First off, I apologize for not posting more movie reviews. The wife and I hosted a Halloween party last night and yours truly was busy carving pumpkins, cleaning, making food and putting on his make up and costume. So now I have time to do a movie review.
The sequel to 2009's blockbuster horror film is pretty much the same thing as you saw win the first film. If you liked the first one, you'll enjoy this. If you hated the first film, don't expect to enjoy this one. I fall in the later. I didn't care for this at all.
The film is just filled with cheap scares. Loud noises abruptly, cupboards opening, lights turning off, dog barking, it's the same thing as the first film. This time the sister of the woman in the first film is being haunted by a ghost or demon. Her husband is a non-believer and the filmmakers play him off like an asshole. Every male in this movie is a tool and for me, it's borderline offensive. The daughter is just like her step-Mom and believes the family is in trouble and the baby of the family seems to know more what is going on than everyone else. Aside from the family now having a daughter, baby and dog, this is exactly the same movie. Sure, the filmmakers try to add a little bit of a back-story this time around but the film focuses more on the cheap scares.
I will say the acting is much better this time around but even so, the characters say some pretty awful dialogue. At times I couldn't help but laugh and I am sorry, when you have the father running down the basement stairs looking for his son that the demons might have grabbed, hearing the baby babble and laugh just made me laugh. It wasn't scary at all. However, the film is told from a female perspective so I think women may find this more frightening than men. Consider me a non-believer.
Man of a Thousand Faces
The great Lon Chaney from London After Midnight
Oct 31, 2010
Oct 30, 2010
October 29th - SAW 3D (2010)
Ahhh, my old friend Jigsaw is back. Bad acting, hilarious dialogue, and tons of gore is also back. But what is new in this entry are outstanding 3-D effects and an unsatisfying ending to what is said to be the last Saw film.
Like all the other Saw films, the movie opens up with an elaborate trap and someone gets wasted in a gruesome way. This scene provided some un-intentional laughs as everyone is screaming super loud and swearing non stop and the gore literally explodes into your face. A very promising opening and alot of fun.
Also like the previous Saw films, the movie bounces back and forth between Det. Hoffman's quest to kill Jigsaw's wife who blackmailed him at the end of Saw VI to a new story involving a man who claims to be an escaped victim of Jigsaw's and writes a book about the ordeal. However the man is a liar and Jigsaw doesn't like liars, forcing the man into a long series of mazes with his loved ones in the various traps. As much as the death scenes are interesting and hilariously over the top, I care more about the subplot with Hoffman since that is the meat of the series. Can Hoffman escape the police? This story isn't handled as carefully as in the other films and it doesn't help that the new police officer on the case is this annoying actor whose atrocious in the role.
The film's story just doesn't do it for me this time around and I would have loved to have just stuck with the original story and not deal so much with traps and high body count with new characters. But I guess that wouldn't be a true Saw film now, would it? The film is one of the weakest entries in the series due to the acting and story but it's saving grace is the uber-graphic effects involving keys inside a stomach that must come out, a buzz saw death, a burning, multiple stabbings, etc. And the 3-D effects are some of the best I have seen recently. We even get some 80's type effects like a person's face being sewn, with the needle reaching out into our faces.
And the series is finally over and it just wasn't that satisfying to me. I kept thinking how many characters we followed in this series and that's how they ended up? I guess I shouldn't be too hard on the film, it is the 7th entry and the films have been fresh for the most part. But is the game really over?
Like all the other Saw films, the movie opens up with an elaborate trap and someone gets wasted in a gruesome way. This scene provided some un-intentional laughs as everyone is screaming super loud and swearing non stop and the gore literally explodes into your face. A very promising opening and alot of fun.
Also like the previous Saw films, the movie bounces back and forth between Det. Hoffman's quest to kill Jigsaw's wife who blackmailed him at the end of Saw VI to a new story involving a man who claims to be an escaped victim of Jigsaw's and writes a book about the ordeal. However the man is a liar and Jigsaw doesn't like liars, forcing the man into a long series of mazes with his loved ones in the various traps. As much as the death scenes are interesting and hilariously over the top, I care more about the subplot with Hoffman since that is the meat of the series. Can Hoffman escape the police? This story isn't handled as carefully as in the other films and it doesn't help that the new police officer on the case is this annoying actor whose atrocious in the role.
The film's story just doesn't do it for me this time around and I would have loved to have just stuck with the original story and not deal so much with traps and high body count with new characters. But I guess that wouldn't be a true Saw film now, would it? The film is one of the weakest entries in the series due to the acting and story but it's saving grace is the uber-graphic effects involving keys inside a stomach that must come out, a buzz saw death, a burning, multiple stabbings, etc. And the 3-D effects are some of the best I have seen recently. We even get some 80's type effects like a person's face being sewn, with the needle reaching out into our faces.
And the series is finally over and it just wasn't that satisfying to me. I kept thinking how many characters we followed in this series and that's how they ended up? I guess I shouldn't be too hard on the film, it is the 7th entry and the films have been fresh for the most part. But is the game really over?
Oct 27, 2010
October 27th - THE WOLFMAN (2010)
Maybe Hollywood London
When actor Laurence Talbot's (a mis-cast Benicio Del Toro) brother is missing and his fiancé (Emily Blunt, sleep walking through her role) asks for his help, Talbot goes back to his old home where his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins) still lives. While there he is attacked by a werewolf and is bitten. Now Talbot is cursed with the mark of the werewolf. The problem with the film is that there are two separate stories going on at the same time, one with Talbot and the other with his father and the "twist" that is given just doesn't work at all. There is no drama built around these characters whatsoever. I couldn't care what happened to any of them nor did I buy the forced romance between Talbot and his brother's fiancé. It's not like the characters are all unsympathetic, it's just that the script doesn't allow these characters to really stand out.
Another huge issue I had was the casting of Del Toro. I think he is a fine actor and very good in alot of roles but he just doesn't have the heart-breaking sympathy that Chaney pulled off in the original film. Del Toro just looks tired and confused in this remake. What this movie should have done was look at something like the TV series The Incredible Hulk. That show had heart, it had drama, characters that you liked and felt sorry for and cared about. There are alot of similarities between The Wolfman and The Hulk already. The Wolfman's romantic subplot is very stale on top of it, bogging the film down more than anything.
The make up is very good but shown very little. The special effects are almost all CGI and they look about as realistic as if you were playing a video game. One scene near the end has a character on fire and his head is chopped off and rolls into the camera. It looks so lousy, I laughed out loud.
But the film isn't awful. I did appreciate the setting and costumes. The film is filled with great atmosphere as well, making it lovely to look at.Hopkins
Although I have seen much worse,Hollywood
* IF YOU ENJOY THESE REVIEWS, CHECK OUT THE SITE
When actor Laurence Talbot's (a mis-cast Benicio Del Toro) brother is missing and his fiancé (Emily Blunt, sleep walking through her role) asks for his help, Talbot goes back to his old home where his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins) still lives. While there he is attacked by a werewolf and is bitten. Now Talbot is cursed with the mark of the werewolf. The problem with the film is that there are two separate stories going on at the same time, one with Talbot and the other with his father and the "twist" that is given just doesn't work at all. There is no drama built around these characters whatsoever. I couldn't care what happened to any of them nor did I buy the forced romance between Talbot and his brother's fiancé. It's not like the characters are all unsympathetic, it's just that the script doesn't allow these characters to really stand out.
Another huge issue I had was the casting of Del Toro. I think he is a fine actor and very good in alot of roles but he just doesn't have the heart-breaking sympathy that Chaney pulled off in the original film. Del Toro just looks tired and confused in this remake. What this movie should have done was look at something like the TV series The Incredible Hulk. That show had heart, it had drama, characters that you liked and felt sorry for and cared about. There are alot of similarities between The Wolfman and The Hulk already. The Wolfman's romantic subplot is very stale on top of it, bogging the film down more than anything.
The make up is very good but shown very little. The special effects are almost all CGI and they look about as realistic as if you were playing a video game. One scene near the end has a character on fire and his head is chopped off and rolls into the camera. It looks so lousy, I laughed out loud.
But the film isn't awful. I did appreciate the setting and costumes. The film is filled with great atmosphere as well, making it lovely to look at.
Although I have seen much worse,
* IF YOU ENJOY THESE REVIEWS, CHECK OUT THE SITE
http://www.unratedmagazine.com/Movies/Halloween.cfm FOR MORE REVIEWS THAT I HAVE WRITTEN!
Oct 26, 2010
October 26th - WRONG TURN 2: DEAD END (2007)
Horror sequels that go direct to video/DVD usually make me laugh. Almost always they are sequels to little sleeper hits that were in theaters a few years previously. They usually star one or two of the same actors from the first film but never the main star (unless it is Sniper 2, poor Tom Berenger). The film is usually much cheaper and tries its best to be just like the first film. Wrong Turn 2: Dead End sort of falls in this category and almost succeeds as being a decent sequel at first.
I was one of the few people who enjoyed Wrong Turn. I thought it was a decent throwback to a 1970's horror film, much like The Hills Have Eyes and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Although the plot was thin and the characters were annoying, I had a good time with it. And so I got pulled into the trap of the direct to DVD sequel.
Wrong Turn 2 isn't a bad film. In fact the opening actually made me jump and even grossed me out a little. It starts off with a reality TV star driving along in the woods and accidentally hitting a person in the road. When she checks on the person, he suddenly attacks her and rips her lips clean off. She frantically tries to get back to her catr, teeth fully exposed. Then another person suddenly comes from nowhere and literally cuts her body in two, showing us her steaming intestines splatter on the ground. The scene was scary, startling and had some great make up effects. I was pulled in. And then the plot began and it started to lose me from there.
A bunch of actors and crew members from a reality TV show much like Survivor meet a new deformed, cannabistic family in the woods while they are filming their new show. The actors and crew members are all walking clichés and downright annoying (save for Henry Rollins as the T.V. host) so I was rooting for the family right from the get go. The film does a good job of killing off the people who you least expect to die but the actors left alive are so boring and so one dimensional, it was downright boring to watch.
Also, as the film moved along I noticed the make up started to look lousy and CGI started to be used all too much and it looked really phony. I could feel fatigue hit me and I had to force myself to stay awake and finish this movie. Too bad too, the opening had so much promise.
I was one of the few people who enjoyed Wrong Turn. I thought it was a decent throwback to a 1970's horror film, much like The Hills Have Eyes and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Although the plot was thin and the characters were annoying, I had a good time with it. And so I got pulled into the trap of the direct to DVD sequel.
Wrong Turn 2 isn't a bad film. In fact the opening actually made me jump and even grossed me out a little. It starts off with a reality TV star driving along in the woods and accidentally hitting a person in the road. When she checks on the person, he suddenly attacks her and rips her lips clean off. She frantically tries to get back to her catr, teeth fully exposed. Then another person suddenly comes from nowhere and literally cuts her body in two, showing us her steaming intestines splatter on the ground. The scene was scary, startling and had some great make up effects. I was pulled in. And then the plot began and it started to lose me from there.
A bunch of actors and crew members from a reality TV show much like Survivor meet a new deformed, cannabistic family in the woods while they are filming their new show. The actors and crew members are all walking clichés and downright annoying (save for Henry Rollins as the T.V. host) so I was rooting for the family right from the get go. The film does a good job of killing off the people who you least expect to die but the actors left alive are so boring and so one dimensional, it was downright boring to watch.
Also, as the film moved along I noticed the make up started to look lousy and CGI started to be used all too much and it looked really phony. I could feel fatigue hit me and I had to force myself to stay awake and finish this movie. Too bad too, the opening had so much promise.
MISSED ANOTHER DAY
Sorry folks, missed another day. After work I had to get an estimate on a mirror that was broken off by a cop this past week (cop's fault, not mine) and I had to watch the NY Giants beat the Dallas Cowgirls in a pretty exciting and long game. By the time it was over it was 11:30 pm and Kleinstein gets up at 5:00 am so there ya have it.
Oct 24, 2010
October 24th - ZOMBIE STRIPPERS (2008)
With a title like Zombie Strippers, I knew I wasn't going to get the best zombie movie ever. But can I get a good film? No? How about an average film? Still no? How about sleazy fun? Can't have that either? How about this isn't the worst film I have ever seen but it is still lame? Ok good...I guess.
The military unleashes (on purpose) a chemical that can turn people into zombies for their own usage in wars. When a soldier who was bitten stumbles into a strip club and infects one of the strippers, her dancing/strip act suddenly becomes much better and brings in the customers. Soon, all the strippers are begging to be zombies and quickly follow in suit. But after awhile, they get hungry and decay starts to set in.
Being a fan of exploitation films, I like many of you, were sucked in based on the title. Also, genre actor Robert Englund was the star. So I crossed my fingers and hoped for something fun. I will say the premise is ok and if only the jokes weren't meant for 5 year olds or liberals (plenty of lazy George Bush jokes which are outdated and unoriginal), maybe this could have been tolerable. The films low budget shows and while the make up effects are pretty good, the actual special effects are entirely CGI and look like you are watching a video game. It doesn't help that the film drags at times and over stays it's welcome, running past the 90 minute mark.
The film doesn't skimp on the gore and when it wasn't CGI, it looked pretty good and nasty. Robert Englund provides the only talent and he's pretty funny as a germaphobe strip club owner. And there are plenty of silicone boobs in this for fans of the fake milkers. But that is the best I can say about this one.
Zombie Strippers isn't the fun and original film is should have been but it isn't a complete piece of shit as it could have been either.
The military unleashes (on purpose) a chemical that can turn people into zombies for their own usage in wars. When a soldier who was bitten stumbles into a strip club and infects one of the strippers, her dancing/strip act suddenly becomes much better and brings in the customers. Soon, all the strippers are begging to be zombies and quickly follow in suit. But after awhile, they get hungry and decay starts to set in.
Being a fan of exploitation films, I like many of you, were sucked in based on the title. Also, genre actor Robert Englund was the star. So I crossed my fingers and hoped for something fun. I will say the premise is ok and if only the jokes weren't meant for 5 year olds or liberals (plenty of lazy George Bush jokes which are outdated and unoriginal), maybe this could have been tolerable. The films low budget shows and while the make up effects are pretty good, the actual special effects are entirely CGI and look like you are watching a video game. It doesn't help that the film drags at times and over stays it's welcome, running past the 90 minute mark.
The film doesn't skimp on the gore and when it wasn't CGI, it looked pretty good and nasty. Robert Englund provides the only talent and he's pretty funny as a germaphobe strip club owner. And there are plenty of silicone boobs in this for fans of the fake milkers. But that is the best I can say about this one.
Zombie Strippers isn't the fun and original film is should have been but it isn't a complete piece of shit as it could have been either.
Oct 23, 2010
October 23rd - HALLOWEEN II (2009)
I actually saw Rob Zombie's Halloween II in theaters when it came out a year ago. This is the review of the unrated, 119 minute version with a completely different ending.
Not being a big fan of remakes, I had speculations about the Halloween remake but I was fond of Zombie's The House of 1,000 Corpses and it's sequel, The Devil's Rejects. Both films had some major flaws but had a certain amount of raw energy that I enjoy in my horror movies. I have always preferred disturbing horror to monster movies or haunted house movies (but I still love the hell out of those movies too). When Halloween came out, it was a great half movie. Loved the first half by giving some interesting back story on Michael Myers but the second half kind of falls flat into remake territory. Now, Zombie is able to sequelize (is that a word?) his own remake and make it all on his own. And, like all his films, it has its flaws but I still enjoyed it.
The movie starts as soon as the first film ends and Laurie Strode is a complete mess. The once virgin, girl next door is now a punk rocking, foul mouthed, schizo with a bad temper. She now lives with her friend Annie and her father, the sheriff of Haddenfield (played by Brad Dourif who gives the film its best performance. One sequence involving his daughter is gut wrenching and tear jerking. Performances this good are unfounded and are never written like this). Dr. Loomis has also changed and he is now a self-centered author capitalizing on Michael Myers victims with his books and press meetings. And Myers of course is not dead and he returns to find his sister and end it all.
The version I saw in theaters decided to edit out all the best parts in my opinion. There is some great, dramatic scenes with Laurie and Annie and how they are drifting apart as friends and are still tormented by what had happened to them. Laurie now sees a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) who is trying hard to help her. In the theatrical version, Kidder has a cameo. In the unrated version, the scenes are longer and we now see Laurie has become a delusional liar and desperately needs prescription drugs to block the bad memories out. Why were these scenes taken out? Running at almost two hours, this is the "epic" slasher film. The dramatic scenes work very well and are so well acted and captivating, that whenever Myers showed up to kill off a few people, I was getting bored. I would love to see what Zombie could do with a thriller or a dark drama.
This is also one of the most graphic and depressing slasher films I have ever seen. Characters don't just get stabbed and die. They cough blood, they can't speak, they convulse, they cry, they crawl, they vomit, it's all very realistic and the make up effects are some of the most disgusting I have seen in a recent Hollywood movie. While some will say the violence is exploitive, I feel the violence works better for being realistic. By making the brutality of Myers slayings as real as they can be, it makes the dramatic scenes all the more better. It is also honest as death is not as quick as it is in the movies. Violence should almost always be portrayed realistically. Horror can be scary with the whole "boo" tactic, but to me, being disturbed or troubled is much more scary. I felt this alot during Halloween II.
Halloween II still has some major flaws. Logistically, how does Myers know where Laurie is going to be? How can he track her? Also, Zombie adds these really silly dream sequences throughout the film of a young Michael Myers and his dead mother with a white horse. These scenes literally make no sense and is laughably bad. The only reason these scenes are in the film is that Zombie has to put his wife Sherri Moon Zombie in every movie he makes. Since she died in the first film, he added these stupid sequences which almost ruin it. I am also not a fan of how they handled Dr. Sam Loomis's character. He is such a piece of shit now and when he tries to redeem himself, it's too little too late and doesn't work. Malcolm McDowell does he best in the role but it doesn't work for me. And Zombie's trademark of everyone talking dirty and swearing every other word continues and it is distracting.
Now the ending...the unrated version is different. Why did Zombie shoot two endings? Well, neither one of them I cared for but I think the unrated version plays a bit better with the outcome and Myers does finally speak but the theatrical version at least has Dr. Loomis try and redeem himself. Both endings are unsatisfying.
One last note: does anyone have the blu ray of this? The picture was awful with too much grain.
Halloween II is a very different kind of slasher film, utilizing alot of great aspects but allowing alot of bad ones as well. The film is very gory and each death scene is realistic. Even head snapping and strangulation is graphic thanks to the sound effects and performances. The unrated version is much better though and it does help to watch both films back to back as I did tonight.
Not being a big fan of remakes, I had speculations about the Halloween remake but I was fond of Zombie's The House of 1,000 Corpses and it's sequel, The Devil's Rejects. Both films had some major flaws but had a certain amount of raw energy that I enjoy in my horror movies. I have always preferred disturbing horror to monster movies or haunted house movies (but I still love the hell out of those movies too). When Halloween came out, it was a great half movie. Loved the first half by giving some interesting back story on Michael Myers but the second half kind of falls flat into remake territory. Now, Zombie is able to sequelize (is that a word?) his own remake and make it all on his own. And, like all his films, it has its flaws but I still enjoyed it.
The movie starts as soon as the first film ends and Laurie Strode is a complete mess. The once virgin, girl next door is now a punk rocking, foul mouthed, schizo with a bad temper. She now lives with her friend Annie and her father, the sheriff of Haddenfield (played by Brad Dourif who gives the film its best performance. One sequence involving his daughter is gut wrenching and tear jerking. Performances this good are unfounded and are never written like this). Dr. Loomis has also changed and he is now a self-centered author capitalizing on Michael Myers victims with his books and press meetings. And Myers of course is not dead and he returns to find his sister and end it all.
The version I saw in theaters decided to edit out all the best parts in my opinion. There is some great, dramatic scenes with Laurie and Annie and how they are drifting apart as friends and are still tormented by what had happened to them. Laurie now sees a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) who is trying hard to help her. In the theatrical version, Kidder has a cameo. In the unrated version, the scenes are longer and we now see Laurie has become a delusional liar and desperately needs prescription drugs to block the bad memories out. Why were these scenes taken out? Running at almost two hours, this is the "epic" slasher film. The dramatic scenes work very well and are so well acted and captivating, that whenever Myers showed up to kill off a few people, I was getting bored. I would love to see what Zombie could do with a thriller or a dark drama.
This is also one of the most graphic and depressing slasher films I have ever seen. Characters don't just get stabbed and die. They cough blood, they can't speak, they convulse, they cry, they crawl, they vomit, it's all very realistic and the make up effects are some of the most disgusting I have seen in a recent Hollywood movie. While some will say the violence is exploitive, I feel the violence works better for being realistic. By making the brutality of Myers slayings as real as they can be, it makes the dramatic scenes all the more better. It is also honest as death is not as quick as it is in the movies. Violence should almost always be portrayed realistically. Horror can be scary with the whole "boo" tactic, but to me, being disturbed or troubled is much more scary. I felt this alot during Halloween II.
Halloween II still has some major flaws. Logistically, how does Myers know where Laurie is going to be? How can he track her? Also, Zombie adds these really silly dream sequences throughout the film of a young Michael Myers and his dead mother with a white horse. These scenes literally make no sense and is laughably bad. The only reason these scenes are in the film is that Zombie has to put his wife Sherri Moon Zombie in every movie he makes. Since she died in the first film, he added these stupid sequences which almost ruin it. I am also not a fan of how they handled Dr. Sam Loomis's character. He is such a piece of shit now and when he tries to redeem himself, it's too little too late and doesn't work. Malcolm McDowell does he best in the role but it doesn't work for me. And Zombie's trademark of everyone talking dirty and swearing every other word continues and it is distracting.
Now the ending...the unrated version is different. Why did Zombie shoot two endings? Well, neither one of them I cared for but I think the unrated version plays a bit better with the outcome and Myers does finally speak but the theatrical version at least has Dr. Loomis try and redeem himself. Both endings are unsatisfying.
One last note: does anyone have the blu ray of this? The picture was awful with too much grain.
Halloween II is a very different kind of slasher film, utilizing alot of great aspects but allowing alot of bad ones as well. The film is very gory and each death scene is realistic. Even head snapping and strangulation is graphic thanks to the sound effects and performances. The unrated version is much better though and it does help to watch both films back to back as I did tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)