Viewed in
2010
Formats
Netflix HD streaming via Xbox 360
Premise
Sigourney Weaver returns in the sequel as she joins a military squad to revisit the hostile planet. James Cameron takes over as director.
Loved
Weaver's kick-butt character.
Liked
The suspenseful intensity, the impressive special effects.
Disliked
How similar it was to Avatar.
Thoughts
A worthy sequel to a classic.
Weaver was one of the coolest aspects of the first two films. It was not just because of the rarity of a female lead in a sci-fi action flick, but because how much she kicked butt in that role; she was smart and tough as nails. I was just plain giddy when she went into all-out Ripley mode around the halfway mark. Like before, the cast was solid, including Michael Biehn, the perfectly cast Lance Henriksen as an android, and Carrie Henn as the lone survivor on the colony. Admittedly, I was surprised by Paul Reiser's dramatic chops, since I only knew him from Mad About You.
For the most part, this film still maintained the uneasy suspense and silent-but-deadly vibe from the classic. Like before, it started off with spooky atmosphere, and built up into a nerve-wracking crescendo, only more action-oriented. When it morphed into shoot-em-up, it was very well done. The majority of special effects still held up, especially the improved animatronics/puppets able to show more of the aliens as agile, fighting entities. Also, the robot suits were impressive.
The biggest flaw was that the plot was a bit flimsy, especially in terms of characters acting dumber than expected. After watching this, it did deflate Avatar a bit, because I realized that Cameron recycled numerous moments, characters, and technology from Aliens.
This belongs in the pantheon of sequels equal (or nearly equal) to the original, thanks to Ripley, fantastic visual effects, and continuing the uneasy/queasy feeling of the unknown. I still preferred the original, due to a more consistent suspenseful experience and story.
What I would change
Nothing.
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Alien (Director's Cut?)
Viewed in
2008
Premise
The first in the franchise, in which a mysterious, killing alien stows away on a human cargo ship.
Who should watch
Those who like effective, scary science fiction.
Thoughts
While I am not a fan of horror, I enjoyed this influential film. Not only did it launch Sigourney Weaver's career, it also proved that a female action star was possible. Had this film failed, director Ridley Scott might not have been able to create his masterpiece, 'Blade Runner'.
In addition to Weaver, the well-acted cast included Ian Holm and Tom Skerritt. What was interesting was because the story took place entirely on a cargo ship of seven (or eight), it sometimes felt like I was watching a play.
Considering when this was filmed, I was pleasantly surprised by the special effects, as they were very convincing even by 2000's standards. Well, except for the giant computers with monochrome monitors and archaic code.
What made it so scary was the Hitchcock-style suspense. I was expecting a big monster just tearing the place up for two hours. Instead, there was a lot of nerve-wracking waiting. The camera was often from the character's point of view, so I was as clueless as the characters, until it was too late.
This film contained one of the most famous scenes in cinema history, which I will just call 'the dinner scene'. Unfortunately, since I watched this nearly 30 years after it debuted, I had already seen the scene in tributes and parodies. I felt a bit cheated out of the shocking experience of seeing it for the first time.
Even though the late great Jerry Goldsmith did not like how his score was altered for the film, I thought the end result was very effective. The minimalistic music and long pauses of silence enhanced the unknown danger awaiting the hapless humans.
Thanks to special effects, Sigourney Weaver, and great pacing by the film makers, this horror film did what it was supposed to do, it made me sit on pins and needles wanting to know what happens next.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I put a question mark on whether I had seen the 'Director's Cut' because according to sources, there were two added scenes, but I only recall seeing one in my viewing. While it explained the demise of two of the characters better, I thought leaving that up to the audience's imagination was the right choice initially.
Was this the first film to start the monster-behind-the-trash-is-a-cat cliche?
2008
Premise
The first in the franchise, in which a mysterious, killing alien stows away on a human cargo ship.
Who should watch
Those who like effective, scary science fiction.
Thoughts
While I am not a fan of horror, I enjoyed this influential film. Not only did it launch Sigourney Weaver's career, it also proved that a female action star was possible. Had this film failed, director Ridley Scott might not have been able to create his masterpiece, 'Blade Runner'.
In addition to Weaver, the well-acted cast included Ian Holm and Tom Skerritt. What was interesting was because the story took place entirely on a cargo ship of seven (or eight), it sometimes felt like I was watching a play.
Considering when this was filmed, I was pleasantly surprised by the special effects, as they were very convincing even by 2000's standards. Well, except for the giant computers with monochrome monitors and archaic code.
What made it so scary was the Hitchcock-style suspense. I was expecting a big monster just tearing the place up for two hours. Instead, there was a lot of nerve-wracking waiting. The camera was often from the character's point of view, so I was as clueless as the characters, until it was too late.
This film contained one of the most famous scenes in cinema history, which I will just call 'the dinner scene'. Unfortunately, since I watched this nearly 30 years after it debuted, I had already seen the scene in tributes and parodies. I felt a bit cheated out of the shocking experience of seeing it for the first time.
Even though the late great Jerry Goldsmith did not like how his score was altered for the film, I thought the end result was very effective. The minimalistic music and long pauses of silence enhanced the unknown danger awaiting the hapless humans.
Thanks to special effects, Sigourney Weaver, and great pacing by the film makers, this horror film did what it was supposed to do, it made me sit on pins and needles wanting to know what happens next.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I put a question mark on whether I had seen the 'Director's Cut' because according to sources, there were two added scenes, but I only recall seeing one in my viewing. While it explained the demise of two of the characters better, I thought leaving that up to the audience's imagination was the right choice initially.
Was this the first film to start the monster-behind-the-trash-is-a-cat cliche?
American Psycho
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Christian Bale's breakout role as a 1980's American powerful businessman with murder as a hobby. Based on the controversial novel, which I have not read.
Loved
Bale's performance.
Liked
The dark comedy.
Disliked
Getting confused at the end.
Thoughts
I loved Bale's performance, but I cannot say the same for the whole movie.
Christian Bale made this film go. He was detached, pretentious, vain, misogynistic, narcissistic, jealous, hot-headed, and all sorts of nasty rolled into one. You would think such a protagonist would be hard to like. But Bale was somehow able to embody all that with delightful charm and a magnetic presence. Despite his lack of human decency, I could still relate to his frustrations in office politics or finding how he did not have the coolest business card.
Because of Bale's wonderful execution as this character, his killings were justified and fun, from an entertainment standpoint. Some were suspenseful, others were darkly humorous, but they were all interesting. While they were bloody, they were not graphic or gory.
Throughout the film, it reminded me of Fight Club, only bloodier and more satirical. It had a similar style of snarky voice over protagonist narration. Also, it had themes of hate for and rebelling against the materialistic, dehumanizing aspect of American society.
What ruined it for me was the last act. Things started to get confusing (like the lawyer scene) to the point of frustration, and I was not sure what the resolution was. Was there a consequence (and therefore a meaningful arc) for Patrick Bateman? I had to look online to double-check the plot afterward. Turns out it was intentionally ambiguous. Maybe because I was comparing it to Fight Club that I expected a more straight-forward ending. In any case, if it's going to be open-ended like that, it could have been executed better for me to realize that.
Even though I did not like how it ended, I appreciated the film for its risks, themes, entertaining murders, and most importantly, Christian Bale portrayal of such an inhuman (but entrancing) character.
What I would change
Find a way to let the audience realize the ending was meant to be interpreted.
2010
Premise
Christian Bale's breakout role as a 1980's American powerful businessman with murder as a hobby. Based on the controversial novel, which I have not read.
Loved
Bale's performance.
Liked
The dark comedy.
Disliked
Getting confused at the end.
Thoughts
I loved Bale's performance, but I cannot say the same for the whole movie.
Christian Bale made this film go. He was detached, pretentious, vain, misogynistic, narcissistic, jealous, hot-headed, and all sorts of nasty rolled into one. You would think such a protagonist would be hard to like. But Bale was somehow able to embody all that with delightful charm and a magnetic presence. Despite his lack of human decency, I could still relate to his frustrations in office politics or finding how he did not have the coolest business card.
Because of Bale's wonderful execution as this character, his killings were justified and fun, from an entertainment standpoint. Some were suspenseful, others were darkly humorous, but they were all interesting. While they were bloody, they were not graphic or gory.
Throughout the film, it reminded me of Fight Club, only bloodier and more satirical. It had a similar style of snarky voice over protagonist narration. Also, it had themes of hate for and rebelling against the materialistic, dehumanizing aspect of American society.
What ruined it for me was the last act. Things started to get confusing (like the lawyer scene) to the point of frustration, and I was not sure what the resolution was. Was there a consequence (and therefore a meaningful arc) for Patrick Bateman? I had to look online to double-check the plot afterward. Turns out it was intentionally ambiguous. Maybe because I was comparing it to Fight Club that I expected a more straight-forward ending. In any case, if it's going to be open-ended like that, it could have been executed better for me to realize that.
Even though I did not like how it ended, I appreciated the film for its risks, themes, entertaining murders, and most importantly, Christian Bale portrayal of such an inhuman (but entrancing) character.
What I would change
Find a way to let the audience realize the ending was meant to be interpreted.
Arachnophobia
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Jeff Daniels stars as an arachnophobe doctor who moves into a small town, which is besieged by a deadly species of spiders.
Loved
Scary spiders.
Liked
Characters.
Thoughts
Much more fun than I expected.
Like most people, I'm naturally a little skeeved out by spiders, and the movie does a great job of playing off of that. They spring out at the screen, crawl all over body parts, and act creepy. The experience was further enhanced by making them venomous and prone to overpopulate. I'm surprised that no one's working on a 3D remake as we speak.
Director Frank Marshall had a great sense of timing. I was definitely on edge watching these evil little things sneak upon their unsuspecting victims, with the occasional (sometime hilarious) close calls.
It also helped that the movie was full of likable characters. Jeff Daniels was very believable in showing how the fear is truly paralyzing. (A friend of mine has a minor case of it.) So you end up really rooting for him and feeling his dread every time he's cornered with one of the creepy crawlers. The rest of the cast was well-fleshed out too. Instead of mindless mobs, there were definitely subplots with town folk coming from different points of view as the bodies pile up.
Knowing that this movie was made pre-CGI, it made the animal wrangling even more impressive. It felt like 90% of the spiders' screen time was from real live spiders, making the creep factor even more authentic. The rest of the time was skillful camera tricks and animatronics. Watching it two decades later, the special effects held up surprisingly well.
The movie wasn't perfect. It's got some of that 1980's movie sensibility about it. No cute animals got killed, you pretty much know who's going to survive the invasion, and occasionally characters do dumb horror movie things. The biggest culprit being the "spider expert" just carelessly wandering into the main boss's den without support. How the super spider invades the idyllic town was cheesy, and so was the, um, flaming spider. But overall, I don't think they're really flaws, because they add to the light-hearted and escapism tone of the movie.
I had a blast watching Arachnophobia, thanks to effective creepiness, solid characters, and occasional cheesy charm. It had a nice roller coaster feel, in which I was freaked out during the ride, but relaxed and smiling afterward.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Jeff Daniels stars as an arachnophobe doctor who moves into a small town, which is besieged by a deadly species of spiders.
Loved
Scary spiders.
Liked
Characters.
Thoughts
Much more fun than I expected.
Like most people, I'm naturally a little skeeved out by spiders, and the movie does a great job of playing off of that. They spring out at the screen, crawl all over body parts, and act creepy. The experience was further enhanced by making them venomous and prone to overpopulate. I'm surprised that no one's working on a 3D remake as we speak.
Director Frank Marshall had a great sense of timing. I was definitely on edge watching these evil little things sneak upon their unsuspecting victims, with the occasional (sometime hilarious) close calls.
It also helped that the movie was full of likable characters. Jeff Daniels was very believable in showing how the fear is truly paralyzing. (A friend of mine has a minor case of it.) So you end up really rooting for him and feeling his dread every time he's cornered with one of the creepy crawlers. The rest of the cast was well-fleshed out too. Instead of mindless mobs, there were definitely subplots with town folk coming from different points of view as the bodies pile up.
Knowing that this movie was made pre-CGI, it made the animal wrangling even more impressive. It felt like 90% of the spiders' screen time was from real live spiders, making the creep factor even more authentic. The rest of the time was skillful camera tricks and animatronics. Watching it two decades later, the special effects held up surprisingly well.
The movie wasn't perfect. It's got some of that 1980's movie sensibility about it. No cute animals got killed, you pretty much know who's going to survive the invasion, and occasionally characters do dumb horror movie things. The biggest culprit being the "spider expert" just carelessly wandering into the main boss's den without support. How the super spider invades the idyllic town was cheesy, and so was the, um, flaming spider. But overall, I don't think they're really flaws, because they add to the light-hearted and escapism tone of the movie.
I had a blast watching Arachnophobia, thanks to effective creepiness, solid characters, and occasional cheesy charm. It had a nice roller coaster feel, in which I was freaked out during the ride, but relaxed and smiling afterward.
The Birds
Viewed in
1999
Formats
VHS
Premise
Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece about a town besieged by angry birds. Not to be confused with the Angry Birds game.
Thoughts
If I recall, it was both a technical and visual spectacle. There were numerous interesting things about this film, from the amazing buildup of suspense in the playground, to the lack of traditional score from Bernard Herrmann, to Hitchcock's ability to create convincing special effects with limited technology. Even if I was not impressed by the visual effects, it was genuinely scary.
What I would change
Nothing.
1999
Formats
VHS
Premise
Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece about a town besieged by angry birds. Not to be confused with the Angry Birds game.
Thoughts
If I recall, it was both a technical and visual spectacle. There were numerous interesting things about this film, from the amazing buildup of suspense in the playground, to the lack of traditional score from Bernard Herrmann, to Hitchcock's ability to create convincing special effects with limited technology. Even if I was not impressed by the visual effects, it was genuinely scary.
What I would change
Nothing.
Bubba Ho-tep
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Bruce Campbell stars as an elderly Elvis Presley, forced to fight a murderous mummy in a retirement home.
Loved
The premise.
Liked
The offbeat comedy, Bruce Campbell.
Thoughts
If, like me, you thought the premise was uniquely awesome, you won't be disappointed by the film.
Casting Bruce Campbell as the King was inspired and perfect, thanks to the baggage of his film resume of tongue-in-cheek horror flicks. What made this a pleasant surprise was his performance. More than an imitation of Elvis, he made his character come to life, and made the wacky situation work by not winking at the camera. Ossie Davis also put in a strong straight performance as JFK (don't ask).
Throughout the film, the premise created offbeat moments of comedy and character. At the same time, everyone from the cast and crew played the material straight, letting the absurdity of the situation breath on its own.
At times, it felt like a short story stretched too thin. Ironically, with the dead air it needed to fill, the expositions about the mummy were rather unclear, like forgetting to explain the scarab beetles.
I definitely enjoyed this wacky romp, thanks to the fun premise and Campbell's performance.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
Usually I see Animal Wranglers mentioned in the credits. By why do you need Senior Wranglers?
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Bruce Campbell stars as an elderly Elvis Presley, forced to fight a murderous mummy in a retirement home.
Loved
The premise.
Liked
The offbeat comedy, Bruce Campbell.
Thoughts
If, like me, you thought the premise was uniquely awesome, you won't be disappointed by the film.
Casting Bruce Campbell as the King was inspired and perfect, thanks to the baggage of his film resume of tongue-in-cheek horror flicks. What made this a pleasant surprise was his performance. More than an imitation of Elvis, he made his character come to life, and made the wacky situation work by not winking at the camera. Ossie Davis also put in a strong straight performance as JFK (don't ask).
Throughout the film, the premise created offbeat moments of comedy and character. At the same time, everyone from the cast and crew played the material straight, letting the absurdity of the situation breath on its own.
At times, it felt like a short story stretched too thin. Ironically, with the dead air it needed to fill, the expositions about the mummy were rather unclear, like forgetting to explain the scarab beetles.
I definitely enjoyed this wacky romp, thanks to the fun premise and Campbell's performance.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
Usually I see Animal Wranglers mentioned in the credits. By why do you need Senior Wranglers?
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
A Valley Californian cheerleader discovers that she belongs to a lineage of vampire hunters, much to her dismay.
Liked
Its weird charm.
Thoughts
Not great, but odd and entertaining.
I definitely found the bizarre cast amusing, with with a hot Kristy Swanson, an undiscovered Hilary Swank, practically-unrecognizable Paul Reubens, Stephen Root, and old fogies Rutger Hauer, Donald Sutherland, and of course, Luke Perry at his zenith. Composer Carter Burwell was recognized for artsy scores for artsy movies in the 2000's, so I was shocked to see his name in the credits.
In my opinion it was intentionally trying to be campy, and it worked for me. The actors played it straight, but the whole atmosphere of the film felt like it was winking at me. In any case, I enjoyed the overall silliness, teenage dialogue, and the 1990's fashions.
Since I never watched the more successful show, I cannot compare the two Joss Whedon creations.
The biggest problem for me was how predictable it was, from the boy-meets-girl arc, the old master-young pupil dynamic, and everything climaxing at a school dance. Another problem was that Buffy's implausibly quick transformation and acceptance to her situation. Lastly, I got confused by the "ripe" dialogue between Sutherland, Hauer during a key scene.
It was fun and goofy, and that was entertaining enough for me.
What I would change
Add some creative twists to the predictable parts.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
A Valley Californian cheerleader discovers that she belongs to a lineage of vampire hunters, much to her dismay.
Liked
Its weird charm.
Thoughts
Not great, but odd and entertaining.
I definitely found the bizarre cast amusing, with with a hot Kristy Swanson, an undiscovered Hilary Swank, practically-unrecognizable Paul Reubens, Stephen Root, and old fogies Rutger Hauer, Donald Sutherland, and of course, Luke Perry at his zenith. Composer Carter Burwell was recognized for artsy scores for artsy movies in the 2000's, so I was shocked to see his name in the credits.
In my opinion it was intentionally trying to be campy, and it worked for me. The actors played it straight, but the whole atmosphere of the film felt like it was winking at me. In any case, I enjoyed the overall silliness, teenage dialogue, and the 1990's fashions.
Since I never watched the more successful show, I cannot compare the two Joss Whedon creations.
The biggest problem for me was how predictable it was, from the boy-meets-girl arc, the old master-young pupil dynamic, and everything climaxing at a school dance. Another problem was that Buffy's implausibly quick transformation and acceptance to her situation. Lastly, I got confused by the "ripe" dialogue between Sutherland, Hauer during a key scene.
It was fun and goofy, and that was entertaining enough for me.
What I would change
Add some creative twists to the predictable parts.
Carrie
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Sissy Spacek stars as a bullied telekinetic high school girl, who doesn't realize she's about to be pranked at her prom. Based on Stephen King's novel.
Loved
Spacek's performance.
Liked
Relatable teenage angst themes, 1970's style, strong characters.
Hated
Occasional annoying camerawork.
Thoughts
It reminded me The Exorcist, in the sense that it tried to be more than just a frightening gore fest.
Overall, the characters were interesting, complex, and grounded in realism. Spacek was very sympathetic as the ostracized and confused teenager. Many of the themes of bullying, teenage angst and backlash, and sexual repression still resonate deeply in today's world. So while it took a while for blood and guts to actually happen, I was rarely bored, simply because I was tuned into Carrie's painful world. But when it finally came to the carnage, Spacek turned up the crazy. Her "don't f*ck with Carrie" face belonged in the pantheon of cinematic badass moments.
The rest of the cast was very good too. Even though her character was too over-the-top, Piper Laurie was very frightening as Carrie's crazed mother. I also enjoyed Amy Irving's performance as one of the classmates who felt remorse. Lastly, why didn't anyone tell me John freaking Travolta was in this?!
For lack of better description, this was shot in the 1970's, and it definitely felt like it was shot in the 1970's. Lenses smeared in petroleum jelly, jerky camera movements, crazy extreme closeups, blatant symbolisms and music cues, suspect audio quality, and artsy-fartsy camera angles were all present in this film.
One of the cheesiest moments was when the scene actually fast-forwarded just so it could get to the next line faster. Apparently, jump cuts were too trippy. Another unexpected aspect was the sheer amount of nudity. Despite the artistic cinematography, it still felt a tad sensationalistic to be showing so much boobage and vegetation in a serious horror flick.
In general, director Brian De Palma's style accentuated the film. I really dug his slow-motion shots, they really helped build the tension in the right spots. But there were times where it got in the way. Like there was an elongated crane shot that covered various parts of the prom, but when it ends up on Carrie and her date, it's still wide and kind of out of focus, when that moment of the two really needed to be something closer and intimate. Then there's the annoyingly dizzying one take of them spinning one way and the camera encircling them the other direction. And it just. Won't. Stop.
What's funny is that I'm not a horror fan, yet, I was a slightly disappointed by the underwhelming (and tame) amount of carnage in the last act. I've never read the novel, but I'm aware that large chunks of the last act were omitted in the film adaptation, probably due to budget reasons. But the result was a rushed ending that also took away more opportunity for Carrie to kill more people.
Carrie definitely appealed more to my inner film buff than my inner horror fan. It had a great old school vibe, and was full of strong ideas and characters. I couldn't help but still find numerous haunting parallels to today's teenagers dealing with cyber-bullying, sexual confusion, and lashing out through violence.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Sissy Spacek stars as a bullied telekinetic high school girl, who doesn't realize she's about to be pranked at her prom. Based on Stephen King's novel.
Loved
Spacek's performance.
Liked
Relatable teenage angst themes, 1970's style, strong characters.
Hated
Occasional annoying camerawork.
Thoughts
It reminded me The Exorcist, in the sense that it tried to be more than just a frightening gore fest.
Overall, the characters were interesting, complex, and grounded in realism. Spacek was very sympathetic as the ostracized and confused teenager. Many of the themes of bullying, teenage angst and backlash, and sexual repression still resonate deeply in today's world. So while it took a while for blood and guts to actually happen, I was rarely bored, simply because I was tuned into Carrie's painful world. But when it finally came to the carnage, Spacek turned up the crazy. Her "don't f*ck with Carrie" face belonged in the pantheon of cinematic badass moments.
The rest of the cast was very good too. Even though her character was too over-the-top, Piper Laurie was very frightening as Carrie's crazed mother. I also enjoyed Amy Irving's performance as one of the classmates who felt remorse. Lastly, why didn't anyone tell me John freaking Travolta was in this?!
For lack of better description, this was shot in the 1970's, and it definitely felt like it was shot in the 1970's. Lenses smeared in petroleum jelly, jerky camera movements, crazy extreme closeups, blatant symbolisms and music cues, suspect audio quality, and artsy-fartsy camera angles were all present in this film.
One of the cheesiest moments was when the scene actually fast-forwarded just so it could get to the next line faster. Apparently, jump cuts were too trippy. Another unexpected aspect was the sheer amount of nudity. Despite the artistic cinematography, it still felt a tad sensationalistic to be showing so much boobage and vegetation in a serious horror flick.
In general, director Brian De Palma's style accentuated the film. I really dug his slow-motion shots, they really helped build the tension in the right spots. But there were times where it got in the way. Like there was an elongated crane shot that covered various parts of the prom, but when it ends up on Carrie and her date, it's still wide and kind of out of focus, when that moment of the two really needed to be something closer and intimate. Then there's the annoyingly dizzying one take of them spinning one way and the camera encircling them the other direction. And it just. Won't. Stop.
What's funny is that I'm not a horror fan, yet, I was a slightly disappointed by the underwhelming (and tame) amount of carnage in the last act. I've never read the novel, but I'm aware that large chunks of the last act were omitted in the film adaptation, probably due to budget reasons. But the result was a rushed ending that also took away more opportunity for Carrie to kill more people.
Carrie definitely appealed more to my inner film buff than my inner horror fan. It had a great old school vibe, and was full of strong ideas and characters. I couldn't help but still find numerous haunting parallels to today's teenagers dealing with cyber-bullying, sexual confusion, and lashing out through violence.
Cloverfield
Viewed in
2008
Premise
'Godzilla' meets 'Blair Witch Project'.
Who should watch
Those who like monster movies and motion sickness.
Thoughts
This was a cool twist on the monster movie genre. I liked how the story was through the point of view of a select group of character. The lack of information, experiencing the chaos from ground up at ground zero gave a geniune sense of action and suspense. My favorite scene was when the main characters walk down a street, and suddenly, a fight between the monster and soldiers literlly blows by them like a storm. You know nothing and everything at the same time.
There was too much handhead camera going on. I appreciated what the film makers were accomplishing, but you never want it to get in the way of the audience's ability to experience the story. Thankfully, I was warned, so I sat in the last rows without much trouble.
The other flaw with the film was the film's implausibility in terms of human physiology and digital cameras. While the characters were not charicatures and had decent subplots, their arcs seemed predictable to me. I think the film could have been even more exciting had it been more realistic with the human characters.
This was a great example of the importance of sound. Obviously, the lack of movie scores helped create a sense of realism. Funny how despite no score, there was a ton of songs in the credits due to the party scenes. Lastly, the only score that played in the credits was great 'Godzilla' shoutout music.
What I would change
Less motion sickness.
Random
I found it amusing that they depicted New York as a child-less city, mainly because of regulations regarding night shoots and work hours for children actors.
2008
Premise
'Godzilla' meets 'Blair Witch Project'.
Who should watch
Those who like monster movies and motion sickness.
Thoughts
This was a cool twist on the monster movie genre. I liked how the story was through the point of view of a select group of character. The lack of information, experiencing the chaos from ground up at ground zero gave a geniune sense of action and suspense. My favorite scene was when the main characters walk down a street, and suddenly, a fight between the monster and soldiers literlly blows by them like a storm. You know nothing and everything at the same time.
There was too much handhead camera going on. I appreciated what the film makers were accomplishing, but you never want it to get in the way of the audience's ability to experience the story. Thankfully, I was warned, so I sat in the last rows without much trouble.
The other flaw with the film was the film's implausibility in terms of human physiology and digital cameras. While the characters were not charicatures and had decent subplots, their arcs seemed predictable to me. I think the film could have been even more exciting had it been more realistic with the human characters.
This was a great example of the importance of sound. Obviously, the lack of movie scores helped create a sense of realism. Funny how despite no score, there was a ton of songs in the credits due to the party scenes. Lastly, the only score that played in the credits was great 'Godzilla' shoutout music.
What I would change
Less motion sickness.
Random
I found it amusing that they depicted New York as a child-less city, mainly because of regulations regarding night shoots and work hours for children actors.
Drag Me to Hell
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Poor Alison Lohman is tormented by a gypsy woman's curse.
Who should watch
Those who like horror that is more old school, and not the torture-porn that is all the rage.
Thoughts
I was definitely spooked out all the way through.
Alison Lohman was really good, and I felt sorry for her character as she deals with scary and disgusting moments. The climax in the graveyard was one of my favorite scenes, thanks to her butt-kicking performance. Big ups to Lohman for the physical/mental/emotional toll and risks she took to achieve those scenes. The behind the scenes helped me appreciate her performance even more.
Sam Raimi still has his fastball. It had nice mix of indulgent uneasy creepiness, surprising shock reveals with stinger chords, and flat out enthusiastic grossness. At times, I was cowering, afraid to know what happens next, but at the same time I was smirking by how much fun I was having (as well as the film makers).
The story was pretty good for a horror movie. In fact, the moral dilemma subplot was very interesting, and pushed the film beyond its genre a bit. How Lohman's character gets cursed by the scary gypsy woman was very unexpected, rather bizarre and darkly funny.
My only beef with the film was the resolution, as it involved a cliche plot device to flip the story around. As an intelligent audience I felt cheated. Kind of odd that I could accept the heroine's dumb idea of never telling her doting boyfriend the truth in key scenes, but I could not accept that device near the end.
Also, some of the computer graphics could have been better.
I enjoyed this Sam Raimi film, but with a much better budget with slicker special effects. It was like watching an old master, schooling all the wannabes, screaming 'this is how you do it right!' without even breaking a sweat. Definitely a fun, odd, and memorable horror film.
Note: I watched the theatrical version.
What I would change
Though I liked the risk-taking by Justin Long and the film makers to cast him as the boyfriend, I would have picked a better actor.
2010
Premise
Poor Alison Lohman is tormented by a gypsy woman's curse.
Who should watch
Those who like horror that is more old school, and not the torture-porn that is all the rage.
Thoughts
I was definitely spooked out all the way through.
Alison Lohman was really good, and I felt sorry for her character as she deals with scary and disgusting moments. The climax in the graveyard was one of my favorite scenes, thanks to her butt-kicking performance. Big ups to Lohman for the physical/mental/emotional toll and risks she took to achieve those scenes. The behind the scenes helped me appreciate her performance even more.
Sam Raimi still has his fastball. It had nice mix of indulgent uneasy creepiness, surprising shock reveals with stinger chords, and flat out enthusiastic grossness. At times, I was cowering, afraid to know what happens next, but at the same time I was smirking by how much fun I was having (as well as the film makers).
The story was pretty good for a horror movie. In fact, the moral dilemma subplot was very interesting, and pushed the film beyond its genre a bit. How Lohman's character gets cursed by the scary gypsy woman was very unexpected, rather bizarre and darkly funny.
My only beef with the film was the resolution, as it involved a cliche plot device to flip the story around. As an intelligent audience I felt cheated. Kind of odd that I could accept the heroine's dumb idea of never telling her doting boyfriend the truth in key scenes, but I could not accept that device near the end.
Also, some of the computer graphics could have been better.
I enjoyed this Sam Raimi film, but with a much better budget with slicker special effects. It was like watching an old master, schooling all the wannabes, screaming 'this is how you do it right!' without even breaking a sweat. Definitely a fun, odd, and memorable horror film.
Note: I watched the theatrical version.
What I would change
Though I liked the risk-taking by Justin Long and the film makers to cast him as the boyfriend, I would have picked a better actor.
Evil Dead, The
Viewed in
2007
Premise
The controversial, indie horror cult classic that put Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell on the map.
Who should watch
Horror fans.
Thoughts
Before there was 'Blair Witch Project', there was 'Evil Dead'. This was made for allegedly $375,00.
Granted I gave it extra kudos for its budget, but it was squirmy, scary and entertaining. I enjoyed every creative trick, including clay-mation and well-done makeup.
The first half was effective at just spooking the audience. Then the gore kicked in. It was just spectacular. I had not see so much bloody since that elevator scene in 'The Shining'.
Last but not least, watch out for evil trees that rape young women. I wonder if tentacle hentai got their ideas from this...
What I would change
Nothing.
2007
Premise
The controversial, indie horror cult classic that put Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell on the map.
Who should watch
Horror fans.
Thoughts
Before there was 'Blair Witch Project', there was 'Evil Dead'. This was made for allegedly $375,00.
Granted I gave it extra kudos for its budget, but it was squirmy, scary and entertaining. I enjoyed every creative trick, including clay-mation and well-done makeup.
The first half was effective at just spooking the audience. Then the gore kicked in. It was just spectacular. I had not see so much bloody since that elevator scene in 'The Shining'.
Last but not least, watch out for evil trees that rape young women. I wonder if tentacle hentai got their ideas from this...
What I would change
Nothing.
Exorcist, The
Viewed in
2010
Premise
A young girl is possessed by the devil. Based on a book I will not read.
Liked
Visual and sound effects.
Hated
The boring first act.
Thoughts
Despite some spooky moments, it was boring at times.
Considering it was made in the early 1970's, there were some very good special effects, with believable make up, effective puppetry, and icky fake bodily fluids. Also, the sound effects were vital in creating the memorable Regan moments. While there were some gross moments, most of the suspense was psychological, keeping me uncomfortable during the second half.
Another good thing about the movie was the strong acting. They felt like regular humans with flaws trying to figure out what is going on. This movie had some interesting scientific and religious themes. Theme song was pretty tight.
What I hated most was the first third. I understand the purpose was to get the audience to identify with the characters, but I was ready to stop watching at the thirty minute mark out of boredom. Despite how hard they tried, I could care less about any of the characters and their back stories. Normally, I am cool with old fashioned film making that emphasizes character, but it has to serve the story.
I don't think it worked like they wanted to, but I appreciated the effort.
Not sure which DVD version I watched, but it had an intro by director William Friedkin telling me I was watching the "re-mastered version", so I assume it was the original cut. EDIT: since I did not see a "spider walk" scene, it appears I saw a version closer to the theatrical.
What I would change
Taken out the Father Merrin scenes in the beginning to speed up the story.
2010
Premise
A young girl is possessed by the devil. Based on a book I will not read.
Liked
Visual and sound effects.
Hated
The boring first act.
Thoughts
Despite some spooky moments, it was boring at times.
Considering it was made in the early 1970's, there were some very good special effects, with believable make up, effective puppetry, and icky fake bodily fluids. Also, the sound effects were vital in creating the memorable Regan moments. While there were some gross moments, most of the suspense was psychological, keeping me uncomfortable during the second half.
Another good thing about the movie was the strong acting. They felt like regular humans with flaws trying to figure out what is going on. This movie had some interesting scientific and religious themes. Theme song was pretty tight.
What I hated most was the first third. I understand the purpose was to get the audience to identify with the characters, but I was ready to stop watching at the thirty minute mark out of boredom. Despite how hard they tried, I could care less about any of the characters and their back stories. Normally, I am cool with old fashioned film making that emphasizes character, but it has to serve the story.
I don't think it worked like they wanted to, but I appreciated the effort.
Not sure which DVD version I watched, but it had an intro by director William Friedkin telling me I was watching the "re-mastered version", so I assume it was the original cut. EDIT: since I did not see a "spider walk" scene, it appears I saw a version closer to the theatrical.
What I would change
Taken out the Father Merrin scenes in the beginning to speed up the story.
Flatliners
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon headline a group of medical students temporarily killing each other to experience near-death experiences.
Loved
The haunting visuals.
Liked
The premise.
Disliked
The convenient ending.
Thoughts
An interesting film full of spooky atmosphere.
I was intrigued by the exploration of playing with death, and its consequences. Director Joel Schumacher was the perfect director for this, as his specialty in grandiose and goth visuals accentuated the unknown. As the characters were haunted by their experimentation, Schumacher dialed up the set designs, lighting and cinematography to suspenseful effect.
The cast was pretty star-studded, highlighted by Kiefer Sutherland, playing the unbalanced student who started it all. The rest of the cast, including the radiant Roberts, were all solid as the rest of his cohorts.
While it was smarter than the average sci-fi, it could have done more. The characters were pretty thin, and their actions were more plot-driven. The message was pretty simple, despite the trippy visuals. Lastly, the ending was too nice and tidy for the edgy ideas the premise had brought forth.
It was enjoyable to watch, I just wished it gave me more to think about afterward.
What I would change
Made the consequences harsher.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon headline a group of medical students temporarily killing each other to experience near-death experiences.
Loved
The haunting visuals.
Liked
The premise.
Disliked
The convenient ending.
Thoughts
An interesting film full of spooky atmosphere.
I was intrigued by the exploration of playing with death, and its consequences. Director Joel Schumacher was the perfect director for this, as his specialty in grandiose and goth visuals accentuated the unknown. As the characters were haunted by their experimentation, Schumacher dialed up the set designs, lighting and cinematography to suspenseful effect.
The cast was pretty star-studded, highlighted by Kiefer Sutherland, playing the unbalanced student who started it all. The rest of the cast, including the radiant Roberts, were all solid as the rest of his cohorts.
While it was smarter than the average sci-fi, it could have done more. The characters were pretty thin, and their actions were more plot-driven. The message was pretty simple, despite the trippy visuals. Lastly, the ending was too nice and tidy for the edgy ideas the premise had brought forth.
It was enjoyable to watch, I just wished it gave me more to think about afterward.
What I would change
Made the consequences harsher.
Fly, The
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Jeff Goldblum stars in the David Cronenberg remake, as a scientist who accidentally genetically splices his body with a fly.
Liked
Visual effects, overall scariness.
Thoughts
Gross and spooky.
A lot of this was due to the excellent special effects and makeup. Watching Goldblum's character mutate and molt, body part by body part, was quite convincing, and made me glad I was not eating anything at the time. The camera trick of him climbing his wall was pretty neat. I am uncertain if it was puppets or animatronics, but they helped create some really fantastically grotesque creatures. Cronenberg's visual accomplishments in pre-CGI days was certainly laudable.
As for Goldblum, what can I say, except that it was a role he was born to play. I loved how his eyes zigzagged all the time at the beginning. In terms of writing, it was above average. I liked how it took its time on the character's transformation, so the horror was not the creature itself, but the uncertainty of what Goldblum's character was becoming. Also, the story and consequences were quite thoughtful.
Having said that, the story-telling was far from perfect. The biggest flaw was that the characters were actually quite dumb, and mainly did illogical things to serve the plot. And as much as I loved Goldblum here, they could have done more to have him behave more like a fly during his transformation.
This was an effective horror film, especially in its ability to create memorable moments of graphic violence and Goldblum's performance.
What I would change
Not sure.
Personal
I mistakenly thought this was the version with the famous "help me!" line. Oh well, my bad for not doing my research.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Jeff Goldblum stars in the David Cronenberg remake, as a scientist who accidentally genetically splices his body with a fly.
Liked
Visual effects, overall scariness.
Thoughts
Gross and spooky.
A lot of this was due to the excellent special effects and makeup. Watching Goldblum's character mutate and molt, body part by body part, was quite convincing, and made me glad I was not eating anything at the time. The camera trick of him climbing his wall was pretty neat. I am uncertain if it was puppets or animatronics, but they helped create some really fantastically grotesque creatures. Cronenberg's visual accomplishments in pre-CGI days was certainly laudable.
As for Goldblum, what can I say, except that it was a role he was born to play. I loved how his eyes zigzagged all the time at the beginning. In terms of writing, it was above average. I liked how it took its time on the character's transformation, so the horror was not the creature itself, but the uncertainty of what Goldblum's character was becoming. Also, the story and consequences were quite thoughtful.
Having said that, the story-telling was far from perfect. The biggest flaw was that the characters were actually quite dumb, and mainly did illogical things to serve the plot. And as much as I loved Goldblum here, they could have done more to have him behave more like a fly during his transformation.
This was an effective horror film, especially in its ability to create memorable moments of graphic violence and Goldblum's performance.
What I would change
Not sure.
Personal
I mistakenly thought this was the version with the famous "help me!" line. Oh well, my bad for not doing my research.
1408
Viewed in
2007
Premise
John Cusack takes on 'an evil [bleeping] room'.
Who should watch
John Cusack fans. Those who want psychological horror instead of gory horror.
Thoughts
I'm not saying it was Oscar-worthy, but this was John Cusack's 'Cast Away' performance. For a large part of the film, he was acting by myself. But instead of thinking 'Hey, Tom Hanks is on an island', the thought in my head was 'What will happen next?'. I credit Cusack's natural acting abilities for immersing the audience into this mind-bender.
I liked the fact it was trying to be more Hitchcock than a gore-fest. However, the key to Hitchcock mastery was the elongated, torturous waiting that let the suspense fester and grow. Here, the film unleashed the spooks and weirdness frequently. I admit they were quite effective as scaring the audience. It helped that the daughter looked had Shelley Duvall eyes.
Bottom line: I recommend it for John Cusack's performance and for not being a stupid teenage slasher movie.
What I would change
Ending seemed kind of a cop out.
2007
Premise
John Cusack takes on 'an evil [bleeping] room'.
Who should watch
John Cusack fans. Those who want psychological horror instead of gory horror.
Thoughts
I'm not saying it was Oscar-worthy, but this was John Cusack's 'Cast Away' performance. For a large part of the film, he was acting by myself. But instead of thinking 'Hey, Tom Hanks is on an island', the thought in my head was 'What will happen next?'. I credit Cusack's natural acting abilities for immersing the audience into this mind-bender.
I liked the fact it was trying to be more Hitchcock than a gore-fest. However, the key to Hitchcock mastery was the elongated, torturous waiting that let the suspense fester and grow. Here, the film unleashed the spooks and weirdness frequently. I admit they were quite effective as scaring the audience. It helped that the daughter looked had Shelley Duvall eyes.
Bottom line: I recommend it for John Cusack's performance and for not being a stupid teenage slasher movie.
What I would change
Ending seemed kind of a cop out.
Frankenweenie
Viewed in
2012
Formats
IMAX 3D
Premise
Based on Tim Burton's short, a young boy decides to reanimate his dead dog.
Liked
Characters, artistry, themes, shoutouts to monster flicks.
Disliked
Conventional ending.
Thoughts
Very cute and sweet with some interesting themes.
The characters were very charming, in animation and performance. It did a very good job of capturing the joy and love of boy and dog, lending much heart to the film. Burton's fingerprints were all over the character designs, with their bizarre but fun shapes and sizes. What got the biggest laughs from me was the psycho psychic girl with botoxed/goldfish eyes, and her equally hilarious cat.
Similar to ParaNorman, this had a ton of hilarious horror genre shoutouts, mainly in the monster flicks category, from Godzilla to Gremlins. The black and white cinematography and immersive 3D definitely enhanced the experience.
Story-wise, it was pretty strong. Not only was there the sweet plot of boy and dog, but it took risks to question the questioning of current science education in America. It was never preachy, but clearly the film makers worry if we're doing enough to inspire kids to embrace science. In addition, there was a nice allegory about using knowledge/technology for the right reasons. All in all, the writing appealed to my inner child and adult brain.
I don't think it was intentional, but this also felt like a tribute to Burton's legacy. The artists (and the director himself) probably couldn't help but to interject aspects reminding us of the visual wizard's career, including windmills, offbeat grotesque characters, goth eye shadows, idyllic small town, and holiday themes. You can't help but think of his works, from Edward Scissorhands to The Nightmare Before Christmas to Ed Wood.
My biggest problem was the ending. Clearly one of its themes was letting go of loved ones. The movie set things up perfectly for a very smart and potentially powerful ending, but instead it went the Hollywood route of playing safe.
Also, I was bugged by the unresolved subplot of the invisible fish. The screenwriter, John August, had a really cool thing of allowing fans to ask him questions directly via internet, and he was gracious enough to answer my question about the fish's fate. His reply was satisfactory, but didn't change how I felt about that subplot.
Rarely are movies derived from a short successful. Thanks to some creative writing and loving craftwork from the animators, Frankenweenie came off as a fun Burtonesque romp with some brains and heart, to go with the cutely grotesque monsters.
2012
Formats
IMAX 3D
Premise
Based on Tim Burton's short, a young boy decides to reanimate his dead dog.
Liked
Characters, artistry, themes, shoutouts to monster flicks.
Disliked
Conventional ending.
Thoughts
Very cute and sweet with some interesting themes.
The characters were very charming, in animation and performance. It did a very good job of capturing the joy and love of boy and dog, lending much heart to the film. Burton's fingerprints were all over the character designs, with their bizarre but fun shapes and sizes. What got the biggest laughs from me was the psycho psychic girl with botoxed/goldfish eyes, and her equally hilarious cat.
Similar to ParaNorman, this had a ton of hilarious horror genre shoutouts, mainly in the monster flicks category, from Godzilla to Gremlins. The black and white cinematography and immersive 3D definitely enhanced the experience.
Story-wise, it was pretty strong. Not only was there the sweet plot of boy and dog, but it took risks to question the questioning of current science education in America. It was never preachy, but clearly the film makers worry if we're doing enough to inspire kids to embrace science. In addition, there was a nice allegory about using knowledge/technology for the right reasons. All in all, the writing appealed to my inner child and adult brain.
I don't think it was intentional, but this also felt like a tribute to Burton's legacy. The artists (and the director himself) probably couldn't help but to interject aspects reminding us of the visual wizard's career, including windmills, offbeat grotesque characters, goth eye shadows, idyllic small town, and holiday themes. You can't help but think of his works, from Edward Scissorhands to The Nightmare Before Christmas to Ed Wood.
My biggest problem was the ending. Clearly one of its themes was letting go of loved ones. The movie set things up perfectly for a very smart and potentially powerful ending, but instead it went the Hollywood route of playing safe.
Also, I was bugged by the unresolved subplot of the invisible fish. The screenwriter, John August, had a really cool thing of allowing fans to ask him questions directly via internet, and he was gracious enough to answer my question about the fish's fate. His reply was satisfactory, but didn't change how I felt about that subplot.
Rarely are movies derived from a short successful. Thanks to some creative writing and loving craftwork from the animators, Frankenweenie came off as a fun Burtonesque romp with some brains and heart, to go with the cutely grotesque monsters.
Fright Night
Viewed in
2012
Formats
DVD
Premise
In the remake of the 1985 title, Anton Yelchin stars as a high schooler who finds out his neighbor, Colin Farrell, is a vampire.
Liked
Strong cast and entertaining performances.
Thoughts
I've never seen the original, nor do I plan to. But this version was quite fun.
What sold it was the performances. Much like how he surprised me in Horrible Bosses, Farrell effortlessly brought the funny, this time with a very sly take. He's has been carving out a nice comedic resume, especially if you go back and recall him in the overlooked In Bruges. If big Hollywood needed a movie with a gimmick (without a script), they should team up Will Ferrell with Colin Farrell, directed by the Farrelly brothers.
Yelchin was charming as the lead, who needed to be teenager-y yet resolute when it mattered. He was flanked by pros Toni Collette and always entertaining David Tennant. As a Whovian, Tennant's casting was my main reason to watch. McLovin was also very funny as Yelchin's best friend. I don't know if the same thing happened in the original, but his character arc was very amusing. The least accomplished of the cast, Imogen Poots, was beautiful but also delivered the spunk.
The story was silly with plot holes and bad movie physics abound, but the film makers knew that, and found the perfect balance such that the film didn't take itself too seriously without being farcical. People wanting to be frightened are looking in the wrong place here. I found myself smirking or laughing out loud multiple times thanks to some poking fun of vampire/horror genre and energetic moviemaking. Lastly, it probably relied on computer graphics a bit too much at the end, but whatevers.
Fright Night was silly fun, thanks to game performances, stylish execution, and some surprisingly decent writing.
2012
Formats
DVD
Premise
In the remake of the 1985 title, Anton Yelchin stars as a high schooler who finds out his neighbor, Colin Farrell, is a vampire.
Liked
Strong cast and entertaining performances.
Thoughts
I've never seen the original, nor do I plan to. But this version was quite fun.
What sold it was the performances. Much like how he surprised me in Horrible Bosses, Farrell effortlessly brought the funny, this time with a very sly take. He's has been carving out a nice comedic resume, especially if you go back and recall him in the overlooked In Bruges. If big Hollywood needed a movie with a gimmick (without a script), they should team up Will Ferrell with Colin Farrell, directed by the Farrelly brothers.
Yelchin was charming as the lead, who needed to be teenager-y yet resolute when it mattered. He was flanked by pros Toni Collette and always entertaining David Tennant. As a Whovian, Tennant's casting was my main reason to watch. McLovin was also very funny as Yelchin's best friend. I don't know if the same thing happened in the original, but his character arc was very amusing. The least accomplished of the cast, Imogen Poots, was beautiful but also delivered the spunk.
The story was silly with plot holes and bad movie physics abound, but the film makers knew that, and found the perfect balance such that the film didn't take itself too seriously without being farcical. People wanting to be frightened are looking in the wrong place here. I found myself smirking or laughing out loud multiple times thanks to some poking fun of vampire/horror genre and energetic moviemaking. Lastly, it probably relied on computer graphics a bit too much at the end, but whatevers.
Fright Night was silly fun, thanks to game performances, stylish execution, and some surprisingly decent writing.
From Dusk Till Dawn
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Two crooks, with three hostages in tow, hide in a Mexican bar, only to discover it houses vampires.
Liked
The enthusiastic gorefest.
Hated
The boring first act.
Thoughts
A very uneven movie.
The second half was fun, with all sorts of nasty and gross stuff involving human/vampire blood and guts. Considering its budget, it had some decent makeup and one gnarly animatronic. The cast was pretty cool, with George Clooney's leading role debut, Quentin Tarantino, Cheech Marin pulling triple duty, Tarantino stable regulars like Danny Trejo, and Harvey Keitel in a nice performance in the second hour.
However, the first half was a complete bore. It lacked any interesting dialogue that we're used to from Tarantino. A lot of stuff happened that meant nothing to the story, including all the time dedicated to the sex offender aspect of Tarantino's character, only to have it be completely inconsequential. It was so boring, I wasn't even up for it when they finally busted out the boobies and bikini-clad Selma Hayek.
This movie would have been much more entertaining if the movie makers had reduced the first act. Considering that Robert Rodriguez and Taratino were behind his, and the genre-hybrid nature of the story, I wonder if this was their attempt at making the Grindhouse films before making Grindhouse.
What I would change
Start the movie at the five characters reaching the bar, then gradually explain how they got there in between the vampires and squirting blood packs.
Random
Robert Blake was mentioned in the Special Thanks section.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Two crooks, with three hostages in tow, hide in a Mexican bar, only to discover it houses vampires.
Liked
The enthusiastic gorefest.
Hated
The boring first act.
Thoughts
A very uneven movie.
The second half was fun, with all sorts of nasty and gross stuff involving human/vampire blood and guts. Considering its budget, it had some decent makeup and one gnarly animatronic. The cast was pretty cool, with George Clooney's leading role debut, Quentin Tarantino, Cheech Marin pulling triple duty, Tarantino stable regulars like Danny Trejo, and Harvey Keitel in a nice performance in the second hour.
However, the first half was a complete bore. It lacked any interesting dialogue that we're used to from Tarantino. A lot of stuff happened that meant nothing to the story, including all the time dedicated to the sex offender aspect of Tarantino's character, only to have it be completely inconsequential. It was so boring, I wasn't even up for it when they finally busted out the boobies and bikini-clad Selma Hayek.
This movie would have been much more entertaining if the movie makers had reduced the first act. Considering that Robert Rodriguez and Taratino were behind his, and the genre-hybrid nature of the story, I wonder if this was their attempt at making the Grindhouse films before making Grindhouse.
What I would change
Start the movie at the five characters reaching the bar, then gradually explain how they got there in between the vampires and squirting blood packs.
Random
Robert Blake was mentioned in the Special Thanks section.
Ghost Busters
Viewed in
1998
Formats
VHS
Premise
Bill Murray leads a team specializing in ghost removal in New York.
Thoughts
It's been a long time, but I recall it being funny, mainly thanks to Murray's comedic delivery and demeanor. It was a pretty star-studded cast, including Dan Aykroyd and Sigourney Weaver. Special effects were so-so. Last but not least, the theme song rocked!
What I would change
No idea.
1998
Formats
VHS
Premise
Bill Murray leads a team specializing in ghost removal in New York.
Thoughts
It's been a long time, but I recall it being funny, mainly thanks to Murray's comedic delivery and demeanor. It was a pretty star-studded cast, including Dan Aykroyd and Sigourney Weaver. Special effects were so-so. Last but not least, the theme song rocked!
What I would change
No idea.
Godzilla
Viewed in
2014.
Formats
IMAX 3D.
Premise
In the Gareth Edwards version, humans unexpectedly awaken a flying monster, and brace themselves as it begins to destroy American West coast cities, with Godzilla chasing after it.
Loved
Full use of IMAX 3D scale.
Liked
Decent human characters, slow burn pace of revealing Godzilla.
Disliked
Tsunami scene.
Thoughts
Just on the verge of must-see status in IMAX 3D.
Director Gareth Edwards did a great job of using the Jaws approach to show off the main attraction; cleverly framing the monsters in a way that their immensity could not be contained by puny 3D IMAX large screens. The well-paced movie was filled with jaw-dropping CGI kaiju scenes. Edwards also found cool ways of keeping them hidden in rubble, dust, or plain sight. By never giving us a chance to see Godzilla in his entirety until the very end, when we finally see him in his gargantuan form, the sense of scale is truly realized.
The film makers honored the franchise's legacy in the reboot, by keeping the themes of Japan's painful history of nuclear devastation. In keeping with the 1954 original, the tone was serious without being pretentious, preachy, or hokey. It found a really good balance of disaster-porn and escapist summer fun. Also, kudos for destroying Hawaii, Las Vegas, and San Francisco, instead of the usual suspects.
Another way it honored the past was through Alexandre Desplat's excellent score; a modern take while shouting out to (Godzilla's first composer) Akira Ifukube's use of horns and drums.
Besides the bad-ass/charming CGI'd King of the Monsters, the cast was strong and characters were not lazy cardboard cutouts. Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen led the way by chewing up the scenery, including two "earn your paycheck" moments. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was solid as kind of the main character.
As mentioned earlier, there was some clever shots of hidden monsters, although it did lead to some wonky movie physics. The fact that the monsters can pick and choose when their footsteps are silent or earth-shattering was implausible at times.
But my biggest issue was the tsunami scene, which borderlined on bad taste. Godzilla embodied nuclear allegories. A tsunami in Hawaii only conjured real-life imagery of Fukushima, Japan, and South Asia disasters, losing the escapist quality the rest of the movie possessed.
I had a blast watching Godzilla thanks to the deft use of IMAX 3D screens and embracing the franchise's baggage into this reboot.
2014.
Formats
IMAX 3D.
Premise
In the Gareth Edwards version, humans unexpectedly awaken a flying monster, and brace themselves as it begins to destroy American West coast cities, with Godzilla chasing after it.
Loved
Full use of IMAX 3D scale.
Liked
Decent human characters, slow burn pace of revealing Godzilla.
Disliked
Tsunami scene.
Thoughts
Just on the verge of must-see status in IMAX 3D.
Director Gareth Edwards did a great job of using the Jaws approach to show off the main attraction; cleverly framing the monsters in a way that their immensity could not be contained by puny 3D IMAX large screens. The well-paced movie was filled with jaw-dropping CGI kaiju scenes. Edwards also found cool ways of keeping them hidden in rubble, dust, or plain sight. By never giving us a chance to see Godzilla in his entirety until the very end, when we finally see him in his gargantuan form, the sense of scale is truly realized.
The film makers honored the franchise's legacy in the reboot, by keeping the themes of Japan's painful history of nuclear devastation. In keeping with the 1954 original, the tone was serious without being pretentious, preachy, or hokey. It found a really good balance of disaster-porn and escapist summer fun. Also, kudos for destroying Hawaii, Las Vegas, and San Francisco, instead of the usual suspects.
Another way it honored the past was through Alexandre Desplat's excellent score; a modern take while shouting out to (Godzilla's first composer) Akira Ifukube's use of horns and drums.
Besides the bad-ass/charming CGI'd King of the Monsters, the cast was strong and characters were not lazy cardboard cutouts. Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen led the way by chewing up the scenery, including two "earn your paycheck" moments. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was solid as kind of the main character.
Sadly, Ken Watanabe's English remained distractingly broken. Also, it was a bummer that the female actresses, Olsen and Juliette Binoche got minimal screen time.
As mentioned earlier, there was some clever shots of hidden monsters, although it did lead to some wonky movie physics. The fact that the monsters can pick and choose when their footsteps are silent or earth-shattering was implausible at times.
But my biggest issue was the tsunami scene, which borderlined on bad taste. Godzilla embodied nuclear allegories. A tsunami in Hawaii only conjured real-life imagery of Fukushima, Japan, and South Asia disasters, losing the escapist quality the rest of the movie possessed.
I had a blast watching Godzilla thanks to the deft use of IMAX 3D screens and embracing the franchise's baggage into this reboot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)