotely pleasant to the ears. Bousman would've been wise to at least have incorporated some sort of action throughout the musical numbers, but characters seem regulated to standing around as they belt out their numbers. Considering 95% of the film is told through music, there is a lot of standing around going on, and not much else, save for a couple of gore gags.

Bousman would have been wise to strip the film of the opera aspect completely and focus on developing the other aspects of the film, but then again, the musical aspect is key to the "cult" status that this movie is trying so hard to obtain. However, cult films cannot be manufactured. There is a huge difference between Rocky Horror and Repo!: Rocky Horror came out of nowhere and slowly developed a cult following over the years as audiences connected with it. Repo! already had a fan following before it had even finished filming. It's a film where everything from the stars (genre faves like Anthony Stewart Head and Bill Moseley) to the genre (musicals are frequently cult films) have been employed to create a "cult" film. A production company can't make a cult film. Audiences make a cult film. That's why Repo! will fizzle out and be regulated to DVD obscurity, while Rocky Horror will continue to play in theaters for many more years to come.

  • Dylan, allhorrorfilms.com
16 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heckler (2007)
7/10
Heckler: Entertaining, but extremely flawed
5 October 2008
It's a little weird – and very ironic - to review Heckler, a documentary that speaks out specifically on film criticism. Despite the title and promotional materials suggesting that it focuses on those who heckle stand up comedians, the film has a change of heart half way through, switching its efforts over to berating film critics. Therein lies one of the bigger problems with Heckler: the two topics don't have much to do with one another, despite Jamie Kennedy's, the star of the film, attempts at correlating them. Besides this major flaw, Heckler is an entertaining film. Personally, I disagree with nearly every point of view featured within Heckler, but the film held my interest, containing what must be hundreds of different interviews with celebrities.

The first half of Heckler focuses primarily on audience members at stand-up comedy shows who take it upon themselves to interrupt the performance, insult the comedian, or occasionally even try and steal the spotlight by finishing the jokes. While this may not seem like a big issue to most, the film demonstrates how hecklers have become an increasingly large problem for stand –up comedians. Interviews with a myriad of celebrity comedians, including David Cross, Bill Maher and Tom Green among others, show the frustrations, self-doubt and career repercussions comedians face because of unruly patrons. Heckler also documents some of the more extreme cases as well, including an assault on a stand-up by an offended viewer, a musician who smashes his guitar over an unruly mans head, and the infamous Michael Richards incident. This portion of Heckler does a good job of shedding light on an issue most people have never given a second-thought to.

This is soon abandoned in favor of bashing film critics, especially, but not limited to, the internet kind. There are a few legitimate points made about criticism, particularly how in the "internet" age, more attention is focused on deriding and humiliating the actors/directors who created the film, then critiquing the film itself. While this does show a gradual decrease in the quality of film criticism over the years, it's still very difficult to sympathize with the various film directors interviewed within the film, who all seem to take film criticisms, and the small jabs that come with many of them, way too far. Anyone working within the entertainment business has to have thick skin, it comes with the job. One of these featured directors is Paul Chilsen, who supposedly dropped out of film-making because his first feature got poor reviews. This isn't the fault of the critics; he simply wasn't cut out for the business.

However, no performer featured in Heckler comes across as infantile and whiny as the star of the film himself, Jamie Kennedy. It's a wonder the man ever made it through high school, as it is frequently demonstrated throughout the film that he is unable to take the slightest criticisms of his work. When confronting two teenage hecklers, Kennedy doesn't seem to care about the fact that his show was disrupted; his only concern seems to be that they didn't find it funny, as he begins to say "What do you know about comedy? Who are you to decide what's funny". They're your audience, Jamie. They paid money to see your show, and while they don't have a right to ruin it for others, they have every right to decide whether it's funny or not. If you don't feel like people should judge your work, perhaps you shouldn't be performing it for them.

Kennedy also begins meeting with critics who have given his last feature film, Son of the Mask, a bad review. It becomes more apparent that Kennedy just can't accept the fact that people dislike it or other films of his. He blames others for his own failures as an actor/writer. It's not just the insulting reviews that Kennedy has a problem with: he has a problem with any review that speaks negatively of the film. In Kennedy's dream world, everyone would be forced to enjoy every single piece of art out there, for fear of upsetting the artists. Kennedy takes offense to Richard Roeper's review stating he wanted to walk out of Son of the Mask. The ensuing confrontation is hilarious, as Kennedy attempts to change Roeper's mind by saying in all seriousness that the movie was trying to push new boundaries...by having a baby with super powers who could throw people. In another scene, Kennedy confronts a critic, Peter Grumbine, who seems to find Jamie's overreaction rather funny. At the end of the exchange, Jamie actually calls Grumbine evil, putting someone who dislikes his film among the ranks of Hitler, Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden. Even if you still have the slightest doubt after watching the movie that Kennedy is overreacting, the deleted scenes should clear everything up: Kennedy freaks out on a friend who merely said one of his comedy bits didn't work.

Perhaps the most alarming thing is many of the director's insistence that no one has the right to judge their work, that anyone who speaks negatively of their work misunderstands it. It shows a complete lack of consideration for the audience, and makes one wonder why these self-proclaimed masters of film even bother showing their work to audiences if they don't care about the reaction. The one exception is Uwe Boll, possibly the most hated man in the film-making business. While he does have an organized boxing bout with critics in the movie, letting off a bit of steam, he never once speaks out against film criticism. Perhaps this is why someone like Boll is increasingly getting better (his two latest movies have had some support) while people like Jamie Kennedy, Joel Schumacher and Eli Roth are continuously getting worse and worse. In the end, it's not film criticism that's destroying the film business, but Kennedy's (and others) inability to learn from the criticism.
49 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Horror Business (2007 Video)
5/10
A movie about those who will never make it in the horror film business
28 September 2008
"If you give a monkey a camera, it will go out there and shoot something" – Ron Atkins

A fitting statement from one of the featured subjects in Horror Business, a documentary on the horror film industry that has a lot of monkeys with cameras, but very few filmmakers. One doesn't have to be part of mainstream Hollywood to be considered a director, but most of the no-talent hacks showcased within this movie are shooting stuff at the level and with the same amount of care as a high school student shooting their English Media project. There are a few small appearances from accomplished filmmakers involved in the horror business, such as H.G Lewis, Sid Haig and Lloyd Kaufman, but for the most part the featured "directors" don't stand the slightest chance of ever making it in the horror business this film professes to be about.

The one exception is David Stagnari, an avid horror fanatic that is attempting to jump start a career as a director with his short film "Catharsis". Stagnari is a person a lot of horror fans could easily relate to; a fan since he was a small child, Stagnari intelligently discusses the state of the genre today, what he wants to accomplish as a director and reminisces of his past experiences watching double-features at a drive-in, which has now been paved over and replaced by a "Babies R' Us". The last is something that may strike a chord in many horror fans, as in today's day and age, repertory theaters and drive-ins, the last solace for audiences seeking independent cinema, are being driven out of business by major conglomerates like AMC and Regal. Although only a few clips of "Catharsis" are shown throughout Horror Business, you can tell that even though Stagnari will probably never break it big, due to the nature of the film industry, he is at least trying to create something of substance.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have Ron Atkins, a pretentious d-bag (excuse my unprofessional terminology, but it's the most accurate description of the man) who doesn't even try to make anything remotely worth watching. Armed with a consumer camera, Atkins shoots his films without the aid of lighting, a crew, a tri-pod, a script or most importantly, a brain. Throughout the shooting of his cruddy exploitation flicks, he throws in random story lines, such as Dick Cheney taking a dog in the rear, and then begins to laugh profusely at his own terrible attempts at humor. His views that what moviegoers think of his films doesn't matter as long as he enjoys them are despicable and represent everything wrong with the film industry today, but his wife's reasoning that anyone who dislikes Atkins movies actually enjoys them, doesn't even make the least bit of sense. Atkinson even has the gall to begin trashing Hollywood films. Even the average J-horror remake has more talent, work and heart behind it. As well as absent film-making skills, Atkins also has anger issues (he cusses out a teenage Burger King employee) and a tendency to lie, one example being his claim that he's sold over 30,000 copies of his movies. Considering that none of his films have over 80 votes on IMDb, I find this hard to believe, although there is the small chance that his parents have purchased 29,900 copies of his films.

The rest of the filmmakers fall somewhere in between the two: not entirely as terrible as Atkins, but none as likable as Stagnari. There's an alcoholic who chooses his cameraman a few minutes before his shoot, two full grown men still living at home and producing schlock on par with Atkins and an animator who specializes in cheap flash animation. It's about as far from the horror business as you can get. This doesn't mean that Horror Business had to be a complete failure: if the documentary had focused on the pitfalls of the various directors and what holds them back, it could've worked. As it stands, Horror Business seems unfocused. There's no message, no story arc, no apparent point behind the film; it consists of interviews and behind the scenes set footage, stuff that would make a great special feature on a DVD, but isn't sufficient or substantial enough for a film of its own. It's interesting, but it never feels like a movie. That's the real problem with Horror Business: not that it focuses on people so far outside of the horror business, but that it doesn't know what to do with them or how to create a compelling story revolving around them.

  • dyl_gon (allhorrorfilms.com)
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mirrors (I) (2008)
10/10
Mirrors: much better than you'd expect of a horror remake!
16 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Mirrors was pretty much doomed for terrible critical reviews from the start. Horror never scores big with film critics; in fact I can't remember the last horror film that got more positive reviews than negative. If the horror film in question is a remake, especially of a foreign movie, it's almost destined for critical failure. There's a reason for that: most horror remakes are utter garbage and are solely created so studios can make a quick buck. However, once in a while, a horror film remake will come along that actually isn't half bad, yet will still suffer negative reviews based on the fact that it's a horror film remake. It happened several years ago with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and more recently, with The Hills Have Eyes.

Mirrors has suffered a similar fate. Directed by French horror director Alexandre Aja, the same man behind The Hills Have Eyes, Mirrors is a remake of a Korean horror film, as well as the best wide-release horror film of the year thus far. While I'll admit I probably enjoyed the film much more than most will, it's still miles better than the critic's lousy reviews or lackluster promotion would have you believe.

Kiefer Sutherland stars as Ben Carson, an ex-cop suffering from emotional issues after a "workplace accident" and a messy divorce. Sick of sleeping on his sister's couch, he takes up a job as a security guard at an abandoned department store that was devastated by a fire many years back. The job seems easy enough, primarily consisting of walking through the building every couple hours, making sure there are no trespassers. Things take a turn for the worse though, after several strange encounters involving the mirrors in the building, and Ben begins to find that his own reflection is haunting him, not only at the job, but in any mirror or reflective object (or liquid) he comes across. Soon enough, Ben find his life, as well as his families, in danger.

Mirrors biggest strength is the storyline, easily one of the best horror premises to hit the screen in years (even if it is recycled). Reflections are practically inescapable, not only appearing just in mirrors, but in doorknobs, windows and water. The inescapability of reflections is what makes the idea of one's reflection out to get them so chilling. They're everywhere. You can't escape them. Not since Nightmare on Elm Street, where ones own dreams were the cause of death, has there been a supernatural premise that has gotten so much under my skin. The fact that whatever the mirror images do to themselves happens to their real life counterparts, only heightens the hopelessness of Carson and his family.

Alexandre Aja has already proved his ability to create genuine scares with previous films, but most have been of the brutal, violent kind, as opposed to the atmospheric chills usually employed in supernatural horror movies that are more reliant on the mood and feeling than shocking acts of brutality for scares. Surprisingly, Aja's penchant for gore and violence complements the film surprisingly well. The sequences inside the derelict department store at night build up suspense very well, utilizing the eerie location with corpses manifesting themselves within the mirrors and screams emitting from within deep recesses of the building. It's fairly generic stuff for movies like this, but Aja is talented enough stylistically to pull them off. However, it's the sequences where Aja really lets loose that prove to be the most frightening. One sequence that takes place in a bathtub ends up being one of the most brutal and unsettling death scenes of the year. There are several of these sequences sprinkled throughout the film and they are extremely effective, utilizing a combination of brutality and atmospheric suspense that are, at the least, shocking. When a ghost pops out in one scene, it isn't a pale, long black haired Asian woman, nor a semi-transparent floating apparition: it's a half-naked female with half her body burned off, the flesh still sizzling off her burnt carcass as she wails in pain. That's the difference between Mirrors and most other ghost films.

The biggest downfall of the film is when it tries to provide an explanation for the horrific events taking place in the second half. The idea of one's image terrorizing oneself is horrifying on one level, but at the same time, it's extremely unrealistic. Trying to explain why this happened back fires on the film, as no explanation is going to make sense and instead, will just draw attention to the fact that this would never happen in real life, destroying a bit of the film's effect. The audience doesn't need to know why this happens. Ambiguity in this case would be much more frightening and wouldn't take away from any of the other scares. Once you throw in a sub-plot about mental institution experiments and haunting tragedies taking place in the building, you lose a lot of the suspense. Despite the unwise direction the movie takes in its second half, it's still entertaining and manages to retain a few good scares here and there, while finally rebounding in the last act.

Mirrors isn't perfect (what film is?), but its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses and in the end, it's the most enjoyable wide-release horror film of the year (although personally, the only other decent wide-release horror film this year would be The Strangers). Benefiting from a brilliant premise and the unlikely combination of French director Alexandre Aja's love of blood and brutality with an atmospheric, supernatural storyline, Mirrors is definitely much better than what one would expect of a typical Korean horror movie remake, let alone any horror movie that hits theaters.

  • Dylan, allhorrorfilms.com
161 out of 231 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Jack Brooks: Insomnia Slayer
4 August 2008
After viewing "Still Life", a short film directed by Jon Knautz, I was genuinely excited for his feature film debut, "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer". "Still Life" had perfectly captured the essence and feel of an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and I was eager to see what Knautz could do when taking on the horror-comedy genre. The campy nature of the name and promotional materials suggested something along the lines of "Evil Dead" or "Army of Darkness"; a fun, gory, 80's style horror flick with lots of monsters. While that was what Knautz was going for, he utterly fails at capturing any of the fun or entertainment value these movies had.

