Change Your Image
voumeguy
Reviews
Hell Ride (2008)
A bad version of bad
This film tries so hard to be 'hip,' as Quentinites want it to be; but this is a joke. This might be the worst copy-cat of a copy-cat film I've seen. Larry Bishop made a biker movie based on his viewings of older biker movies--wow! He also coupled it with country\rock music; a leap of faith! A child with a fantasy gone bad is what this accomplishes. Bad acting by good actors doesn't make a cult film. This is a blank attempt at sub-genre. A terrible movie that relies on fringe stars and a retro soundtrack, avoid _Hell Ride_ at all costs. The only 'Hell Ride' you'll be taking is watching this film go to garbage (because it could've done so much more). I suspect this film is an inside joke. The fire metaphors could not be the product of a rational mind. Horrifying dialogue. Here's an example: Female to Larry Bishop: Female: My p***y's on fire. I'd like to have a fire marshal on the scene. Fire f**k me." Bishop: "First the fire chief will take a ride out into the desert, then I put out the fire." Female: "What kind of fire department is this?" Bishop: "Fire resistant." A fraternity joke had better explain the making of this film. So bad that it sucks, this joke forgets the punchline.
Strange Wilderness (2008)
Strange? How 'bout Stupid
Without hyperbole, this may be the worst movie I've ever seen. The fact that not one, but, two people are listed as "writers" amazes me. If the script for this film exceeded the length of a bar napkin and several bong hits, I'd be shocked. It's not funny. Not in the least. I would imagine the target audience to be 14 year old stoner kids that lack the sophistication to appreciate high-brow humor of the "Dumb and Dumber" variety. I think the C.I.A. should think about using this film as an interrogation tactic: put the suspect in an empty room and force them to watch this movie until they talk; but then again, I'm not too big on torture. Remember that scene of the buck-toothed shark they showed 10,000 times during the commercials? That's the pay-off--the big knee-slapper of the whole miserable experience.
28 Weeks Later (2007)
Zombie epic=zombie epileptic
I'm really surprised at the unusually high ratings this movie has gotten here thus far. I love schlock, exploitation, and just plain bad horror films, but it's usually because they were intended to be such, or the budget dictated they turn out as such. 28 Weeks tries to do far too much in one film and actually accomplishes little. I felt like I was watching a series of extended trailers for parts two, three, and maybe even four. There are some ridiculously stupid plot movers that defy actions even the most clearly painted victim at Camp Crystal Lake wouldn't make; character missions and goals that seem closer at home in a video game (get here and complete the level type stuff) that left me frustratedly wondering why. The one good thing 28 Weeks delivers--gore. There's enough great looking carnage to satisfy any gore-hound if he or she can survive the epileptic seizure inducing camera work. It appeared as if much of the action was filmed Pamplona style with raging bulls hot on the heels of the cameramen. I liked the original and had good hopes for this sequel, but I cannot say I liked it after the first 40 minutes passed.
The Boys Next Door (1985)
brutal; honest; sad; great
Penelope Spheeris received kudos as director of "Wayne's World." I know that flick was funny as hell and made gobs of green, but "The Boys Next Door" is one of her best. This film combines her earlier efforts, particularly "The Decline of Western Civilization" and "Suburbia," into a nihilistic tale of two guys that ultimately realize that everything has its price. Sheen and Caulfield are very convincing as friends. When they first arrive in L.A. and stop at a gas station, Caulfield steals the show by brutally beating the gas station employee and justifying his actions to Sheen by basically saying: it happened, you can turn me in, you can come with me; let's see what the night turns up?
Irréversible (2002)
Brutally heartbreaking
I checked the spoiler box just to be safe, but I will not venture too far from the film's opening chapter in this review. The ideal way to see this film, for the first time, would be to have no knowledge of its story (which is simplistic, but effective). First, this film regresses; that is, the story unfolds in reverse chronology, but do not confuse the narrative structure with "Memento." The film begins (ends?) with a scene involving the butcher from "I Stand Alone," (Philippe Nahon) but soon moves to a Paris gay bar called "Rectum." Two men search the club for a man known only as 'Le Tenia,' the tapeworm. After the tapeworm is discovered, (perhaps)one of the most uncompromisingly brutal scenes in cinema follows. Viewers with no prior knowledge of the film's story have little context in which to place, justify, or condemn the scene they have just witnessed. Noe's decision to present the film in reverse chronological order serves a higher purpose than the obvious irony the title suggests; it is not merely a gimmick, but a technique that forces viewers to hang-on and discover why the two men do what they do at "Rectum," and also questions free will, fate/destiny on a deeper level. Technically, this film amazed me. The camera is not a voyeur, or even a fly-on-the-wall; but, more accurately, an objective correlative demonstrating the inner turmoil of the characters through its outward movement and perspective. The editor achieves the highest purpose of editing: viewers are not aware of edits (cuts) in scenes, where the narrative may become compromised; the finished product seamlessly assembles a story that is presented backwards, yet maintains technical continuity. The SFX are too awe-inspiring to go into detail about in this review. The opening chapter (about 15 mins. in) demonstrates a coming together of CGI, live action, latex prop dummy, matte painting, lighting and editing in unison, leaving the viewer oblivious to any artifice. "Irreversible" is not an easy film to watch, but difficult not to appreciate.
Murder-Set-Pieces (2004)
Ya vohl!
MSP has good cinematography, decent acting (the little girl, Jade, being the best) and good, but overly bloodsoaked, effects by Toetag; so where did this movie go wrong? I've read the comments and I tend to agree, but the film is not a complete loss. The film has little plot (neo-nazi photographs and kills Vegas strippers and hookers) and almost no story. MSP presents itself more accurately as a montage than an actual movie; by this I mean that it unfolds in a series of dreams, murders, and excursions. The devices are laughable: the photog. buying a pistol from Gunnar Hansen and using it in Tony Todd's porn shop have nothing to do with what little story already exists. These scenes are nothing more than a celluloid version of name dropping. I think that where the movie succeeds relies on where it fails. I know that sounds contradictory, or even stupid, but MSP triumphs by relying on its most common criticisms: no plot and no story--gore for the sake of gore.
Scrapbook (2000)
This one seems have its lines marked clearly
Based on most of the comments I've read, I have to say that 'Scrapbook' is an either or movie. The comments either appreciate it (it's hard to say 'like') or are overtly negative. That stated, I found this movie to be somewhere in between those poles. This movie is extreme in its depiction of sadism and misogyny, and left me feeling very confused and disturbed after watching it. There is an intangible aspect to this film that makes it difficult to determine why I felt this way; I can't simply place it on the violence, and I can't place it on the context in which the violence is presented, or any other specific aspect of the film. Some of the comments and reviews of this film attribute audience reaction to its objectivity, but I would argue that it is due to its ambiguity. It could be argued that the film's conclusion (possible, but unlikely, spoiler) supports an 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' mentality, but it could just as well be viewed as a fight or flight survival instinct--we aren't given enough information, based on where and how the movie ends, to guess what Clara's intentions are. She seems to have found some redemption, and even enjoyment, in torturing her torturer; is she limping off with the scrapbook in hopes of returning to the safety of the world she was abducted from, has she been turned on to Leonard's p.o.v. (remember, he was abused before he became the abuser,)and is there a possibility that she will continue the scrapbook as its new author?
Kidco (1984)
Of course I liked it; I was in it.
While I was in first grade at Thornydale Elementary, in Tucson, AZ., the crew from Kidco did a presentation at our school's assembly hall asking for extras. I took the "permission slip" home to my parents and begged them to let me be in the movie. They signed the forms, and we went to a large casting call. I call it a casting call because I don't know what else to call it. I didn't get in the movie, but some of my friends were in the courthouse scene. We all received Kidco t-shirts and felt like we were movie stars (even though most of us were not in the picture.)Looking back, nearly twenty-five years later, this was a fun and interesting event in my life. I saw the film again in the mid-nineties, and enjoyed it. It has some of the same moral thematics as "The Goonies," but presents them in a less fantastic way--or does it?
Fright Night (1985)
A great blend of "old" and "new" horror
Tom Holland's "Fright Night" combines the best elements of old and new horror films into a picture well worth watching. The story juxtaposes mythological figures of fright (vampire, wolfman, and familiar) with the real-world realities of high school and sexual awakening. Brewster's advances with his girlfriend Amy open the film with the awkwardness they share in coming closer to the 'final act.' Charley is diverted from his and Amy's moment by his new neighbors' transportation of a coffin into their home's basement. Charley can't cope with the approaching little death, and focuses on the real thing. A whirlwind follows with Charley and Amy constantly running from their fears of the unknown, represented by Dandridge (Chris Sarandon.) In keeping with the old, Holland characterized Peter Vincent as a generic meld of Peter Cushing and Vincent Price (often playing opposites as antagonist and protagonist in the same films.)To avoid spoilers, I recommend this film as a remarkable work of modern horror.