Change Your Image
lingh0e
Reviews
Plasterhead (2006)
no redeeming qualities at all
This was a poorly planned, poorly executed crapfest. The characters were so one dimensional, clichéd and unrealistic that I really didn't care what happened to them. Only one of them was a decent actor, and she barely pulled it off. Everyone else seemed like they were reading directly off cue cards.
***spoilers ahead***
There were SO many holes in the plot, most of them big enough to drive a Mac truck through. The killer goes to a diner and kills two people for absolutely no reason... at all. He smashes through a window and pulls a dude out... a minute later the dude apparently managed to get away from the killer, who some how forgets that he was chasing him. After magically recapturing him and nailing him to a chair, he just goes to sit in front of a radio and stare into space like some kind of vegetable. ***end of spoilers***
In all, this was a horribly constructed mish-mash of typical horror movie clichés that are poorly strung together amid unbearable dialogue delivered by dense, unattractive actors.
Don't waste your time.
Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975)
This film was nothing new
Review after review I have read about this movie speaks about how thought provoking it was.
Keeping in mind that this movie was made in 1975... long before Larry Clark or Greg Araki or Todd Solondz... it was a pretty explicit movie. However, one thing that people tend to forget is that the source material, written by the Marquis de Sade, was almost 200 years old by the time the film was made. All Pasolini did was adapt it to a more modern time that we would be more capable of relating to. That doesn't really make it any more or less relevant than Baz Luhrman's version of Romeo & Juliet.
My point with this review: I didn't find the movie particularly "shocking" or "disturbing" or even "though provoking". I understand the social political points Pasolini was trying to make, I simply feel that his methods were too overdone. Like Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ", it was overly gratuitous exploitation to pick at your most primal emotions. I think it takes far more talent and skill to utilize subtlety... something this film lacks (unless you count the straight forward photography).
I'm glad I saw this movie... really I am. I just don't think it deserves all the accolades it has received. I put it in the same league as movies like "Kids" or "Nowhere"... movies that make a statement in the most obvious and apparent way possible.
Below (2002)
You can keep your lame big budget action flicks. I want to see more like this one.
After reading many other reviews of this movie, the consensus seems to be that it's a very well made movie that is lacking in a few areas... specifically the ghost/horror portion. I really don't find this to be a weakness at all. There is no denial that a lot of bad things happened on that boat, and that a lot of it seemed to be tied to some very supernatural elements. However, it was never really 100% confirmed that it was all the doing of a vengeful spirit or spirits. There were several points in the movie where one or two of the more rational characters claimed that they were simply the victims of mechanical problems (an understandable result of a nasty run in with a few dozen depth charges and drag hooks), breathing too much ozone and CO2, stress and large amounts of guilt. In fact, I believe the last line of the movie is the most ambiguous, bringing everything back into question before it fades to black.
All that aside, this is a great movie from start to finish. It's highly atmospheric, very well paced, and the acting/directing is impeccable. This one should be in the library of anyone who enjoys a really nicely done suspense/thriller/horror flick.
The Resurrected (1991)
I have never read Lovecraft.
... and if this abomination of a movie is a honestly true adaptation as the previous reviewers claim, I really don't ever plan on reading Lovecraft... ever.
I like to start out with the high points. The lighting was very well done... nicely atmospheric. The cinematography was well realized, considering the apparent lack of talent on the directors part. The set design was pretty nice as well.
Unfortunately, that is about the end of the positives. The acting was sub-par at best. The actors in this production have proved themselves to be competent in previous productions. Either the director of this movie had no control over his talent, or his talent gave him way too much control over their performances. Then there is the story. The person responsible for this awful, plodding adaptation needs to read a little more about plot and character development, not to mention the basics of suspension of disbelief. Okay, I understand that the story is about a 250 year old doctor who was brought back from the dead. I am willing to take that leap of faith. What I cannot understand are the little things. The main character, a private investigator, somehow is allowed to accompany police officers on a night-time raid of a dark farmhouse that reeks of death... then assumes the role of hostage negotiator while there is a half dozen armed police officers standing right behind him. And how many high security psych wards do you know of that will walk an unscheduled visitor into a criminally insane inmates padded cell (with it's own window btw) without searching the visitors large suitcase to see if might contain any weapons or drugs or human skeletons... It those little things that are the most insulting to the viewer. Even though it is a sci-fi/horror flick, we in the audience aren't retarded. We expect our fantasies to be somewhat grounded in reality.
If this movie ever comes on Cinemax, by all means it's worth a watch. I have seen worse in my time. But if you are thinking of renting this movie and you are not a die-hard Lovecraft fan, save your money... really.
13 Seconds (2003)
I wanted to like this. I really really did.
but after watching it I just have to know... who the hell are these poor poor mislead souls that are giving this movie such high praise!? 13 Seconds was a god-awful piece of crap. Even the best reviews on this site mention the bad acting and the (obvious) low budget, but try to say that those aspects of the film are simply something a "low budget" or "indie" film maker must deal with and the writer/director/actor should be commended for dealing with such shortcomings and still finishing the production. This is patently untrue, and I take such comments as a highly offensive slap in the face to the REAL independent, low budget film makers who can not only deliver on a clever story (which I will admit, 13 Seconds had), but they can also get something close to a decent performance out of their actors, better sound and editing... hell, everything involved in making a movie. And I do mean EVERYTHING.
To put it into terms that most people can relate to, 13 Seconds equates to a very low-budget Halloween season haunted house. The scares are cheap and ineffective and the actors hired to pull off those scares are almost as talented as my cat. At least my cat makes me jump on occasion.
The bad acting only makes the awful dialog even more unbearable. Add on top of that the total lack of effort put into the dubbing and you have the perfect formula for a movie that even Ed Wood would find abhorrent.
Even the argument that "well at least he went out and made a movie" doesn't hold water. One of the main reasons I have not gotten my own production off the ground is because of movies like this. Watching this movie made me remember that I didn't have to settle for whatever actors I could scrape out of a trailer park, a DP who had no experience outside of a Polaroid camera and sound recorded on an answering machine while the freaking actors phone it in. Sorry, but I'll hold out until I can find people that, when placed in a soggy paper bag and told to act, would be able to find their way back into the light.
To sum up: remember kids, just because you CAN make a movie does not mean you SHOULD.
Spun (2002)
An insult as a film-buff AND as a chemical-buff.
This movie was a lame attempt at breakthrough, edgy art. It wasn't a gritty look at addiction. It wasn't a terrifying trip into the mind of a speedfreak. It wasn't a hilarious portrayal of tweakers. In fact, You gotta be crazy on acid to think this movie represents anything short of over-hyped stereotypes.
It saddens me to see so many people compare and contrast it to Requiem for a Dream and/or Fear & Loathing. It's like comparing Strange Brew to Leaving Las Vegas... hey, they are both about drinking, right?
There was nothing innovative about this movie. It's a bunch of over-satirized stereotypes acting out cliched stories, all in the pretense of being some sort of statement.
Yeah, I guess I didn't like it.