Friday, April 22, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
SCREAM 4
SCREAM 4
DIRECTOR: Wes Craven
WRITER: Kevin Williamson (with rumored rewrites by Ehren Kruger and others)
CAST: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin, Erik Knudsen, Anthony Anderson, Marley Shelton, Mary McDonnel, Anna Paquin, Kristen Bell
*NOTE* Review contains very minor spoilers**
To be blunt, there is absolutely no reason for Scream 4 to ever have been made. Sure, it's a reasonably fun and slightly above-average teen slasher. It isn't terrible. But it just pales in comparison to the first three movies (yes even the much-maligned Scream 3).
Here's the thing: remember how the first three Scream movies were innovative, were full of fun characters and witty banter, and usually had some surprises up their sleeves? Well, kiss all that goodbye! Scream 4 is rather dull, by the numbers, and just has a "been-there-done-that" feel to it. Nothing that happens in this movie will surprise you. Even the eventual revealing of the killers' identities feels routine...because by now it IS routine. This is the 4th movie in this series. You would think that Wes Craven & Kevin Williamson, being as 'horror savvy' as they are, would realize that in order to be reverent (or even to justify it's existence), Scream 4 needed to mix things up a little. Nope!
To keep things simple (which matches the spirit of the movie), I'll just list the major reasons why Scream 4 doesn't really work.
1. Scream 4 has nothing new to say...about horror movies, or anything else.
The first Scream deconstructed slasher movie cliches. Scream 2 played with sequel cliches. Scream 3 targeted movie trilogy cliches.
So what's the target in Scream 4? Well, it's supposed to be remakes...which is a great idea! The endless procession of (mostly) subpar horror remakes have been the bane of film geeks' existence for some time now. Unfortunately, Scream 4 never really has anything clever or insightful to say about remakes. Characters will occasionally make an offhand remark about horror remakes, and that's about it. Really, the "remake" angle is just an excuse for the new string of murders in Woodsboro.
And another thing: the movie's tagline is "New Decade. New Rules". Okay...so what are the new rules? Well, there really aren't any! Aside from one of the 'movie geek' characters saying "The unexpected is the new cliche", there isn't even any discussion of any "new rules".
Towards the end, the movie attempts to make a half-heated statement about the new generation's obsession with celebrity...but just like the 'remake' angle, it doesn't really go anywhere.
2. The characters are dull.
The three returning stars (Campbell, Arquette, and Cox) all slide easily back into their characters, but none of them is really given anything to do and none of their characters are expanded upon at all. Of the three, only Cox's Gale Weathers is given any good lines or scenes.
As for the new characters, Kirby (Hayden Panettiere) is the ONLY one who leaves any impression at all. She's funny and very, very sexy.
All the others are just dull. The other Scream sequels (again, even Part 3) were filled with fun supporting characters; not the case here. The teen boyfriend was completely generic, and the two 'movie geek' guys were a piss-poor replacement for Randy Meeks. The one who's constantly recording everything (Erik Knudsen) was annoying as hell - Randy wouldn't have even hung out with this guy.
Anthony Anderson and Mary McDonnell are completely wasted, and Marley Shelton was pretty awful, sad to say. Her character is the kind of smokin' hot female cop that only exits in movies, and she's made into such an obvious red herring that it's ridiculous.
3. Scream 4 plays things WAY too safe, and offers no surprises.
As expressed earlier, Scream 4 is completely lacking in the fun twists and turns of the original movies. The whole thing just feels dull, uninspired, and kind of clunky.
Even the kills are completely telegraphed. In the first three Screams, the kills were usually always pretty sudden and unexpected. In Scream 4, you can see each death scene coming from a mile away. A woman walks into a dark, deserted parking garage? Yep, she's about to die. A couple of inconsequential supporting characters are sitting in a car talking? Can you tell they're about to get attacked by Ghostface? Come on! What happened to the Scream movies being fresh and innovative?
Also, without trying to spoil anything, let's just say that at about the halfway point in the movie, it becomes pretty obvious that some of the characters (about three of them, to be exact) will always be "safe". No matter what....no matter how many other people are getting slaughtered around them....these characters will always survive Ghostface's attacks and will never die. Pretty effective way to kill the tension in the movie, Craven & Williamson! Again, this is the 4th movie in this series. In order for the movie to feel fresh, chances needed to be taken, and things needed to be mixed up a little. Sadly, nothing of the sort happens here.
So we eventually get the now-obligatory "killers reveal themselves" scene, and even that feels perfunctory. The killers' motivation seemed a little flimsy to me at first, but really it's no more implausible than the motivations of past Scream killers. (NOTE: Yes there is more than one killer. Is that really a "spoiler" at this point in the series?)
To be fair, things actually pick up a little after the killers reveal themselves - mostly because one of them goes completely batshit crazy! The whole last sequence with this character is actually pretty fun; it could've been enough to almost save the movie IF a more capable actor/actress had played the part.
When all is said and done, Scream 4 is a slightly above-average modern teen slasher. If it were not a Scream sequel, that would be fine. The problem is, the Scream name has a certain pedigree of quality attached to it, and Scream 4 sadly does not live up to the name.
DIRECTOR: Wes Craven
WRITER: Kevin Williamson (with rumored rewrites by Ehren Kruger and others)
CAST: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin, Erik Knudsen, Anthony Anderson, Marley Shelton, Mary McDonnel, Anna Paquin, Kristen Bell
*NOTE* Review contains very minor spoilers**
To be blunt, there is absolutely no reason for Scream 4 to ever have been made. Sure, it's a reasonably fun and slightly above-average teen slasher. It isn't terrible. But it just pales in comparison to the first three movies (yes even the much-maligned Scream 3).
Here's the thing: remember how the first three Scream movies were innovative, were full of fun characters and witty banter, and usually had some surprises up their sleeves? Well, kiss all that goodbye! Scream 4 is rather dull, by the numbers, and just has a "been-there-done-that" feel to it. Nothing that happens in this movie will surprise you. Even the eventual revealing of the killers' identities feels routine...because by now it IS routine. This is the 4th movie in this series. You would think that Wes Craven & Kevin Williamson, being as 'horror savvy' as they are, would realize that in order to be reverent (or even to justify it's existence), Scream 4 needed to mix things up a little. Nope!
To keep things simple (which matches the spirit of the movie), I'll just list the major reasons why Scream 4 doesn't really work.
1. Scream 4 has nothing new to say...about horror movies, or anything else.
The first Scream deconstructed slasher movie cliches. Scream 2 played with sequel cliches. Scream 3 targeted movie trilogy cliches.
So what's the target in Scream 4? Well, it's supposed to be remakes...which is a great idea! The endless procession of (mostly) subpar horror remakes have been the bane of film geeks' existence for some time now. Unfortunately, Scream 4 never really has anything clever or insightful to say about remakes. Characters will occasionally make an offhand remark about horror remakes, and that's about it. Really, the "remake" angle is just an excuse for the new string of murders in Woodsboro.
And another thing: the movie's tagline is "New Decade. New Rules". Okay...so what are the new rules? Well, there really aren't any! Aside from one of the 'movie geek' characters saying "The unexpected is the new cliche", there isn't even any discussion of any "new rules".
Towards the end, the movie attempts to make a half-heated statement about the new generation's obsession with celebrity...but just like the 'remake' angle, it doesn't really go anywhere.
2. The characters are dull.
The three returning stars (Campbell, Arquette, and Cox) all slide easily back into their characters, but none of them is really given anything to do and none of their characters are expanded upon at all. Of the three, only Cox's Gale Weathers is given any good lines or scenes.
As for the new characters, Kirby (Hayden Panettiere) is the ONLY one who leaves any impression at all. She's funny and very, very sexy.
All the others are just dull. The other Scream sequels (again, even Part 3) were filled with fun supporting characters; not the case here. The teen boyfriend was completely generic, and the two 'movie geek' guys were a piss-poor replacement for Randy Meeks. The one who's constantly recording everything (Erik Knudsen) was annoying as hell - Randy wouldn't have even hung out with this guy.
Anthony Anderson and Mary McDonnell are completely wasted, and Marley Shelton was pretty awful, sad to say. Her character is the kind of smokin' hot female cop that only exits in movies, and she's made into such an obvious red herring that it's ridiculous.
3. Scream 4 plays things WAY too safe, and offers no surprises.
As expressed earlier, Scream 4 is completely lacking in the fun twists and turns of the original movies. The whole thing just feels dull, uninspired, and kind of clunky.
Even the kills are completely telegraphed. In the first three Screams, the kills were usually always pretty sudden and unexpected. In Scream 4, you can see each death scene coming from a mile away. A woman walks into a dark, deserted parking garage? Yep, she's about to die. A couple of inconsequential supporting characters are sitting in a car talking? Can you tell they're about to get attacked by Ghostface? Come on! What happened to the Scream movies being fresh and innovative?
Also, without trying to spoil anything, let's just say that at about the halfway point in the movie, it becomes pretty obvious that some of the characters (about three of them, to be exact) will always be "safe". No matter what....no matter how many other people are getting slaughtered around them....these characters will always survive Ghostface's attacks and will never die. Pretty effective way to kill the tension in the movie, Craven & Williamson! Again, this is the 4th movie in this series. In order for the movie to feel fresh, chances needed to be taken, and things needed to be mixed up a little. Sadly, nothing of the sort happens here.
So we eventually get the now-obligatory "killers reveal themselves" scene, and even that feels perfunctory. The killers' motivation seemed a little flimsy to me at first, but really it's no more implausible than the motivations of past Scream killers. (NOTE: Yes there is more than one killer. Is that really a "spoiler" at this point in the series?)
To be fair, things actually pick up a little after the killers reveal themselves - mostly because one of them goes completely batshit crazy! The whole last sequence with this character is actually pretty fun; it could've been enough to almost save the movie IF a more capable actor/actress had played the part.
When all is said and done, Scream 4 is a slightly above-average modern teen slasher. If it were not a Scream sequel, that would be fine. The problem is, the Scream name has a certain pedigree of quality attached to it, and Scream 4 sadly does not live up to the name.
Friday, April 15, 2011
PUNISHER: WAR ZONE (2008)
PUNISHER: WAR ZONE (2008)
DIRECTOR: Lexi Alexander
CAST: Ray Stevenson, Dominic West, Doug Hutchison, Julie Benz, Wayne Knight, Colin Salmon, Dash Mihok
This is the third damn time that Hollywood has attempted a movie adaption of the Marvel Comics vigilante character (he's not really a 'superhero') The Punisher.
First there was the 1989 Dolph Lundgren version, which I admit I haven't seen in its entirety but based on the bits and pieces I have seen, looks pretty much like your average late '80s low-budget action flick except that the hero happens to be wearing the Punisher emblem on his shirt.
Then there was the 2004 version starring Thomas Jane, who was surprisingly effective in the role. To be fair, the Thomas Jane Punisher really wasn't bad....as a noir-ish revenge drama. The problem is, it wasn't much of a Punisher movie. It was hampered by too slow a pace, an incredibly non-threatening villain in John Travolta, and a complete lack of action. The Punisher didn't really get down to any "punishing" until the last 15 minutes of the movie, and by then it was too little too late.
Which brings us to 2008's Punisher: War Zone. So what's the verdict?
Well, the good news is this is definitely the balls-out Punisher flick that we didn't get in the Thomas Jane version. There's plenty of bone-crunching, blood-splattering action and carnage here. In fact, it almost rivals a slasher flick in terms of brutal violence.
The bad news is there's WAY too much emphasis on goofy comic relief, and it really ruins would could have been the first bonafide kick-ass Punisher movie.
First off, Ray Stevenson (HBO's "Rome", The Other Guys, The Book Of Eli, and most recently another Marvel adaption, Thor) is pretty good as Frank Castle/The Punisher. He doesn't give the character the pathos that Thomas Jane did, but he fits the bill just fine. It's not like this is a very demanding role or anything. Unlike the Jane version, The Punisher here is a gruff, one-note killing machine, which in fairness to Stevenson doesn't give him much opportunity to add much in the way of memorable touches. But he still gives his own spin on the character mainly through physical acting. I love how he just nonchalantly snaps his nose back into place after it's dislocated by a bad guy.
And the action and violence...MY LORD! There is LOADS of action in this flick, and I can honestly say without exaggeration or hyperbole, that Punisher: War Zone is the most ridiculously violent mainstream movie since Paul Verhoeven's RoboCop or Total Recall. Honestly, the Punisher puts Jason Voorhees to shame in this flick. Say what you will about War Zone, but nobody can complain that this Punisher isn't violent enough! Some of the onscreen carnage almost veers into jaw-dropping Troma territory. There's a scene where an old lady gets half her head blown off for God's sake!
So where does the movie go wrong? The villains, that's where. Dominic West as the disfigured gangster Jigsaw actually seems like a pretty cool baddie at first. In fact, when Jigsaw is first introduced, I was really psyched that on top of a decent Punisher and balls-to-the-wall action, this Punisher was also going to have a kick-ass bad guy.
But then something happens. Immediately after introducing Jigsaw, the movie then introduces another villain: Jigsaw's brother Loony Bin Jim (Doug Hutchison; The Green Mile, The Burrowers). And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where War Zone completely derails and heads full-speed into goofball territory. From this point on, the movie begins spending way too much time on these two, and in every damn scene featuring the two of them, I swear West and Hutchison are literally competing with each other to see who can act more annoyingly over-the-top and mug for the camera more.
Imagine you're watching RoboCop and all of sudden two wacky villains from one of Joel Schumacher's Batman movies wander in and start yukking it up. That's exactly what this is like. And, sorry to say, it's enough to completely kill the vibe the movie previously had going, and ruins the whole thing.
There's one scene where Jigsaw and Loony Bin Jim gather up all the city's criminals to rally against the Punisher, and I swear to God it felt like something from "Family Guy" or "Robot Chicken". Not cool.
As if the two of them weren't enough, there's also an eye-rollingly stupid comic-relief detective (Dash Mihok) to stink the place up even further.
Actually, the whole sub-plot with the detectives (Mihok as the 'funny' one and the cool Colin Salmon as the 'serious' one) is completely pointless, boring, and is obviously just here to pad-out the running time.
The detectives want to figure out who the Punisher is and what he'll do next. Who the fuck CARES?!? The audience already knows damn well who the Punisher is and what's going on, why the hell do we need to keep wasting time with these two guys?
Rounding out the cast are Julie Benz (Rambo) who is completely wasted as the damsel in distress, and Wayne Knight ("Seinfeld", Jurassic Park) who is surprisingly good as the Punisher's 'sidekick' of sorts Microchip.
In the end, Punisher: War Zone is another missed opportunity. It has it's good aspects but the negatives outweigh the positive. Director Lexi Alexander does a great job with the action scenes and there's some stylish shots here and there, but for God's sake figure out what kind of tone you want and stick to it next time. And for crying out loud if you ever work with Dominic West or Doug Hutchison again put a damn leash on 'em.
DIRECTOR: Lexi Alexander
CAST: Ray Stevenson, Dominic West, Doug Hutchison, Julie Benz, Wayne Knight, Colin Salmon, Dash Mihok
This is the third damn time that Hollywood has attempted a movie adaption of the Marvel Comics vigilante character (he's not really a 'superhero') The Punisher.
First there was the 1989 Dolph Lundgren version, which I admit I haven't seen in its entirety but based on the bits and pieces I have seen, looks pretty much like your average late '80s low-budget action flick except that the hero happens to be wearing the Punisher emblem on his shirt.
Then there was the 2004 version starring Thomas Jane, who was surprisingly effective in the role. To be fair, the Thomas Jane Punisher really wasn't bad....as a noir-ish revenge drama. The problem is, it wasn't much of a Punisher movie. It was hampered by too slow a pace, an incredibly non-threatening villain in John Travolta, and a complete lack of action. The Punisher didn't really get down to any "punishing" until the last 15 minutes of the movie, and by then it was too little too late.
Which brings us to 2008's Punisher: War Zone. So what's the verdict?
Well, the good news is this is definitely the balls-out Punisher flick that we didn't get in the Thomas Jane version. There's plenty of bone-crunching, blood-splattering action and carnage here. In fact, it almost rivals a slasher flick in terms of brutal violence.
The bad news is there's WAY too much emphasis on goofy comic relief, and it really ruins would could have been the first bonafide kick-ass Punisher movie.
First off, Ray Stevenson (HBO's "Rome", The Other Guys, The Book Of Eli, and most recently another Marvel adaption, Thor) is pretty good as Frank Castle/The Punisher. He doesn't give the character the pathos that Thomas Jane did, but he fits the bill just fine. It's not like this is a very demanding role or anything. Unlike the Jane version, The Punisher here is a gruff, one-note killing machine, which in fairness to Stevenson doesn't give him much opportunity to add much in the way of memorable touches. But he still gives his own spin on the character mainly through physical acting. I love how he just nonchalantly snaps his nose back into place after it's dislocated by a bad guy.
And the action and violence...MY LORD! There is LOADS of action in this flick, and I can honestly say without exaggeration or hyperbole, that Punisher: War Zone is the most ridiculously violent mainstream movie since Paul Verhoeven's RoboCop or Total Recall. Honestly, the Punisher puts Jason Voorhees to shame in this flick. Say what you will about War Zone, but nobody can complain that this Punisher isn't violent enough! Some of the onscreen carnage almost veers into jaw-dropping Troma territory. There's a scene where an old lady gets half her head blown off for God's sake!
So where does the movie go wrong? The villains, that's where. Dominic West as the disfigured gangster Jigsaw actually seems like a pretty cool baddie at first. In fact, when Jigsaw is first introduced, I was really psyched that on top of a decent Punisher and balls-to-the-wall action, this Punisher was also going to have a kick-ass bad guy.
But then something happens. Immediately after introducing Jigsaw, the movie then introduces another villain: Jigsaw's brother Loony Bin Jim (Doug Hutchison; The Green Mile, The Burrowers). And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where War Zone completely derails and heads full-speed into goofball territory. From this point on, the movie begins spending way too much time on these two, and in every damn scene featuring the two of them, I swear West and Hutchison are literally competing with each other to see who can act more annoyingly over-the-top and mug for the camera more.
Imagine you're watching RoboCop and all of sudden two wacky villains from one of Joel Schumacher's Batman movies wander in and start yukking it up. That's exactly what this is like. And, sorry to say, it's enough to completely kill the vibe the movie previously had going, and ruins the whole thing.
There's one scene where Jigsaw and Loony Bin Jim gather up all the city's criminals to rally against the Punisher, and I swear to God it felt like something from "Family Guy" or "Robot Chicken". Not cool.
As if the two of them weren't enough, there's also an eye-rollingly stupid comic-relief detective (Dash Mihok) to stink the place up even further.
Actually, the whole sub-plot with the detectives (Mihok as the 'funny' one and the cool Colin Salmon as the 'serious' one) is completely pointless, boring, and is obviously just here to pad-out the running time.
The detectives want to figure out who the Punisher is and what he'll do next. Who the fuck CARES?!? The audience already knows damn well who the Punisher is and what's going on, why the hell do we need to keep wasting time with these two guys?
Rounding out the cast are Julie Benz (Rambo) who is completely wasted as the damsel in distress, and Wayne Knight ("Seinfeld", Jurassic Park) who is surprisingly good as the Punisher's 'sidekick' of sorts Microchip.
In the end, Punisher: War Zone is another missed opportunity. It has it's good aspects but the negatives outweigh the positive. Director Lexi Alexander does a great job with the action scenes and there's some stylish shots here and there, but for God's sake figure out what kind of tone you want and stick to it next time. And for crying out loud if you ever work with Dominic West or Doug Hutchison again put a damn leash on 'em.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Jennifer's Body (2009)
Jennifer's Body (2009)
DIRECTOR: Karyn Kusama
WRITER: Diablo Cody
CAST: Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Adam Brody, Johnny Simmons, Kyle Gallner, J.K. Simmons, Amy Sedaris
Jennifer's Body is like a horror-infused take on the nasty '80s high-school satire Heathers. It's also rather similar to the Canadian cult classic Ginger Snaps. I'm not saying the movie overtly copies either of the older films; but you will definitely be reminded of both while watching it.
The story involves teen BFFs Needy (Amanda Seyfried) and Jennifer (Megan Fox). Jennifer is popular and promiscuous, where Needy is more the reserved, nerdy, insecure type. One night at an emo-rock show at a local dive, something terrible happens, and Jennifer is transformed into a blood-thirsty predator. Needy is torn between concern for her friend and fearing that she needs to be stopped (are you getting the Ginger Snaps similarities yet?).
I wanted to like this movie, but a couple things kept me from really being able to enjoy it.
Number One: Jennifer, as a character, is pretty unlikable. She's a shallow, conceited, and self-absorbed bitch....and this is before she becomes a monster! Because of this, it was hard for me to care about Needy's attempts to try to save her from her monstrous predicament. It doesn't help that Megan Fox, while obviously attractive, is rather flat as an actress. Her performance as Jennifer pretty much just alternates between "ditzy" and "bitchy".
Number Two: The script by Diablo Cody, of Juno fame, is a double-edged sword. While Cody's sharp teenage banter can be amusing and definitely elevates Jennifer's Body above a typical horror film (or even a typical high-school film), it also becomes a little grating after a while. The cutting banter is fun at first, and there are plenty of quotable lines here, but about 40 minutes into the movie, I was getting really tired of lines like "You need to totally move on dot org" and "You give me such a wetty".
Number Three: About two-thirds of the way into the movie, there is a 'plot twist' involving the douchey emo-rock band from the disaster at the beginning. I won't go into it, but suffice to say after this it's pretty hard to take the movie seriously from that point on. Although I will say Adam Brody is funny as the dickhead singer of the band.
So when all is said and done, Jennifer's Body isn't bad, but the aforementioned problems kept me from really liking it. Amanda Seyfried gives a good performance, and the movie's realistic presentation of it's teen characters was refreshing. Also, watch for small parts by J.K. Simmons (the dad in Juno; J. Jonah Jameson in the Spiderman movies), Amy Sedaris (Strangers With Candy) and genre vet Lance Henriksen.
Oh. And they used the wrong Hole song during the end credits.
DIRECTOR: Karyn Kusama
WRITER: Diablo Cody
CAST: Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Adam Brody, Johnny Simmons, Kyle Gallner, J.K. Simmons, Amy Sedaris
Jennifer's Body is like a horror-infused take on the nasty '80s high-school satire Heathers. It's also rather similar to the Canadian cult classic Ginger Snaps. I'm not saying the movie overtly copies either of the older films; but you will definitely be reminded of both while watching it.
The story involves teen BFFs Needy (Amanda Seyfried) and Jennifer (Megan Fox). Jennifer is popular and promiscuous, where Needy is more the reserved, nerdy, insecure type. One night at an emo-rock show at a local dive, something terrible happens, and Jennifer is transformed into a blood-thirsty predator. Needy is torn between concern for her friend and fearing that she needs to be stopped (are you getting the Ginger Snaps similarities yet?).
I wanted to like this movie, but a couple things kept me from really being able to enjoy it.
Number One: Jennifer, as a character, is pretty unlikable. She's a shallow, conceited, and self-absorbed bitch....and this is before she becomes a monster! Because of this, it was hard for me to care about Needy's attempts to try to save her from her monstrous predicament. It doesn't help that Megan Fox, while obviously attractive, is rather flat as an actress. Her performance as Jennifer pretty much just alternates between "ditzy" and "bitchy".
Number Two: The script by Diablo Cody, of Juno fame, is a double-edged sword. While Cody's sharp teenage banter can be amusing and definitely elevates Jennifer's Body above a typical horror film (or even a typical high-school film), it also becomes a little grating after a while. The cutting banter is fun at first, and there are plenty of quotable lines here, but about 40 minutes into the movie, I was getting really tired of lines like "You need to totally move on dot org" and "You give me such a wetty".
Number Three: About two-thirds of the way into the movie, there is a 'plot twist' involving the douchey emo-rock band from the disaster at the beginning. I won't go into it, but suffice to say after this it's pretty hard to take the movie seriously from that point on. Although I will say Adam Brody is funny as the dickhead singer of the band.
So when all is said and done, Jennifer's Body isn't bad, but the aforementioned problems kept me from really liking it. Amanda Seyfried gives a good performance, and the movie's realistic presentation of it's teen characters was refreshing. Also, watch for small parts by J.K. Simmons (the dad in Juno; J. Jonah Jameson in the Spiderman movies), Amy Sedaris (Strangers With Candy) and genre vet Lance Henriksen.
Oh. And they used the wrong Hole song during the end credits.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Forbidden World (aka Mutant) (1982)
During the early 1980s, there was a whole string of really crappy low-budget sci-fi/horror flicks that were basically made to cash-in on the success of Ridley Scott's Alien (1979). A couple of these were produced by b-movie king Roger Corman (including this one). All of them followed the 'group of people stuck in an enclosed area being stalked by a monster' formula.
All of them had really corny titles like Galaxy Of Terror, Horror Planet, and in this movie's case, Forbidden World. Note that the title doesn't have anything to do with the movie at all. There is no "forbidden world" in the movie. The studio just thought it sounded cool.
NOTE: The title of Robert Rodriquez' Grindhouse flick Planet Terror was a throwback to these; even to the point where the title Planet Terror had nothing to with that movie, either. Also note that during this time, it was common for a movie studio to change a movie's title at the last moment, which is why even though the posters for this movie clearly say Forbidden World, in the actual opening credits the title is Mutant.
So why would I waste my time watching something as admittedly bad as Forbidden World? Because some of these awful old sci-fi/horror flicks are hilarious, that's why! Honestly, I laughed out loud more often during Forbidden World than I have at any recent comedy. Forbidden World is the kind of movie that the phrase "so bad it's good" was invented for.
I won't write a traditional review (because honestly, who cares?). Instead, I'll just go over some of the unintentionally funny highlights of the film.
-The male lead in this movie is apparently supposed to be a real cool ladies' man. This guy doesn't go after the women - the women go after him. I mean right after he gets it on with the blond lady scientist, he is immediately propositioned by the brunette lady scientist. So why is this funny? Because the actor who plays this guy is the goofiest-looking, douchebaggiest guy you've ever seen in your life! There is nothing cool, handsome, or "sexy" about him. The actor (Jesse Vint) was in the '70s movie Macon County Line which apparently made him a "star" at the time.
Apparently because this guy is so irresistibly sexy, he also gets away with screaming at the women occasionally, like when he yells at the blond lady scientist, "That's the dumbest damn thing I've heard all day....no offense."
-This guy also has a robot sidekick named S.A.M. Now I'm sure S.A.M. is an acronym for something really advanced and scientific, but for some reason I got the distinct feeling that this robot was really a guy wearing a costume.
S.A.M. looks like a Storm Trooper from Star Wars, but for some bizarre reason he talks in a child's voice! Seriously, it's very strange and a little disconcerting. It's stuff like this that makes these weird old movies so enjoyable to me -you really have to wonder what the hell the filmmakers were thinking when they made decisions like these.
-And now the highlight of the movie: about halfway through, there is an unintentionally hilarious sex scene that really must be seen to be believed. It starts out like a futuristic-themed early-'80s softcore porn, complete with cheapo red-tint lighting and throbbing synthesizer funk on the soundtrack. But then, during the sex scene the movie starts cutting to other things going on in the spaceship, and it ends up being like a really goofy '80s music-video style 'montage' sequence, with the synth-funk bumping away while we inter-cut between the couple having sex, some guy watching them on a video monitor (!), the head scientist doing whatever he's doing, the robot screwing around, etc etc.
My description of this scene is not doing it justice. I really can't come up with the right words to adequately describe it.
-Oh! Speaking of '80s softcore porn, there's also a scene where the two lady scientists take a shower together....not because it is implied that they are lovers (it isn't), but simply because they are casually taking a shower together. And this isn't just any run-of-the-mill shower. No, this is a really "futuristic" shower where there is no water, and instead flashes of laser light cleanse the body. Uh huh. So basically what I'm saying is, the scene is two naked women standing there with disco lights flashing on the walls. That's Forbidden World!
-I also have to mention a scene where the two female scientists attempt to approach the alien monster to try and communicate with it. The monster can apparently understand English and can even operate the ship's computers telepathically. Don't ask. No, really. Don't ask.
So anyways the blond one types into the computer monitor, "Can we co-exist?" To which the monster gives her a toothy grin, the '80s synth music starts going into overdrive, and the thing shoves a tentacle between her legs and through her body (exiting through her back). When you hear the term "exploitation film", this is what that means. This movie is obviously a rip-off of Ridley Scott's Alien, but where that movie was subdued and mature, Forbidden World goes the complete opposite direction. In other words, it takes what worked about Alien and exploits it.
-There's also a scene where the brunette female scientist is walking around the darkly-lit spaceship, naked, with sunglasses on for some reason. Why? I have no idea. It's like something from a Lady Gaga music video.
And, really, that's about all there is to say about this one. The alien monster itself is actually kind of cool looking (sometimes, anyway). It has the aforementioned toothy grin from H.R. Giger's Alien design, but aside from that it's a pretty original creature. Earlier in the movie it actually has more of a multi-legged arachnid appearance, and later on it's just sort of a big black blob with teeth.
Well that's enough time wasted on this one. See ya!
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Martyrs (2008)
Martyrs is a French film from 2008 that I have heard wonderful things about. Martyrs is also a reminder that sometimes a mediocre movie with a novel concept can be wildly over praised.
Here’s the short version of my review: Martyrs has a really cool ending. Seriously, the ending is though-provoking, spooky, and disturbing. It will remind you of a Stanley Kubrick film. The ending, mind you, I don’t mean the whole movie. Unfortunately, everything leading up to the ending is dull, slow-paced, and derivative. I honestly cannot recommend this movie and I really have to wonder how so many people could’ve been so awestruck by it.
Short version of review over.
Martyrs is definitely a movie that you want to go into knowing as LITTLE about it as possible. Trust me, what little enjoyment there is to be had here will depend greatly on making sure that you do not spoil the movie for yourself beforehand. So, having said that, if you are planning on watching the movie, you probably don’t want to read any further.
Also, I am not going to go into the film’s story. One, because it would take way too long to describe and I don't really feel it's worth the time to go into it, and two, because even describing too much of the plot would ruin some of the surprise for anyone who watches this.
The movie has two distinct halves, and they do not gel at all. The first half of Martyrs and the second half of Martyrs feel like two completely different movies, in tone. Not a good thing, and makes for an emotionally incoherent film. Both halves of the movie feel very derivative, with the first half feeling like The Grudge mixed with the 1994 independent film Fun (which was about two teenage girls killing a woman in her home for no reason). The second half feels a hell of a lot like Hostel. Fans of Martyrs will vehemently deny the movie is at all like Hostel, but don’t listen to them. It’s a lot like Hostel. Add a healthy dollop of Hellraiser-type imagery and cap it off with a really cool, existential ending (the only good part of the movie), and you’ve got Martyrs.
The real problem here is when the second half begins, the movie does a complete 180 and changes in tone, in story, everything. The whole supernatural vs. psychological element from the first half is dropped completely. And the second half is very episodic and repetitive as well. It literally feels you start watching The Grudge and halfway through it suddenly turns into Hostel.
Here’s another big problem: the visions of the girl that haunt Lucie. Are we to believe that Lucie is simply delusional, and these visions are all in her head, a product of her guilt at leaving the girl behind? Or is she really being haunted by an actual ghost? Because the Grudge-like scenes where the “visions” attack her sure make it seem like a ghost and it’s NOT all in her head. She even gets wounds on her back that would be hard for her to self-inflict. If you’ve ever seen the ‘80s horror film The Entity, it’ll remind you of that. The movie never really tells us what the case is here. Not because the filmmakers were trying to be ambiguous I believe, but because they couldn’t make a decision themselves.
Also, we never get to know anything about the two main characters, which makes it hard for us to find them engaging.
My honest opinion? I think the writers had a pretty cool idea, but they knew it wouldn’t be enough to sustain a feature-length film, so they padded it out with all the Grudge stuff in the first half. They should’ve just made a short film of the second half instead. As it is, it’s a dull, mediocre movie with a great ending.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Harmony Korine's "TRASH HUMPERS" (2009)
Harmony Korine's "TRASH HUMPERS" (2009)
Trash Humpers is the new film from controversial filmmaker Harmony Korine. Korine, for those who don't know, is the creator of Gummo; a film that was disgusting, disturbing, and almost universally hated by everyone. Except for me! I love Gummo! In fact, it's one of my favorite films. I don't even consider it a "movie" so much as a piece of avant-garde expressionism put to film.
Since Gummo, Korine made a couple other films (Julian Donkey Boy and Mister Lonely) neither of which I've seen and both of which I've heard very mixed things about. He also wrote the "script" for Larry Clark's nefarious 1995 film Kids...but I'll try not to hold that against him.
Which brings us to this, his newest film, Trash Humpers. The movie is shot on old VHS video. You even see the "AUTO TRACKING" message pop up occasionally. The desired effect was obviously to make the movie feel like 'found footage' (much like Gummo).
You certainly can't accuse Korine of giving this movie a misleading title. The movie is filled with trash (both literally and figuratively), and yes, it features many scenes of guys humping dumpsters and trash bins.
The movie follows three depraved people in old-guy Halloween masks (you know those Halloween masks that are supposed to look like wrinkly creepy old men) as they wander around a blighted suburban landscape vandalizing things, smashing rubbish, and generally acting insane while also encountering other weirdo individuals (calling them "characters" would be inaccurate) along the way. And, yes, they also frequently hump trash.
So, coming from a person who loved Gummo, how is Trash Humpers?
Difficult to sit through, as it turns out.
To put it bluntly, Trash Humpers fails in every way that Gummo succeeded.
While watching Gummo, I genuinely felt like I was watching found footage of somebody's nightmarish home movies.
While watching Trash Humpers, I felt like I was watching a rejected "Jackass" sketch. Honestly, that's what the movie feels like. A rejected "Jackass" sketch that goes on for 75 minutes.
With Gummo, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen despite (and sometimes because of) my revulsion.
With Trash Humpers, I wanted to get up and turn the movie off....not because I was disgusted, but because I was BORED.
I also want to note that the movie takes a decidedly grisly turn about 2/3 of the way in (which puts the movie more in the realm of a horror film). This change in tone seems strangely tacked-on, as if Korine decided that the movie wasn't "shocking" enough and decided to push things further. The very end, in particular, seems put there simply for the sake of being "shocking", and feels rather desperate. I almost expected Korine himself to walk into frame and say, "Hey, pretty shocking huh?"
Also, the person behind the videocamera filming everything in the movie keeps doing this REALLY irrataing high-pitched laugh that was, by itself, almost enough to make me stop watching the movie.
I'm not sure what Korine's aim was with this movie, but whatever it was I think he missed the mark. One could argue that the movie has some kind of message about the prevalence of trash (again, both literally and figuratively) in our culture...but whatever. At the end of the day, it's 75 long minutes of guys in masks humping trash cans.
Better luck next time, Harmony!
Sigh. I never thought I'd be so disappointed by a movie called Trash Humpers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)