The problem with "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is that it completely lacks an understanding of what made these horror-comedies, that it tries to evoke, so great in the first place. Two-thirds of the running time is primarily devoted to the film's hero, Jack Brooks, a plumber and college student, as he goes to class and attempts to deal with his uncontrollable bursts of anger. There's nary a monster in sight for the greater part of the film, barely even a drop of blood or the slightest attempt at anything horror-related. Even if "Evil Dead" or "Dead Alive" had subsequent amounts of the gore cut out, they'd still be entertaining. "Jack Brooks" isn't. It's plain boring, which is the worst thing a film of this nature can be. Jack Brooks himself is not all that interesting, at least not enough to warrant the amount of screen time he's given. All one needs to know about him is revealed in the films first ten minutes and from that point on, whenever he's not beating the pulp out of a monster (and he rarely does), he's not worth watching. The movie goes nowhere, following him around on psychiatric sessions and scuffles with classmates.

Eventually things do pick up. Jack Brooks battles a few monsters, some heads are crushed, a few humans are slaughtered, and then it's over. Just like that. All within the span of about fifteen minutes. It is a good fifteen minutes. The monsters are all fairly inventive (and done entirely in camera) and there's some great gore gags (the best being a zombies head crushed in), but after sitting through seventy-five minutes of pure tedium, fifteen minutes just isn't going to cut it.

That's really all there is to it. I could ramble on about the acting which is fairly well done (especially horror icon Robert Englund in a non-traditional role) and how the creature prosthetics are a nice throwback to the days when films didn't use CGI, but it really doesn't matter. "Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer" is utterly boring and while Jon Knautz obviously does have the talent to create a good film (once again, the last fifteen minutes are killer and "Still Life" was amazing – check it out), "Jack Brooks" completely misses the mark. It has its successes (acting, make-up), but those don't change the fact that it's not very entertaining at all. The screening I caught this at had the director and cast in attendance. One piece of information I picked up was that a sequel was in development and that this time, it would focus more on fighting monsters as opposed to "the creation of a hero". My advice: skip this one and wait for the sequel.
12 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Love Guru (2008)
1/10
Bad karma or just bad movie-making? The Love Guru is a contender for worst film ever made
20 June 2008
I don't throw this statement around lightly. As someone who frequently reads reviews, I find that it is thrown around far too often, especially when there are so many bad movies out there. But I can say, without a doubt in my mind, that The Love Guru is the worst movie I've ever seen. It has officially dethroned classics such as Die Hard Dracula and Dark Harvest 2: The Maize. Those movies were made on minuscule budgets by no-talents. In comparison, The Love Guru was made on a huge budget by Mike Meyers, the creator of comedy classics Austin Powers and Wayne's World, which makes this train wreck of a film all the more painful to watch.

With The Love Guru, you can tell Meyers is trying to create another success along the lines of Austin Powers, but failing miserably. The thing about Austin Powers was despite being a dumb comedy, the movie had a likable, fun protagonist. In Meyer's latest outing, we get the Guru Pitka, a Charles Manson look-alike who has an obsession with penises. It's somewhat fitting that he resembles Charles Manson, a notorious cult leader, as by the movies end I had a strange urge to kill myself. Not only is the Guru creepy, he's also very unfunny. Whether he's making lame puns about "life" or talking about penises, he never manages to elicit any laughs whatsoever. It could be that his jokes are just bad. Certainly using jokes straight out of a children's joke book isn't a recipe for success. It could also be the fact that Meyers is so desperate for a laugh, he himself laughs at every joke and continuously looks at the audience, attempting to entice them to laugh along with him. You get the sense that he realizes the jokes are unfunny and the glances at the audience are his last failed attempts at getting a few laughs. Guru Pitka's character development just adds injury to the insult. One minute Pitka is being hailed as a spiritual healer who lives to help people and the next minute he's insulting a midget for no particular reason. There's no consistency to the character at all, which is what this movie is missing in comparison to Meyer's last few. Wayne Campbell and Austin Powers felt like real characters, where the Guru doesn't really have any character; he randomly does whatever moves the plot along forward.

Speaking of plot, the storyline is almost as ill-conceived as the title character. A stupid plot in a comedy is acceptable if it manages to be funny, but there's nothing amusing about a Guru's quest to go on the Oprah show. That's just plain stupid. It would help if the film wasn't filled with every cliché ever known to cinema-goers, but it is. The Guru has a self-revelation at the end and changes his greedy ways. The good guys triumph. And of course, Blur's "Song 2" plays during one of the hockey sequences, which has become the most commonly used (and groan-inducing) tune for any sports-related film.

Even if you can put aside the annoyingness of the Guru Pitka, the movie still fails to deliver anything remotely funny. The most common joke is to have a characters name resemble something vulgar, such as "Dick Pants" or some other Grade 3 level joke. The next most common is the Guru's constant repeating of "TM" after one of his catchphrases. It wasn't funny the first time, what made Meyers think it would be funny the tenth or fifteenth? There's also the repetition of jokes from Austin Powers, ranging from the plane to even the casting of Verne Troyer, the midget who made one of his only popular appearances in the Powers films as Mini-Me. Finally, there are the gags that are just plain lame. These involve elephants humping each other, the Guru wearing a chastity belt, the Guru having a battle using mops soaked in urine, the Guru sticking his head up his own ass (which is actually far less funny than it sounds), the Guru getting punched in the groin, the Guru doing battle with a rooster and the Guru engaging in two very long song and dance numbers on the Sitar, one a rendition of Dolly Parton's "9 to 5", the other a ear-splitting variation on "Space Cowboy" by Steve Miller Band. Both are in there for no particular reason whatsoever (and I really do hope it wasn't for laughs).

The other actors are fairly bad, although they really don't have much to work with. Jessica Alba continues her tradition of playing practically the same exact character, giggling and acting ditsy. Justin Timberlake is atrocious as Jacque Grande, although to be fair, his character was a one-note joke about Quebecois people. I'm bemused that Meyers would think Americans would find a joke about a people they likely know little about funny, especially when I didn't find it funny and I'm a Canadian. Verne Troyer just proves that the only reason he has even a semblance of a career is because of the novelty that he's a midget.

It really is hard to describe how utterly bad The Love Guru is. It's a stupid comedy, yes, but I'm a fan of those. I'm the guy who gave You Don't Mess With the Zohan a positive rating, so if anything this should be right up my alley. Instead, it's the worst movie of the year for sure (leaving Meet the Spartans way behind in its dust) and has reached it's place, for me at least, as the worst movie ever created. It's painfully unfunny and left me in a sour mood for a good hour after viewing. I'd rather wear a chastity belt for 30 years like the Guru rather than sit through this pile of crud.
177 out of 310 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Happening (2008)
6/10
What's happening? A decent alternative to the summer blockbuster, that's what happening.
19 June 2008
M. Night Shyamalan has had a rocky track record as of late. While The Sixth Sense was a huge hit both financially and critically, his films have slowly been declining in critical praise and box office performance ever since, which was apparent from Lady in the Water, which didn't manage to break even during it's run and was generally viewed as one of 2006's worst films. The Happening is his first new project since his last disaster and it's been billed as Shyamalan's first R-rated movie. Despite the heavier rating, The Happening is similar in style, theme and content to Shyamalan's other films, although it's a bounce back in the right direction after a few mishaps.

The Happening chronicles an epidemic that sweeps the North-East coast of America. At first thought to be the result of a terrorist attack, large groups of people begin to become disoriented, lose their speech and commit mass suicide at random. The events occur sporadically, first in Central Park, then throughout New York City and eventually spreading throughout the whole North-East coast. Elliot Moore, a New York high school teacher, desperately tries to seek safety with his wife, Alma, and his best friend's daughter, Jess, as people begin inflicting death upon themselves all around them.

While the film was billed as a visceral, gory R-rated horror, that couldn't be further from the truth. The Happening is more of a drama that focuses on a horrific event, rather than a straight-up horror movie. This will be familiar for fans of Shyamalan who have likely grown accustomed to his slow-moving, atmospheric films that focus much more on character than they do on generating scares. This isn't to say that the film is without its freaky moments. Some of the mass suicides, particularly one where construction workers begin plunging to their deaths, are incredibly eerie and unsettling. The idea of people turning on themselves is creepy in itself, as one can really only rely on themselves in life. By having people randomly commit suicide, Shyamalan taps into the fear of people turning on themselves and he's got the visual style to create some very chilling imagery revolving around the suicides. His use of long wide shots allows the audience to focus on what's happening, as opposed to using jumpy, sporadic cuts that end up detracting from the content (like most horror/action directors use these days). Shyamalan's already proved himself to be a master of suspense with The Sixth Sense, and there are a few shocking moments throughout the film which had me jumping out of my seat that hark back to his horror debut.

The downside seems to be that in an attempt to get an R-rating, Shyamalan has thrown in numerous useless instances of gore. I'll admit I'm a huge fan of gore and violence, but it really feels out of place in a film like this. A scene in which lions bite a man's arm off or a scene where a man is torn apart by a lawnmower seems unnecessary and at odds with the rest of the film. Obviously it was a marketing strategy, but it detracts from the movie as a whole.

Another weak point of Shyamalan's is his script, particularly the dialog. While he's a great director, especially at building up suspense, and he's skilled enough when working with the plot, storyline and the twists he has become famous for, his dialog is really weak. Often the stuff they say is rather ridiculous and unrealistic (a young soldier says "Cheese and crackers" as opposed to a more common expletive) and it ends up evoking laughter in the audience. The attempts at comedy are also fairly poor, with characters randomly talking about "hot dogs" and other things of the sort. Shyamalan's strong suit isn't comedy and while humor could be a nice contrast in a dour movie like this, it doesn't work here.

The acting is also fairly bad, which is a surprise considering the cast. Mark Walberg and John Leguizamo have proved themselves to be good actors, but here they are pretty terrible, and most of the blame can be pinned on Shyamalan. They are both notorious for playing tough guys and here they're miscast, both portraying soft-spoken teachers. The issues with the dialog don't help them much either, and they're always overacting, in an attempt to appear more "nerdy" or things of similar nature. Zooey Deschanel is entirely wrong for her role, as Wahlberg's wife, and even the character is developed poorly. She talks like a character out of "Juno" (with the quips on the phone about Joey being a stalker) and she seems to quirky and unnatural for a movie like this, which stays fairly grounded in reality, at least for a horror. It's obvious that despite Shyamalan's directorial finesse behind the camera, he's not nearly as gifted when working with actors.

The Happening isn't nearly as good as some of Shyamalan's other efforts, nor is it nearly as bad as some. It's a decently good eco-thriller that manages to conjure up some good scares, with a message beneath them all. It's not the best horror film, but it's one of the more original ones to come out recently. It definitely doesn't deserve the critical drubbing it has gotten, but then again, the same critics smashing this film are praising mindless drivel like The Incredible Hulk, so it's to be expected that a more thoughtful film would be trashed. If you're tired of seeing the standard cookie-cutter summer blockbusters, do yourself a favor and give The Happening a shot.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Is the hulk incredible? Maybe. Is his movie any good? Not really.
13 June 2008
The Incredible Hulk is poised to be a reboot of the popular comic book character, after the previous attempt at a Hulk movie a few years back bombed at the box office, as well as amongst fans. Marvel has done everything possible to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself: Louis Leterrier, a director known for his kinetic, hyper-violent Transporter flicks, helms this version as opposed to Ang Lee, the director of the original Hulk, known for making "artsy" films. Academy award nominated actor Edward Norton stars in this one, as opposed to Eric Bana in the 2003 version, who was a relative unknown at the time. Despite Marvel's best efforts, The Incredible Hulk is still a disaster this time around. It shows promise in the beginning, but quickly delves into nothing more than a $100 million B-movie.

Quickly skimming through Bruce Banner's transformation into the Hulk by gamma radiation overdose during the opening credits, the movie jumps right into the meat of things, with Bruce living in Brazilian slums, hiding out from the U.S military, particularly General Ross. General Ross has made it his mission to get Bruce's blood, which is radiated with gamma rays and causes Bruce to turn into the big, green monster whenever he gets excited. His plan is to use it as a weapon, creating numerous other "hulks", and he'll stop at nothing to get it. Most of the movie is an on-the-lam take on the superhero genre, with Banner evading Ross and the U.S army, while KGB agent Emil Blonsky begins taking gamma radiation doses so he too, can turn into a monster, and take down Banner for Ross.

The Incredible Hulk starts out with promise, showing Bruce dealing with the effects of his "condition", trying to learn how to control himself and maintain a low profile at the same time. It's interesting to see how Bruce tries to deal with the infliction, and it's filled with the right mix of drama and humor (one particular lost-in-translation moment had the audience cracking up). Not before long, the military shows up and a chase overtop the roofs of the slums ensues. It's easy to see why Marvel chose Leterrier during the chase; he knows how to handle an action sequence, without delving into shaky-cam or redundancy, despite the long length of the sequence. However, by the end of the scene, Bruce "hulks" out, and that's when the problems begin.

The first apparent problem is that the Hulk looks like he's came straight out of the video game tie-in. There's been a lot of detail put into certain aspects of him, including scars and muscle tone, but nothing has been done to give him any sense of realism. He looks like a cartoon and his movements and actions are similar to those of a CG-animated character. Yes, the "hulk" is created almost entirely using digital effects, but after movies like Transformers and Iron Man, where the effects were almost seamless, the hulk seems more in line with Sci-Fi channel level effects (for those who aren't familiar with the channel, it specializes in schlocky, cheap science fiction such as Python Vs. Boa).

The bad CGI appearance of the Hulk marks the movies descent into cheese. From that point on, the film no longer provides anything of interest about the characters or their situation: it serves only to show stuff blowing up and the hulk smashing things. Despite Edward Norton being a gifted actor, he has nothing to work with here. There's no emotion, no depth to the character of Bruce Banner. Liv Tyler is given even less as Bruce's ex-girlfriend, Betty. She's pretty much relegated to following Bruce around for the entire film, not showing any personality or character whatsoever. When the movie isn't going for cheap thrills and action, it makes a few flaccid attempts at evoking emotion, such as having Bruce and Betty hug each other in the pouring rain as angelic music chimes out in the background. Or having Bruce, attempting to provide thoughtful insight on his condition, say it feels like "having LSD poured into you".

There's nothing wrong with a film, especially a superhero movie, going straight for mindless thrills and action. However, The Incredible Hulk doesn't deliver on that either. The action sequences are too cheesy, too over-the-top and ungrounded in reality, to be remotely thrilling. Take for instance, the Hulk's second battle against the U.S military, as well as a gamma ray enhanced Emil Blonsky, General Ross's right hand man. The hulk stops smashing through things and tears some metal chunks off a vehicle, and wields them as blades, spinning them through the air. Blonsky begins doing back flips and moves out of the Matrix films to dodge each of the Hulk's attacks. It doesn't fit in with the style of the movie to have them partaking in a hyper-stylized fight more akin to a Jackie Chan film. It's completely out of character for the movie and just plain ridiculous.

Then there's the finale, in which Blonsky, fully transformed into The Abomination (a hulk-like creature, but with more strength) fights the Hulk on the streets of Manhattan. The fight looks as convincing as something out of Kung Fu Panda, with a jumble of badly animated monsters leaping around the street, using cars as boxing gloves and chains to strangle each other with. It's just silly. It could be thrilling if it was more grounded in reality, if we cared about the characters whatsoever, if there was any sort of depth to the situation beyond Bruce deciding to go beat the monster up. There isn't. It's the type of scene some B-movie director would shoot if he had the same amount of money.

The Incredible Hulk doesn't add any depth to the story of the hulk, yet also fails as a mindless action film. It shows potential, but ultimately fails. Marvel had their chance, two actually, and it's time to put this series to rest.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The complete lack of laughs in Harold and Kumar 2 isn't the least of its problems
18 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The first Harold and Kumar wasn't a financial hit on its initial release, but became somewhat of a cult-classic on DVD. Yes, stoner comedies are far too many and often unfunny, but Harold and Kumar succeeded where most failed. The jokes were fresh and original, there was barely even a plot (which was part of the appeal) and it starred two ethnic minorities, which is a rarity for film these days. It's no wonder that a sequel has been released; the only surprise is how much this new Harold and Kumar film misses the mark.

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay picks up immediately after the predecessors end, with the two stoner buddies heading on a plane to Amsterdam. However, Kumar's bong is mistaken for an explosive mid-flight and the two buddies are arrested under suspicion of being terrorists. Despite their best efforts, the duo are sent to Guantanamo Bay, where they end up breaking out and going on a road-trip of sorts across America, evading the authorities.

I don't mind crude humor in comedies. Vulgarity can be funny in certain jokes. However, when the joke is the vulgarity itself, well, that's not funny. Penises, semen, flatulence, urine and excrement can be funny in jokes, but in itself are not funny. There's nothing comical about Kumar masturbating and spraying semen over himself, nor is there anything funny about Kumar's friend revealing his pubic hair entrenched penis. This is below low-brow humor; it's the type of jokes that a 12-year old who just hit puberty would come up with if asked to write a movie. In the first Harold and Kumar, there were plenty of funny jokes and almost none of them were vulgar. In this installment, there's lots of vulgarity, but there aren't even many jokes. Just crudeness for the sake of being crude.

The rest of the jokes pretty much consist of the antagonist making stereotypes about African-Americans, Arabs and Jewish people. Once again, I don't mind jokes involving stereotypes, but simply having a man suggest Jewish people can't resist picking up pennies or blacks love grape soda isn't funny. It's the type of humor that might make a kid below the age of 10 laugh, but no one any older, unless they are indeed stoned. There's no substance to it. There's nothing remotely clever about it or even funny in a stupid way, just stereotypes acted out on the big screen. The movie is painfully unfunny, which is a shame because there's some decent talent behind it. John Cho has a certain charm to him as Harold and Kal Penn, although slightly annoying, has proved himself funny in the previous installment. You get the feeling that with better writing, the duo really could have delivered a hilarious film.

But even the films complete ineptitude in the laughs department isn't its biggest fault. The most aggravating thing about Harold and Kumar 2 is how this low-brow, schlocky comedy tries to make it appear as if there's some political message behind it or it had anything important to say. It seems to have worked, because it currently holds a 54% at Rottentomatoes (meaning more than half of critics liked it) and most of these positive reviews mention the political undertones. Simply put, this movie has nothing to say. Sure, George Bush is in it. That doesn't mean it has anything thoughtful to say about the Bush administration. He smokes pot and acts stupid. If there is any political message behind the film, it's nothing any deeper than Bush is stupid.

And frankly, that pisses me off. Not because I like Bush (to the contrary actually), but because the movie takes no risks. Bush-jokes have become so common and so over-done. This movie bills itself as offensive. Making fun of George Bush is possibly the least offensive thing you could do these days. Everyone has done it. Same goes for implying that America is racist. If there is something offensive about Harold and Kumar 2, it's that it plays it safe. There's nothing remotely risky about any of it. Why not take a different slant and say that the American Government really isn't racist? That minorities are overly sensitive about issues such as searching people at customs? How about saying that often stereotypes can be true, and that if a 6-foot tall, African-American man dressed like a gangster and holding a lead pipe comes at you during the night, he is probably trouble and not a good Samaritan trying to help you (which happens in the movie by the way)? It's not that the film goes contrary to my point of view. It's that it tries to appear offensive and politically incorrect, when really it isn't any more offensive than an Ashton Kutcher rom-com.

That's what really sinks Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. Not that it isn't funny, but that it has nothing to say, and doesn't take risks. The reason that South Park can be appreciated, even when certain episodes are unfunny, is because the creators aren't afraid to voice their minds. They go against the grain, often against my own opinions, as well as the majority of the publics, and you have to respect them for that. All that can be said for Harold and Kumar 2 is that the creators try to be as appealing and un-PC as possible, while appearing they're not.
50 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gutterballs (2008)
8/10
Gutterballs: A Horror Homage Done Right!
5 May 2008
Recently there has been a wave of movies coming out that attempt to recapture the style of 70's exploitation films and 80's horror flicks. In the past year "Grindhouse", "Simon Says", "Hatchet" and "Doomsday", have all come out, and while they are all good movies in their own respect, none of them truly capture the essence of the movies they are in homage to. "Gutterballs", the latest horror film from Ryan Nicholson (who's only other feature was the much-maligned Live Feed) succeeds where Neil Marshall, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez failed. Gutterballs perfectly embodies the essence of the 80s slasher, with some exploitation sprinkled in for good measure. It could pass for a slasher film from that era, which is either a good thing or bad thing depending on your feelings regarding the slasher sub-genre.

Gutterballs follows two groups of friends, both rivals with each other, who decide to settle their differences in a bowling match. The night before the match, one of the groups of friends gang-rapes a girl from the other group and makes her swear she won't tell anyone. The following night, as the rivals face off against each other at the bowling alley, a person with a bowling bag over their head secretly kills the players off one by one.

When it comes to gore and nudity, two staples of the slasher genre, Gutterballs definitely delivers. I watched the unrated version and it's safe to say that there is no way the MPAA would leave this film intact (as of this writing, Nicholson has stated that fifteen minutes have been cut for the R-rated edition). Throats are slit, heads are bludgeoned, and men have their pieces mutilated (which is shown in a sickening close-up). There are also plenty of absurd and inventive deaths, including a death by "69". It's a lot of fun and anyone into excessive gore will have their needs pleased. Anyone who thought that "Scream" was too graphic need not watch this film. The sex is also fairly excessive for a movie of this nature, even more so than most soft-core pornography. Once again, you'll either really enjoy this or you won't. Many viewers will be turned off, but Gutterballs is a hell of a lot of fun for people who enjoy violence and sex (which includes me), and definitely goes where no Hollywood film ever will.

Not only does Nicholson's film deliver in gore and sex, it also has its fair amount of humor. There's a good gag involving a bowling ball cleaner that seems to have a mind of its own. As well, the dialogue is often very witty and funny, although all of the characters seem to spout it and none seem to have a voice of their own. Still, Nicholson manages to deliver some good laughs throughout the film without ever poking fun at the horror genre or making self-referencing gags, which has become all too common these days. There's nothing gut-busting, but there's enough to provide a nice contrast to the violence and carnage.

The movie does have its faults. There really isn't too much of a plot (your basic hack n' slash storyline), most of the characters aren't fleshed out or very interesting, and furthermore the actors portraying them are a bit amateurish. If anything, these faults actually help create the feeling of an eighties slasher in this film, as most suffered from the same problems. Nicholson is solely focused on creating a fun film and disregards some components to creating a "good" film, which actually benefit the movie.On a slightly related note, I'd like to point out that the movie does have an amazing soundtrack, with plenty of classic songs from the eighties. I'm unsure how Nicholson obtained them on such a low-budget, but they really do lend to the eighties vibe this movie has.

There is only one problem abundant in Gutterballs and that is the pacing. First and foremost, the killings definitely should have been more evenly dispersed throughout the film. As it is, a large number of the kills (and definitely the better ones) are located within the last thirty minutes of the film, and this doesn't bode will for the rest of the film. Most of the fun of Gutterballs comes from the gore and the killing. Some scenes in the bowling alley manage to be amusing because of the humor, but a large number of them begin to get fairly boring. The characters are uninteresting and when the film focuses on them, it begins to suffer. As well, the rape scene was a little excessive. One minute, or even two, would be fine. But the rape hits the five minute mark and feels a like a little too much. At first it's shocking, but by the time it's over, it's become tedious. Gutterballs is a little too slow and dull at times, which is a shame because when it is at its best, it's a blast.

Gutterballs is a must-see for any fan of 80's slashers or 70's exploitation movies. It definitely captures the feel of these and is a whole lot of fun, besides a few problems with the pacing. It's worth a rental at least. Working with a low budget, Nicholson managed to make a horror movie much better than half the trash coming to theatres. Check it out...but make sure you get the unrated version
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vantage Point (2008)
3/10
No matter what perspective you look at it from, Vantage Point is a failure
17 March 2008
Vantage Point is a political thriller that looks at an assassination attempt on the US president from 8 different people's point of view. The idea is that by seeing the event from different people's perspectives, the "mystery" surrounding it can be revealed. It's an interesting (although not original) idea, and it could work very well if done properly. However, with Vantage Point, you can see that the "different perspectives" were just thrown in as a cheap gimmick to separate this from the rest of the s***ty thrillers flooding theaters these days. In actuality, the different points of view only make this movie worse.

Vantage Point starts out presenting the assassination attempt from a TV news producer's point of view, as she watches live camera footage of the event unfolding. The opening is a little dry (as it takes place primarily in a news truck for roughly 10 minutes), but it's moderately interesting. The next point of view is where the problems really start to begin, as the film shows the assassination once again, with almost no changes whatsoever. 10 minutes later, the third point of view shows the exact same event, with maybe one minutes worth of new footage. By the fifth point of view, I was almost at the brink of falling asleep. I realize that there has to be some repetitions in a movie presenting different perspectives on a single event. However, to repeat the same thing over and over, with the only changes being a new characters reaction and a few different camera angles, is inexcusable. Watching Vantage Point is the cinematic equivalent of listening to a scratched record that keeps repeating itself. If I had to sit through the presidents shooting one more time, I probably would've walked out.

The films concluding 20 minutes switch from the "Rashomon" style to a traditional, linear format. Not only does this sudden switch not fit in well with the rest of the movie, it makes you realize that there were really no reasons for the film to be in the multiple perspective format in the first place, other than possibly lengthening the running time. The multiple perspectives do work well when revealing twists in the story, but considering the trailer gave away nearly all of them, there's really no point for the film to employ this style. It's a cheap gimmick to draw people in and judging by Vantage Points opening weekend, it worked.

The movies second weak point is that it often dangles between a serious political thriller and a campy action flick. While there isn't too much in the way of action, the few action sequences are out of place in a movie that takes itself serious most of the time. One man single handedly takes out the entire US president's entourage using a handgun with a silencer on it. Give me a break! In another sequence towards the end, an FBI agent's car is crushed up against a brick wall by a speeding truck, yet he somehow emerges from the wreckage with only a few scratches on his nose. Is this guy invincible or what? It's stupid, even for a corny, summer, action flick, let alone a movie that attempts to be an "intelligent" thriller.

The most shocking thing about this "thriller" is that it somehow managed to get amazing actors in several of the roles. Signoury Weaver, Forrest Whitaker, Dennis Quaid, and William Hurt all appear in significantly big roles. But really, what's the point? The characters are all generic, flat and never developed properly. They're stock characters: the tough FBI agent, the kind family man, the heartless terrorist. With characters this bland, there's no use in getting an A-list cast to portray them. There's nothing for the actors to work with and they end up damaging their reputations. You'd never guess by watching this film that some of them are very successful, let alone Academy Award nominees and winners! No matter what perspective you look at it from, Vantage Point is a mess. There hasn't been a duller studio picture in years. If you want a similar experience, you're better off staying at home, putting in an old DVD, re-watching the first ten minutes 8 times in a row, and saving the money you would've spent on a ticket.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In Bruges (2008)
3/10
The only thing worse than being stuck in Bruges is watching "In Bruges"!
8 February 2008
In Bruges is one of those comedies that thinks it is far more witty and clever than it actually is. It's a shame, because it has an interesting premise with a lot of potential, but ultimately that potential amounts to nothing more than cussing and midget jokes.

The film follows two hit men, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) who are ordered by their boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), to hide away in the remote Belgian town of Bruges after a botched hit in London. They are supposed to stay until Harry gives them a call saying it's OK to leave. Ken seizes the opportunity to explore and sightsee while Ray, who takes an instant disliking to Bruges, prefers to spend his time at the pub. While there, the duo have many strange encounters in Bruges, including ones with a midget actor, a skinhead robber, Dutch prostitutes, and involving loads of drugs, all which lead up to a matter of life-or-death situation involving Ray, Ken and Harry.

In Bruges is a strange combination of a drama and a comedy, and it really fails in both genres. The movie is primarily a comedic one. Although there are a few jokes that were mildly funny, most of them fall flat. The problem is that In Bruges presents itself as "sophisticated" and tries to come off as clever, character-based comedy, yet half the jokes are incredibly low brow. For instance, there are repetitive jokes involving a midget. Even if the joke had been remotely funny in the first place (which it wasn't), it's repeated far too many times before the movie ends. Most of the jokes are mean-spirited and un-politically correct. Don't get me wrong, I normally wouldn't have a problem with that. However, here there is nothing funny. Ray ridicules overweight people, he karate chops the midget, he knocks out a couple in a restaurant, swears like a sailor and (once again with the midget) engages in a discussion about whether or not there will be a race war in the future. None of this is funny. It's cruel-spirited for the sake of it. The director must know that simply being mean-spirited isn't funny. There's nothing clever or witty about it. It's the same humor we've seen done before, in countless idiotic, low brow comedies, presented as a Sundance-approved, highbrow comedy.

As well, it would've helped if the lead role was played by someone other than Colin Farrell. I like Farrell; he's a good actor. He is not a comedic actor though. He's just not funny. It's as simple as that. His performance here is good, but he's not funny enough for a movie like this. His character gets most of the better lines in the film and they are all wasted. Ralph Fiennes fairs much better comically, yet is relegated to the last 30 minutes of the film.

The rest of the movie is a mess, as it strives to be a thought-provoking drama, as well as an action film towards the end. There are long periods of the movie devoid of jokes, which would be fine if anything were happening. Unfortunately, for the first hour of the film, nothing much happens. Ray and Ken stumble around Bruges doing random things. It's boring and dull. There are a few emotional moments here and there, and although they are well done, they don't fit in with the rest of the movie, which is often crude and crass. The last 20 minutes has some good action, violence and shoot-outs, but which once again, really has no place in this film. The ending switches gears from this and attempts to be profound. It feels out of place. "Hot Fuzz", which came out almost a year ago and had a similar premise, stuck primarily to the comedy genre and succeeded. In Bruges tries to blend together comedy and drama, trying to be profound, rude, funny and thrilling. It's too much and the film would've worked better if it had focused more on one of these areas.

All in all, I can't say I recommend In Bruges. It's a jumbled mess of a film that thinks much too highly of itself. The only thing worse than being stuck in Bruges would be having to watch this film again.
26 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I'll lose faith in the human race if Meet the Spartans is a financial success!
25 January 2008
It's a bad sign when a spoof comes out less than a year after the movie it's spoofing. That's the case with "Meet the Spartans", a lame spoof of 300, which was written, shot and edited in no more than 10 months (300 only came out last March). Furthermore, it's by the same talent-less losers who unleashed "Date Movie" and "Epic Movie" upon the world. Although all signs point towards this movie being a steaming pile of crud, I tried to watch it with an open mind and without any biases.

What comes as no surprise is that "Meet the Spartans" is indeed bad. Not only is it not funny, but this time it doesn't even seem like they tried. With "Date Movie" and "Epic Movie", you could see that the directors did make an attempt at making a good spoof and just failed miserably. Here they didn't even try. The numerous technical errors and goofs throughout the movie are way too many in number for a Hollywood production. On three separate occasions I noticed different characters voices being heard, even though their mouths weren't moving! As well, several of the costumes look like they have been picked up at Wal Mart (the penguin is literally just a guy in a Halloween costume). The biggest insult was when a dwarf was used as a body double for a small child and it was not intended as a joke. How dumb do these guys think we are? The movie's already not funny, the least they could do is make sure there aren't so many blatant screw-ups.

This movie does manage to be slightly funnier than the directors' previous attempts, meaning there are about three laughs in total throughout the film. Most of the jokes consist of references to different pop culture icons and celebrities, as if having people do impersonations of famous people is supposed to be funny. The filmmakers even have the gall to ridicule Dane Cook and suggest his comedy routines aren't funny. I'm no fan of Dane Cook, but "Meet the Spartans" makes his stuff look like "Monty Python".

The rest of the jokes either consist of gross-out gags (a bird pooping in a man's face, a man getting kitty litter stuck on his face) or random humor that fails to be funny, even in a random/stupid sort of way (Rocky Balboa wearing a diaper, Paris Hilton fighting the Spartans). The few funny scenes in the movie are the ones directly parodying "300". The movie manages to get a couple of laughs by mocking 300's homo-erotic tone, but the gag gets repeated far too many times by the end of the movie.

I think I laughed once or twice during the movie, and definitely no more than four times. This is very bad for a movie that has an average of at least one joke every 20 seconds. I advise highly that nobody see this movie or support it (I saw it for free; I would never pay money). It's simply not funny and it would be a waste of money and time for anyone to see it. While I don't think it's as bad as "Epic Movie", it's still worse than "Date Movie", and that's pretty damn bad!
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Basically a student film and a poor one as well
4 December 2007
Eat the Parents has a brilliant premise: a zombie twist on the parents-meeting-future-spouse scenario, that has been done in countless comedy films, such as Meet the Parents, Guess Who, etc. However, within a few seconds of the film, it becomes apparent that filmmaker Jason Zukowski is still learning the art of film and has made what would be passable as a student film, but is definitely not something that anyone would want to view on their own time.

The writing is dull, and neither funny nor scary. I caught the film before the main feature at a horror-themed film festival. Zukowski was in attendance and introduced the film as his tribute to "Tales from the Crypt", although this film seems to have nothing in common with the television series. The series often had a mixture of oddball humor and disturbing content. None of that is evident here; the film is more in line with a SNL skit and all the humor is derived from lame gore gags (i.e. the zombie sticking a straw in his eye, the zombie sticking a knife in his hand, etc.).

The direction is lazy as well. I could almost predict every shot. The camera goes in for pointless close-ups after every 3 or 4 seconds and whenever there is a gory scene, there is a different shot in which obviously the actors were fitted with some make up/latex or something else of the sort.

To sum it up, everything from this film looks as if it were from a mediocre student film. The writing is uninspired. The jokes are lame. The gore is unconvincing. The actors are wooden. The shots and editing are random, as if they just felt like cutting to a different angle for no apparent reason. It's shocking that it got into a festival!

Note: I posted this review about two months after the premiere of the film. Keep in mind it's not a very well known film and not many people visit this page. Within a week of my review being up, it was rated not helpful by 3 people and a rave review was put up by someone with no posting or comment history, saying the exact opposite of what I said. So basically the director is trying to make it look like people are putting up good reviews.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw IV (2007)
1/10
The trap in Saw IV is the movie itself!
1 November 2007
The Saw movies always feature people stuck in terrible trap in which to survive, they must go through excruciating torture. The latest installment in the series, Saw IV, is one of these traps itself, in which you will either suffer through 95 minutes of excruciating torture or commit suicide before the end credits come up.

The first Saw was an accomplished horror movie. It was new and interesting, as well as very unsettling. Most of the film was spent in a single room and it focused more on suspense, rather than gore. As new installments came to theaters, there was a gradual decline of suspense and the focus was put more on gore and torture. By the time Saw III rolled around, the entire movie was basically disturbing torture, but there were at least a few scenes that attempted to be frightening.

Now that Saw IV is out, you can tell that they're really dragging this series out as far as it will go. This installment has two separate story lines, one in which a police officer is put through a series of tests to save his friend. Although Saw IV had a new writing team, the story is almost identical to the one in Saw III, which wasn't a good story to begin with. The movie is set up to showcase as much gore and torture as possible, which means the main character's trap is that he has to try and free other people from traps, and more often than not, they die excruciatingly painful deaths. The storyline isn't scary and there isn't even an attempt to be. The director, Darren Lynn Bousman, just tries to cram as much torture into the film as he can. This is exactly the same type of storyline we got in the third Saw. It sucked in the third one too, but at least it was original. The only difference between the story lines is that in Saw III we got a lady's rib cage being torn open, and in Saw IV it's a lady's scalp being torn off.

Not only is the whole movie pointless, it's poorly written too. This has to be the first Saw movie where I'm almost positive I could've escaped from at least two of the traps easily. They are so poorly designed. It's a miracle at least half the characters die in them, as they rely solely on unlikely coincidences and chance. In the first Saw, the characters tried many different attempts at escaping and all angles were covered. In this one, everything just falls into place perfectly and the victims in the traps never do the "smart" thing. It doesn't even make sense. We never learn why the hell the main character couldn't just call the police and have them come help him work his way through the traps, as there is nothing stopping him (yes, in Saw IV, the main character actually has the option to not partake in the trap at all if he wanted).

The second storyline is told through flashbacks and attempts to explain why Jigsaw, the old man creating these gruesome devices, got into the business of killing people. This new storyline provides absolutely nothing interesting or any insight into why he became what he is. The audience was already given enough of an explanation for his motives in the previous three films. Saw IV just adds a new, unnecessary motive, involving Jigsaw and his ex-wife. Not only is it pointless, it's poorly done too. Tobin Bell wasn't a recognized actor before the Saw series and now I know why. He has no acting ability and can't convey any emotion. The flashbacks are supposed to show his progression from a regular guy into a crazy psycho, but he acts exactly the same throughout the entire storyline. Even at a pivotal moment, when something terrible happens to him that is supposed to change him, we get shots of him standing there with the same damn expression on his face.

A key part of the Saw movies is the twist ending, but they aren't even trying anymore. It's as if they just threw in the first thing that came to mind. The twist comes out of nowhere and further insults the audience by showing flashbacks to different points throughout the course of the movie, as if they are supposed to point in any way to the nonsensical twist. There are so many plot holes in the last 10 minutes, including the fact that the characters all do random, idiotic things that nobody on this planet would ever do in the given situation, as well as a death straight out of Final Destination (which I guess could happen, but it's just cheesy).

When it comes down to it, if you liked Saw III, there's an inkling of a possibility that you may enjoy Saw IV. They both lack suspense, a good plot, and good writing, but at least Saw III was original. If you're looking for a good horror movie, I suggest you go see 30 Days of Night. I'm not going to debate whether or not 30 Days was a good horror film in a review for Saw IV, but it at least attempted to be good. Saw IV doesn't even try. It just tries to show off tons of gore and adds a twist at the end, and hopes the fans will eat it up.
80 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Balls of Fury (2007)
1/10
Christopher Walken has balls to appear in trash like Balls of Fury
31 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
If hit-to-the-groin jokes are your cup of tea, then look no further than Balls of Fury, the newest comedy from the minds behind Reno 911. Not only are there punches to the groin, kicks to the groin, and paddles to the groin, there are even chopsticks and metal spheres to the groin! If, on the other hand, you're looking for something with a little more comedic value then men being hit in their nether regions, avoid Balls of Fury like the plague.

The plot, which serves no purpose but to string together a multitude of lame jokes, follows Randy Daytona, a 12 year old ping pong prodigy, who is sweeping the ping pong world by storm. Unfortunately he ends up losing an important match, becomes a laughing stock and his father, who was involved in illegal gambling, is murdered.

19 years later, Daytona (played by third rate Jack Black wannabe Dan Fogler) is washed up and performing ping pong tricks at a run down theatre. FBI agent Ernie Rodriguez (George Lopez), who has been assigned to take down Feng (Christopher Walken), a criminal mastermind who runs an underground ping pong tournament, decides to enlist Daytona to help take Feng down. Daytona, besides making a comeback in the ping pong circuit, wants to get his revenge on Feng, who incidentally, was responsible for his father's death. So Daytona and Rodriguez go undercover, infiltrating Feng's annual ping pong tournament, where they...get hit in the balls.

There are two very confounding things about Balls of Fury. The first being how a script so utterly bad was green lit and produced. The movies plot doesn't make a lick of sense and ambles on from one random scene to the next. In one moment, Daytona and a female ping pong master are shown as hating each other...and out of nowhere, a minute later, they are suddenly love interests. It would've been nice for the writers to put a little bit of effort in and at least include something leading up to that. Another scene has Daytona refusing to join Rodriguez in taking down Feng, only to learn that a water park has been built next to his father's tombstone. How does that provide any motivation for Daytona to strive to take Feng down? The answer is it doesn't, as the writers were to busy writing in jokes to develop a good story.

This wouldn't be such a big deal if any of the jokes were actually funny. Sadly, half of the jokes either involve testicles or an old blind man walking into things, or in some instances, a combination of the two. It's not funny unless you're 12 years old (I wouldn't be surprised if the writer actually was). Not only are the jokes unfunny, they've been done hundreds of times before and done much better. When Balls of Fury does manage to include some original jokes, it involves stuff like the aforementioned water park being built next to a tombstone, which sadly enough, is less funny then the blind man falling down a staircase.

The second mind boggling thing about this movie is how they managed to stick Christopher Walken in this film as the villain, Feng. There are a few other relatively known actors in here, but Terry Crews has already been making appearances in terrible movies for a while now (Norbit anybody?) and Maggie Q still hasn't become a house-hold name. But Christopher Walken? Walken is an amazing actor and it's a crime to see him act in crud like this. He's been in a few duds in the past (Envy springs to mind), but he's never sunken to this level before. Walken isn't fading out or losing appeal, in fact he just had a role in the critical and box office hit, Hairspray. How could he read a script that terrible and agree to take on a big role as the villain? The only reasonable answer seems to be that director Ben Garrant blackmailed him into taking it, as I've got to much respect for Walken to believe he'd actually willingly agree to.

Walken manages to get a few laughs, which is an impressive feat in a movie like this, and steals every scene he's in. Despite working with crummy material, he still puts in a decent comedic performance as Feng, far outshining the other actors. Dan Fogler is the least funny leading man since Jimmy Fallon and mugs for the camera every opportunity he gets, imitating Jack Black as best as he can. George Lopez and Maggie Q play their roles completely straight, which doesn't work in a movie so absurd. By the end of the movie, you'll be wishing they axed the main characters and just made a movie about Feng instead.

The tagline for Balls of Fury reads "A Huge Comedy with Tiny Balls". On the contrary, it took a lot of balls to make this movie. It took balls for director Ben Garrant to release the film without Alan Smithee in replace of his name in the credits. It took balls for Christopher Walken to act in this trash and risk losing his credibility as an actor. It took balls for Rogue to screen the film for critics, as if they expected any good reviews. Yep, it took a lot of balls to make this movie. What it didn't take to make the film was any talent. Balls of Fury is a horrid excuse for a film, and if you're looking for a funny movie to see in the theatre, go see Superbad or Hot Rod. Hell, you can even go see Halloween, as a film about a serial killer is bound to be more funny then this trash.
26 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed