Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Chrysalis (I) (2014)
9/10
A wonderful, human and moving film
21 February 2015
I was more than surprised by the quality of this movie, especially when I found out the previous title was "Battle Apocalypse." I'm glad they changed it to Chrysalis, because a serious drama benefits from a serious (and not overdone) metaphor.

The locations and cinematography are excellent, as are the dialog and acting. I don't have any real complaints - this isn't an action or horror film, though action and horror both play a part. This is a very human film, driven around the nuances of character and relationship, and to boot is much more hopeful than most of the post- apocalyptic genre. I'm very glad I saw this movie, and hope the filmmakers make many more.

Much more solid and assured than most indie films, this might be the best one I've seen at any film festival.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A steaming, fetid waste of time. You'll wish you'd gouged your own eyes out.
9 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Nick Palumbo is a modern-day Ed Wood, clumsily welding together useless and irrelevant trivia into what he probably (and incorrectly) believes is a good serial killer film.

This movie is to serial killer films what "Battlefield Earth" is to sci-fi.

The insults to the viewer are many:

1. The Nazi stuff is just crap. How many references do we have to see to "believe" the idiotic killer is a Nazi? 3. He actually inserts completely irrelevant footage of 9/11 - of the towers on fire. Unbelievable gall, with no point whatsoever.

2. The flashbacks to childhood are pointless, boring, and lame.

3. The frequent camera effects and screaming, to convince us that the killer is really nuts, are silly and juvenile.

4. Bad acting all around.

This movie is awful. I can't believe I fell for the hype. See a real gore-fest, like Ichi the Killer, Cannibal Holocaust, or Feast (all very different but effective uses of gore). Avoid this director and his films; whatever gore is there is trumped by the lack of any real suspense or thrill.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Aswang (1994)
3/10
A unique idea spoiled
13 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film started with a great idea, something most people haven't heard of, and did a reasonable job with setup and creepy suspense. Then it decomposed into nonsense, like too many horror films. The straight-laced, serious Peter starts singing, mocking, carrying on and generally goofing around. Cupid is seen to be very strong, but both she and Peter stand there doing nothing as Kat escapes again (though not for long). Why the repeated near-escape-then-recapture scenes? Why yet another can't-quite-reach-the-tool-they-left-just-out-of-arm's-reach setup?

Too bad they didn't have a decent writer; the base concept is chilling.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rent (2005)
3/10
Insulting, inhuman, and awful
11 December 2005
After seeing "Rent" I left the Loews theater with feelings of disappointment and regret; but as the film admonishes its audience to "forget regret," I found it fulfilling and ideologically consistent with the movie to switch to anger and resentment.

In spite of the lack of satisfaction, I did learn several things from Rent:

1. One needn't actually produce a work of Art (tm 2005, Rent Corporation) to be an Artist. Since all Life outside the Mainstream (tm) is Art, one need only record it (the medium and technique are irrelevant) and display it to have successfully avoided Selling Out.

2. Being Creative is better than being in the Mainstream, and the two are in fact mutually exclusive. Keeping It Real doesn't refer to the Mainstream.

3. Those in the Mainstream have surrendered Principle for a living death (because anything outside La Vie Boheme (tm) isn't living at all).

4. Intensity of emotion trumps its direction, effects, or meaning.

5. One needn't care enough about someone to change dangerous and/or hurtful behavior in any way, as long as one is Living outside the Mainstream; the resulting effervescence of Creative Love will redeem you in spite of illness, poverty, and their impact on your loved ones.

6. Your loved ones would rather love you Super-Intensely for a period of months than love you In The Mainstream for a lifetime; your impending sickness and death will enable further heights of emotion, creating an unending spiral cycle of Intense Love for generations to come.

7. It is far better to live for a short time as a Creative Archetype than to live a long time in the Mainstream as a Mere Human.

8. A political protest need be neither political, nor a protest; it needn't be coherent as long as it's Creative, since those viewing the goings-on will either be In Tune or are The Living-Dead Corporate Enemy, in which case they are irredeemably evil despite their support for anyone in La Vie Boheme.

9. Annoying Relatives in the Mainstream are so awful that they must be shunned, whatever value they might contribute or pain they might alleviate in La Vie Boheme; though Poverty is the main problem in La Vie Boheme, no amount of it is sufficient to warrant such extreme measures as Reliance On Family.

10. Change is bad. There's no reason to change an artistically unproductive life, especially to something in the Mainstream, because if you're living La Vie Boheme, life is Art; artistic contributions are irrelevant.

11. The rest of the world does owe you a living, on your terms, whatever they are. There's nothing one need do to merit such consideration, other than living La Vie Boheme; the Mainstream exists purely to support La Vie Boheme, though despite this reliance, the Mainstream deserves only scorn, derision, and contempt.

A brief summary of the characters:

Angel was a free-spirited, creative, ephemeral soul with colorful, outlandish mannerisms and a buoyant outlook uniquely identical to EVERY OTHER DRAG QUEEN STEREOTYPE EVER ON CELLULOID. See Priscilla Queen of the Desert for rich counterexamples.

Tom Collins was sensitive because he got beat up, smiled a lot at Angel, and is also brilliantly quirky because he stole from an ATM he re-wired, theft being so much more fulfilling than any larger sums derived from engineering jobs in the Mainstream.

Roger was a soulful Bon Jovi-ish artist minus the artistry and the soul. He at least contributed the worst song of the movie to resurrect his she's-not-quite-dead-yet love.

Mimi exhibited a deft and precise bikini-wax during her dance solo, and covered with sweat during her cold-turkey drug withdrawal, verged on the Fiona Apple-esquire.

Maureen contributed a delightful ass-shot, the spiritual zenith of the film. At that moment I wanted to go down on my knees and pray.

Joanne was a control freak - we know she was, because Maureen sang so. Somehow, despite Mainstream mannerisms and a Mainstream job, she was Bohemian, because the others wanted her to be.

Mark was the geeky filmmaker who decided to eschew Structure in favor of Passion. He completed his film (made by riding around on a bike, filming things) after quitting his horrific but seductive Mainstream job (driving around in a van, filming things). Evidently, the only obstacle to completing his film was developing raw unedited footage and shoving it on a projector reel.

Rent did have some good tunes and musical performances, like nice paintings afloat on a sea of lightweight bile.

Some things to which the word "Rent" applies:

  • my soul after seeing the film


  • my day after seeing the film


  • my wallet after seeing the film


  • what writing "Rent" earned plenty of for the creators


  • what those who go see "Rent" often need to pay the old-fashioned way, in the Mainstream
33 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the best horror tragedies ever made
18 February 2002
If you've never seen exploitation documentary, this is a great starting point. As another reviewer said, the subjects speak for themselves. The scariest thing about this disgusting true-life story is that the subjects would probably find it a supportive, wholesome story of family life with a precocious child. Any sane viewer will see it as it is: children trapped by the reality-warping gravitational field of their mothers' solipsistic quests for validation.

The mothers seems to fit into one of 2 categories: 5% glamour queens and, 95% bovine / porcine wannabes. Both are equally disturbing for entirely different reasons. The projection of their failed hopes and warped frustrations onto their trusting children is horrific to watch.

Outstanding documentary. A must-see.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Summer of Sam (1999)
4/10
Rambling, scattered waste of time
26 June 2000
Good actors and good performances can't mask a pointless script, bad dialogue, and patterns of behavior spiraling into nothing you'd care about. The most interesting character is David Berkowitz. No character development - no growth, no interest, just some suffering for no particular reason, teaching us nothing and not even bothering to entertain.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
eXistenZ (1999)
2/10
Bad
26 June 2000
Bad, although it's better than Cronenberg's "Crash." Cronenberg's trademark biological obsessions are on full display here, but without a point. Stiff acting, Jennifer Jason Leigh mumbling, and the last hour accomplishes nothing but rehashing the once-interesting-but-now-boring question "Are we still in the game?"
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed