Reviews

There are certain movies that provide you with quality entertainment for a couple of hours which allow you to leave the world behind and become wrapped up in their artistry. These are called good movies. There are movies which are completely ridiculous travesties which still provide a couple hours of entertainment (for the right or wrong reasons). These are called cult movies. Then there are movies like Battlefield:Earth, where time seems to slow to a crawl as you count the seconds for the idiocy to end. These are called garbage, trash, etc. These films are not even fun to mock, they can only be endured, or abandoned. No amount of wit or alcohol can make this an enjoyable experience. I went to see this movie to have a good laugh. I didn't even get that. Stay away from this film. If you have a hankering for a Travolta movie, I would recommend any of the "Look Who's Talking" movies before this. They are better written, better acted, better directed, and actually look like they have a higher budget (the effects of this movie look shockingly similar to Babylon 5 or that Hercules TV show). If you can find any joy out of this mess, you are a better person than me.

One of the things which has always puzzled me is how a film with such a plethora of talent as the Island of Doctor Moreau turned out so badly. Here we have a top notch director (Frankenheimer), Brando ('nuff said), Val Kilmer (who has his moments, and is anything but wooden in this), Thewlis (underrated actor), Balk (underrated actress), a good score, good effects. Sure, most of the actors chew the scenery with glee, but that comes with the cinematic territory. Somehow, this all adds up to a really bad movie. How?

I blame the screenwriter(s). For those of you who have seen the definitive Dr. Moreau movie, Island of Lost Souls, (which Wells hated, I might add), you will see how well this works. OK, question 1: Who is the antagonist? Dr. Moreau, right? Well, in the 1996 version, he dies about 30 minutes in. So the "bad guys" become the Dr's creations, who in every other version of the story are innocent victims of the antagonist (the Dr.) just like every one else. The message of this is that we should fear the animal people because they are different, not a particularly enlightened view. Question 2: Who is the hero? In the 1996 version its Edward Douglas. Makes sense, right? Except for one small detail: Douglas in every version of the story is a closed minded, moralizing holier-than-thou prick. There is just no way to get around it. If you think about the 1933 version, the real protagonists are the animal people, especially the Sayer of the Law and Aissa (she is called something else in that version), who GIVES HER LIFE to rescue the others as the other creation's desire for revenge on the doctor accidentally destroys the island. THEY are the moral compass of the movie, and they are more kind hearted and human than the human characters, who all in all are a pretty rotten bunch. Their only crimes are their ignorance and their circumstances. By contrast, the humans are actually evil: Moreau is a self centered psychopath, Montgomery has sold his soul, Edwards is an ungrateful pontificating ass. By contrast, Aissa and the Sayer of the law (in both versions) are polite, respectful of their creator and each other, brave, and helpful to those in need. Can that be said about any of the human characters? By making a person like Edwards the protagonist and moral compass of the 1996 version, the film essentially endorses his rather nasty attitudes and ideas. Also, by portraying the creatures as motivated by a lust for destruction and power AFTER the Dr's death, it kills the sympathy the audience should feel for such tormented and abused beings.

While the trendy thing to say is about the Silence of the Lambs is that Manhunter is a better film, as is often the case I believe that this trend is dead wrong. Manhunter is a very good film, and I personally recommend it to anyone who is a fan of Harris, crime movies, or movies in general. But it has strayed from the novel in many points in favor of telling a more traditional crime story, leaving out much of the personal anguish and spiritual torture which was the soul of the book. However there is this pervasive ideas that large budget, famous, "Hollywood" movies cannot possibly be great cinema, an idea which is both narrow-minded and hopelessly ignorant of the filmmaking process. Surely there is someone out there who can make a good film with a seemingly unlimited budget, the best available talent, and still render something an audience would like. (Of course, since part of the audience is American, I guess they would say an ignorent audience) The Silence of the Lambs is proof positive that this marvel of a feat can be accomplished. As all of the positives of the film have previously been accounted, I will take this opportunity to refute some of the criticisms of the antagonist.

My personal favorites are the criticisms of the character of Hannibal Lector and his portrayer, Anthony Hopkins. The oft voiced gripes about his "overacting" are silly, as are the criticisms of the unreality of the character, at least to those who have read the novels. Hannibal Lector is presented within as a modern Mephistopheles, an incarnation of pure evil. He is smarter than you, stronger than you, more cultured than you, wiser than you. Worst of all, the character knows you better than you could ever conceive, your lies, your weaknesses, and your failings. He is just as interested in destroying your soul as well as your life. That is what Hopkins conveys in his Lector, an all knowing, all seeing being (NOT person, as noted in Red Dragon) who doesn't give a damn about anyone or anything but himself. The only flaw that the character possesses (again, as noted in Red Dragon and Manhunter) is that he is insane, just like the Devil in Western folklore. Keep this in mind when you see Hopkins in Hannibal.

Incidentally, I loved the critic who pointed out that they had never heard violins chime in during a dramatic scene in their life. Not only is that the most asinine argument I have ever heard for deriding a film (have you ever heard of suspension of disbelief?), but it is an argument which calls into question the validity the very foundations of all art. (What do you mean that's a woman? It's just paint on a canvas!) Good stuff.

This film is pretty steady and mediocre (you can tell Ed didn't direct it), lacking the weirdness and spastic nature of Wood's other films. But, it also happens to be the only film you'll ever see where a MAN IS RAPED BY A GANG OF GIRLS! A truly unique moment in film history.

Great great movie, with a twisted demented logic that drives throughout the film. Very rarely have I seen such a collection of unlikable characters in a movie that works this well. Reece Whitherspoon makes her sociopathic character endearing with her animated portrayal, and Kiefer Sutherland gives a slimey performance as a serial killer. You will find yourself laughing, frightened, and disgusted throughout this film. Do Not Miss This One.

Neat premise, some nifty acting by Dorff and especially Reece Whitherspoon, but unfortunately, this film takes itself WAY too seriously to be taken seriously. This would have made an excellent comedy, and the talent was there in the two leads. Instead, it takes an interesting, original premise and turns it into a preachy borefest. With a lead character like Dorff's, one would assume there would be a little old fashioned, punk rock humor to the proceedings. If I wanted to hear a sermon, I'd start going to church or reading Noam Chomsky (the obvious inspiration for some of this film) books again. Truly a pity, because this could have been a great film.

This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead).

I don't know which movie "anonymous" watched, but it sure wasn't this laugh-fest. They have got to have some financial stake in the film to fly so blatantly in the face of sanity. Most of the highlights have already been hit, but here is one which I think sums this movie up nicely: The skull of the "whurwolf" has ears.

Creativity is a funny thing. It can either turn out be be brilliant and inspired, or can turn into utter crap. L4 is a very original, creatively done film, which approaches the genre from a unique perspective, a combination rip off of Alien and Dr. Strangelove. Not that it is any good, it is actually a horrible film, but hey, it is different. The horror sequences are silly and cheesy (Like when the antagonist crawls up a soldiers member), the attempts at humor fall flat. The whole thing is just dumb, but hey, bring some friends and have a day letting loose on it. Look for the little guy to flash the Trimark symbol of quality at the end.

The opening half is pretty slow (motives for the nerds madness, etc.), and use of the fast forward button is encouraged. That's because the nerds destructive rampage and the ending are side splittingly hilarious. Highlights: The nerd impersonating a cat and dressing in an enormous diaper, and of course the spectacular conclusion. Recommendation: assemble some friends, alter your mental state with the substance of your choice in the first half, and laugh yourself silly in the second. A fun evening for all.

Pretty standard stuff, serial killer dressed as clown terrorizes phone sex girls, yada yada yada. It is more unintentionally humorous than most though, and has some disturbing moments, so its not a complete waste. Also, it has Divine's last performance (not in drag!). Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you have friends over and need a laugh, you could do worse.

Easily the best of the innumerable sequels in the series. Decent script, plot, and some surprisingly good performances (Patrica Arquette!) round out a good film. My only complaint is that it is pretty predictable.

This film was a god-awful waste of film, and that is NOT a recommendation. Basically it is a rehash of the original, minus the plot, suspense, scares, laughs, drama. Hell, the best effect in this movie is an exploding parakeet. The dialogue is even more inane than Titanic's. Easily the worst thing Robert Englund has been involved in (including 976-EVIL). I would normally be insulted that such a movie exists to give the horror genre a bad name, but the fact that it exists as a sequel to one of the classics of the genre, is sickening.

One of those rare, rare movies where absolutely nothing is done well. Cheesy monster, terrible "acting", stupid plot, inane dialogue. I would rank this amongst the holy trilogy of Plan 9, Manos, and Robot Monster. As a horror or sci fi film: its stinks. As a comedy: It rules. Is it me, or does Deep Throat from The X-Files have a small part in this film?

I'm not going to sit here and pontificate about how this is the greatest movie of all time (Though I'd put it in a foot race with Casablanca and the Godfather). I'm not going to take issue with anybody who just disliked the movie for slow place, black and white photography, whatever. What I can't comprehend is the people who gave CK a 1 (!). If you can't find anything redeeming in this film, then you have the film taste of a plankton. I can deal with people not liking a movie, but you gotta admit that there is SOMETHING good in this film. I even found something I liked (Kate Winslet) in Titanic, and (Cinematography) Showgirls.

This is quite simply the best acted horror film ever made. Forget the couple, forget the spouse, forget the comic relief, this baby is all about Karloff and Lugosi. The two greatest horror actors of all time go head to head with two of the best roles of each of their careers, and the result is incomparable. Lugosi's deranged, misunderstood martyr holds his own with Karloff's dark, methodical satanist, to the point where I wonder which one I'd rather have to spend a weekend with (Lugosi's nicer, but nutty as all get out, and Karloff is more rational but just plain evil). The creepy post-modernist house is a star in and of itself. Love this film.

I really wanted to like this film. The second film in the series had this silly, drive in movie feel to it that was fun (of course, I was also drunk). I watched this film with the highest expectation of a similar experience of high cinematic hilarity, a-la- Mystery Science Theater 3000. I WAS WRONG!!!!! This movie is a god awful waste of film, and I LIKED THE SECOND ONE!!!! From the effeminate villain with the David Bowie fright wig, to the tacky, obnoxious female villains with laughs that could strip the paint off a garage door, this whole thing was just a painful mess. I actually felt bad for Sue Price, because the material was beneath an actress of her stature (that pretty much says it all). An awful, awful film (that's not a recommendation).