mr_Goodbomb Reviews

Fright Night (2011)

A crude landscape of plot errors with various fun parts

[20 August 2011]

I really wanted to enjoy this. I enjoyed the original, I liked the cast, I love David Tennant, and it seemed like it might have been treated with respect (it, the remake, showing respect for the original). That wasn't so much the case. I understand modernizing. But this was a bit much. The biggest issue, however, was plot devices that made zero sense. This is where the spoilers come in:

• Evil Eddie has been tracking the new neighbor and decides he's a vampire very early on. We get very little explanation as to why he thought this, until later we see he's been watching him since the day he moved in. WHY? Why would you be watching a man the day he moves into a new home, hiding behind things and videotaping him because you believe he's a vampire? There's such little explanation for this, it's difficult to digest. - The character is said to feed to victims like snacks, keeping them locked up in little crudely-constructed rooms in his house. Just before this explanation, we see him kill two kids in the street at dusk. Not bite, not drag inside, kill. Blood everywhere, leaves the car in the middle of the road, straight up murders them. - The key element here is the relationship between the protagonist and his girlfriend. For this, the Ed character is essentially little more than a motivator, no longer a key element, and the new ending dictates that Ed does not live until the last shot. In fact, he's pretty useless. Anyway, the girlfriend resists the vampire's allure very little. While she cries when bitten, she is an unsympathetic, unburdened vampire once turned. Why would should care is beyond reasoning.

Overall, the performances were fantastic, but the script seemed the it was thrown together in order to make a script for a half-hearted remake by someone who had only paid some attention while watching the original once, and knew enough about vampire myths to get by.

Predictably, it's in 3D (Hollywood's attempt at keeping independent film out of the box office, by making every summer blockbuster attempt in 3D). This is great in some regards because the camera movements are slower, more deliberate, and less fast-paced for the sake of being fast-paced. Performances are worried with more, and the shooting style is less thrown together. The down side is, most of the effects are digital (I'd venture to say almost all), so that the 3D elements on them can be controlled better. Great for people who love 3D, not great for people who have taste and enjoy actual, legitimate film (sorry 3D lovers, I mean no offense, it's mostly sarcasm).

All in all, if you like the actors, see it for them. If you like the original, you'll probably see it anyway, but don't expect much respect to be paid. If you like genuinely unnerving, fun horror films, look elsewhere.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

Fantastic

[10/10 · 4 April 2011]

I wanted to respond to the current top review, "True Tarantino." First of all, to call it "true Tarantino" and never mention Rodriquez is either misleading or ill-informed. Tarantino wrote the script and played one of the lead characters, yes, but he did not direct the film. He actually denied various subsequent levels of involvement with the film in order to concentrate on his portrayal of Richard Gecko after completing the script. I believe Rodriquez deserves as much credit here as Tarantino, and after the second half of the film, KNB Effects deserves as much as either of them.

That said, to say that the effects weren't "very good" is just silly. While the effects can often be campy and over the top to the point of being unrealistic, it's a monster film, and it treats the effects as such. These aren't your everyday "actor with false teeth" vampires, these are Evil Dead II style demons, creatures that resemble less Lugosi and more The Thing, mutated, weird, and disturbing, and more concerned with entertainment than realism. You must also consider that some of these effects were highly functional, not just simple makeup jobs but interactive builds that sprayed fluid, changed shapes, and moved about. You must also consider that this is a 15+ year old film. If you're looking for visual effects that blend practical makeups with CG elements in every shot, or worse, nothing but CG for "effects," then you're looking for the wrong thing here. Aside from a few blends, melts, and effect fades, everything you see was done in front of the camera, in person, for real, and it looks that was. None of the effects look like something you couldn't reach out and touch, and they all live up to some of the best and highest regarded horror and scifi effects created for film. I'd love to see what the OP thought was a "good" special effect.

All of this aside, this is a fantastic film. The first has is engaging, interesting, and unique, tugging you along for the ride in a familiar fashion to other Tarantino scripts in a decidedly Tex-Mex Rodriquez style. It slows down only to let you get involved with the characters, and is at no point boring or dismissible. If you take someone who has never seen this film, and doesn't know what it's about, and sit them down to watch it, the range of expressions and reactions you'll get to the mid-movie vampire shock are worth repeat viewings with a new audience. After the shift in story arc, the following scenes are fun, entertaining as hell, and right up the gore/camp/gun alley of anyone who enjoys the Evil Dead series (for whom KNB also did the effects). I can't imagine a more consistently entertaining film in this genre. It's one of my all-time favorites and it's always fun to see again.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

GI Joe: Because We've Run Low on Franchises

[4/10 · 7 August 2009]

Let's face it... I didn't go into the theater expecting a thrilling experience in film. I went in expecting a modern example of a blockbuster: a fairly mindless, heartless script pressed out using the same formulas that have made other blockbusters, as mindless as this one, successful, with a few key actors worth watching and, in this film's case, some memories (or toys) from my childhood stamped into the molds and forced to conform to the shape of the figurative cookie they've already agreed to finance. I understood that going in. I could expect "Michael Bay" with someone else's name on it.

I wasn't surprised. The story was as expected... A muscular white lead, an African American partner, joining a secret group of awesome dudes and being pitted against a group of mean, ugly men in sweet costumes. Epic, entirely CGIed battle ensued. When the female antagonist is immediately introduced as someone from the lead's past, I could already foresee the character flexing and struggling to squeeze tears from his muscular ducts. We get it. As soon as a pretty girl on the good guy's side is introduced, I expected pseudo-ghetto, tough-but-funny side remarks from the black sidekick made to impress her. I get it. Dennis Quaid. I get it. It's all the structure, stereotypes, and expected plot turns that will make the dumber percentile of a movie-going audience laugh when they're supposed to and sharply inhale in surprise when they're supposed to. If I wanted to even have a chance at enjoying the movie, I had to look past of this, ignore to poorly-constructed plots, the awful script, the terrible one-liners, and the overuse of CGI that almost makes it an animated movie.

There were a few things that were worse than I had imagined, and tough to overlook. Before the movie even started, I was reminded of the Hasbro logo. This movie was financed by the company that made, and will now make the new line of, the toys for the franchise. GI Joe was a patriotic, Nationalist series of toys originally manufactured in the 1960s and re-invented during the 80s along with an animated series... less for creative purposes, or for the purpose of having a television series at all, and more obviously a vessel in which to sell toys. The fairly blatant attempt to market service in the US Forces to children was missed by few, and each and every action figure reeked of "heck yes, the Army" the same way that Barbie smelled of "I can be anything I want as long as dinner is ready when my husband gets home and I look good doing it." The movie smelled of this, too. The babes were hot, the guys were tough, the gear was awesome, and everything looked like one giant toy advert. Can anyone say Phantom Menace? Being marketed for kids in many ways, many of the plot twists and changes were quite obviously done to suit this theme. The costumes and costume changes were featured and laid out as linear as possible. The weapons, while causing a lot of property damage, didn't often hurt or maim people (unless they were bad guys, which means me to my next point). The good guys were attractive (arguably, I mean, uh, Dennis Quaid), and the bad guys were either entirely covered by armor and nearly robotic or physically marred and dismembered, unattractive and unappealing physically. The two "bad guys" who had the ability to change, become good or more evil, did just that: one turned to the good side and remained attractive, while the other stuck with the bad guys and was beaten, burnt, and had his human appearance stripped away for the appearance of a metal man.

Then, there's the CGI. It seems like someone fell asleep while cleaning up and improving the appearance of these scenes, woke up, realized time was short, and clicked "Render." Even the people that I went to see the movie with that know nothing of how these sorts of movies, and the CGI shots within them, are made, said "this looks like crap," and it did. It wasn't believable, and on a big screen, it looked worse than most of the junk you'll find in early morning cartoons or Sci Fi Channel originals. It did, however, say a lot for the movie as a whole.

Then, last but not least in this disappointment scale, was the acting. Most of the actors weren't stellar by any account, but serviceable with the script they were given (seriously, I have to wonder how many times actors stopped while reading the next scene from the script and said, "...really?"). But the lead, Mr. Channing Tatum, should have stuck with underwear modeling. From his first line (a bored, underacted "attention!") to the last time we see him make a myriad of facial expressions hoping one of them is the right one, this guy was unreasonably bad. The dog from the Taco Bell commercials was a far better actor, may he rest in peace.

The one saving grace, and what I had to pay attention to in order to keep my faith in movies and my sanity, were a few choice performances. Much like being the saving grace of The Phantom Menace, Ray Park was fantastic. It could be because he was mysterious... it could also be because he wasn't given any atrocious one-liners. Christopher Eccleston was more than serviceable, as well, but I expected no less. The real kicker was Gordon-Levitt, however, and I think he had the most eyes (unless you were mentally inept, prepubescent, and watching Channing Tatum) on him. Whoever was sitting in a board room and offered, "you know that guy from all the Fox Searchlight movies? Let's get him," I both applaud you for your tenacity and question your ability to do rudimentary math. However, he was entertaining, no matter how you count it, which is what this movie was all about.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

One of the worst big-budget movies I've ever seen... Maybe the worst

[1/10 · 11 December 2008]

I'm seen some lousy movies before. I've seen some pretty stupid adaptations and some really crappy remakes (Night of the Living Dead 3D, anyone?). But this takes the cake. Considering the talent involved, the obvious money spent, and the public hype surrounding this flick... It was god-awful.

Plan 9 From Outer Space has serious competition for "worst film of all time," if you take budget and acting talent into consideration. How such a tanker can be made with such a big price tag and several skilled names attached is far, far beyond me. How someone (the actors, the CGI animators, ANYONE!) didn't take notice of any of the glaring plot holes or absolute lack of a real ending... Sweet pampered baby Jesus.

Someone must have taken notice, though, because it seems, at some point, everyone stopped caring. The CGI was disgusting... I'm no fan of CGI, but I know sometimes, with the combination of the way a story and shot list are written and the global expectations people put on modern films, it's necessary to carry out an idea. I've seen better CGI implemented in student productions. NOTHING looked believable, and it looked as if the animators didn't even bother to try to make it so. The dialog was terrible and clunky, and the story (and ending) were so insufficient and full of holes that it's astounding it even got put out. There WAS no real ending... Millions dead, cities destroyed, and a world covered in a fine sand of mechanical space-bugs. Then what? The director didn't even put his name at the end, or any other associated "big" names, it went straight to smaller production people. Most likely? Because they were ashamed.

And I won't even bother comparing it to the original. While dated, I'm watching the original as I type this, and it's become a bit corny and campy with age, but it's whimsy and wonder, and given message, is still shining after half a decade. This new one? Trash.

Anything for money, it seems.

Brutal Massacre: A Comedy (2007)

Good concept, decent acting, a bit lacking

[6/10 · 26 July 2008]

I got it off Netflix, and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. I think making fun of the horror genre, both it's creators and it's fans (with the Fangoria convention bits), could produce a LOT of funny material. This seemed to be lacking that. It had it's funny moments, but I didn't laugh out loud much. I laugh more during Spinal Tap/Best In Show/A Mighty Wind/etc, which this seemed to try and replicate but couldn't. The story was fairly predictable, I saw what was going to happen next a mile away. Really, the most enjoyable part was picking out actors from their other work (cameos from recognizable genre actors from films such as Dawn of the Dead, Evil Dead, and the always-beloved low-budget Clerks). It was worth the time of watching it, but I'm glad I watched it alone. I might have felt as if I wasted someone's time if I watched it with a group.

Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (2005 Video)

I expected this to be bad. Not THIS bad.

[1/10 · 9 February 2008]

After reading a lot of reviews, I of course expected this to be bad, so I never bought it. But, it was 2 bucks and some change to rent, and I have a lot of free time at work, so I figured, "why not, I've watched worse" (such as Zombie Nation, Rise of the Dead, and Flight of the Living Dead, for example). This one... Is pretty close.

Why is there a zombie TALKING in Russian? Why are there mental patients being abused? Why is the chemical that revivifies the dead in a thermos from the mid-80s when the original occurrences are supposed to be happening in 1969? What relation does this half-baked story even feign to have to Night, Dawn, or Day? Why is Taurus and evil, blood-sucking hunk of crap? These questions will never be answered. Oddly, I don't care too much, either.

I Am Zombie Man (2007)

A halloween mask, a camcorder, and a zombie obsession

[4/10 · 14 December 2007]

I hate to disagree with the previous poster so starkly, but I suppose that's the point of rating systems and opinion comments like these in the first place. I got to see this short film in with the premiere of another feature-length zombie flick, Deadlands: The Rising. I'll save my thoughts on that film for the appropriate forum, but I will say that this short diminished a bit of my hope for that film, being that it showed before it.

The film was, more or less, a guy in a halloween skull mask with a hoodie on running around the woods being filmed on a camcorder while he pretended to do go about daily undead "life." No budget, no effects, no others actors, really (at one point he's seen in a vehicle talking to a friend, and a car passes, but that's about it)... Mainly, the entirety of the short was an opportunity for the creator/s to make jokes and commentary about zombie life while showing similar things in the action of the main character. So, zombie walking about in the wood, playing air guitar, looking bored... and audio dubbed overtop of the character talking about what he's doing.

It could be an alright concept, despite the lack of any budget or effects, because that stuff isn't nessicary, especially in an indie short like this, if the humor is good and the shots look appealing. There was really no focus on artistry as far as cinematography goes, and I just didn't care for the jokes... Didn't find it funny, myself, it was kind of forced, nerdy, awkward humor.

So, without any real focus on cinematography and jokes that went unappreciated... There really wasn't anything else TO this flick.

I appreciate the effort, but for all the hype this short had online and before the premiere... I feel like I missed something. Maybe an inside joke?

The Dead Next Door (1989)

If you can tolerate a low budget, and like creative effects, shlock, and zombies, grab this

[8/10 · 20 October 2007]

I really enjoyed this film. I watched it once or twice before I hit the special features and watched the featurettes with interviews from the cast and crew. I think those interviews really helped me appreciate this film more. The director had no budget and no idea how to really operate a camera (it seems the first time they shot a lot of the effects and various scenes, the light meter was trusted less than the untrained eye, and many shots came out so dark that they were unusable). With some creative and sometimes silly, schlocky ideas for gore and effects and an interesting, even compelling follow-up to both Romero's Dead films (the original three which had been released by that time) and Sam Raimi's Evil Dead I and II, I really think this film had some interesting points to it. There are no incredible special effects, the acting is silly (the main character's voice has now been replaced with Bruce Campbell's), the budget was extremely low (though it was funded by a "Mr. X," who kept his identity a secret... do a little research on that one, the answer is surprising), and I think they made something campy, fun, and even, at times, creepy. I liked it a lot for a no-budget midnight flick.

Evil Dead Trap (1988)

Simply terrible

[1/10 · 2 April 2006]

My girlfriend is into Japanese horror, and she had heard a lot of great things, and knew of the cult following. So, we picked it up off Netflicks. I don't know where to begin with this one. I guess the soundtrack, since it consists of a single song repeated over and over. Why is this such a glaring problem? Because the movie goes on forever. Then, there's the plot... which is a laugh all on it's own. Aside from the apparent rape scenes, the ridiculous means of death, the unreasonable amount of tasteless and uncalled for gore... Then again, it does start out with the words "Evil Dead." I guess that should have brought to my mind the concept that this movie, though having no relation to the American cult classic, was going to be all about nothing and full of blood and guts. I suppose that's fine and dandy for any movie that plays out like a trite Scream-style flick, but I suppose I just expected more class and subtlety out of a Japanese film, especially one with such a following as this one. And the twist ending? An alien, and a pregnancy? Simply terrible.