Change Your Image
kennethsorling
Reviews
Masters of Horror: The Washingtonians (2007)
"I will make your interns blow me, and I will spill my seed upon their dresses! B. C."
It's interesting to see the variety present in the other reviewers' opinions about this episode. It rather reflects my own ambivalence.
I want to hate this ridiculous story. It's badly written, badly told and above all badly sold. Which means, at no point in time does it actually suspend disbelief. It plays like a 'Treehouse of Horror' episode, but without the humor.
Case in point: The letter which kicks off the fun. It spells like a curse, but on whom? That is never disclosed, and nobody even asks. And where's the logic? A powerful man with a nasty vice wants to keep his taste for flesh a secret, so what does he do? He commits his thoughts on paper and even initials it. Way to keep a secret! Not even the current president is that stupid.
It gets downhill from there. Why do the Washingtonians dress in 18th-century costumes? Never discussed. Why kill people with (of all things) sabers? Never disclosed. Why don't they ever seem to brush their teeth? Never revealed. And why are they so incredibly stupid? Never explained.
All that being said, it has a certain kind of suggestive power. It took me three or four sittings to get through this episode, because I kept turning it off. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was actually intensely creeped, in a "don't go down into that cellar" kind of way.
So what was so creepy? It was the old people, and not when they were nasty, but when they were playing nice. Their friendliness was so stilted and so obviously fake that I found myself cringing at the sight of them, and at the sound of their smarmy voices. If you want to relive the feelings of a small child experiencing the feigned friendliness of child-hating adults, watch this episode.
As I understand, the part of the kid has been overemphasized for the TV, but it makes sense: through her, we get to relive our own feelings of disgust at old people (who obviously don't like us) acing phony. We almost see them from her point of view, and share her feelings of revulsion at their touch.
The subsequent attacks of the men in frocks comes almost as an anticlimax to that. It's so ridiculous it makes you giggle.
Consequently, I can't bring myself to grade this silly story too harshly. After all, it achieved one goal of a horror story: making the viewer feel extremely uncomfortable. It isn't horror, and it isn't terror, but hey, at least it's something.
Still, this story is a long way from 'good'. It plays like a children's tale, as told by Roald Dahl (after a talentectomy, that is). The plot holes and lack of internal logic is insufferable. It's the worst MoH I've seen to date.
The Bridges of Madison County (1995)
Marvellous Meryl
It isn't often I become in awe of somebody's acting skills, however great they are. Mostly, because the very best acting really shouldn't make an impression of its own. That is its very definition.
Case in point: Meryl Streep. It is hard to deny that she is more Goddess than actor to most people, much like Jack Nicholson, she's become an icon unto herself. This regardless of whether you like her or not.
Which makes it so much more impressive when Streep pulls off a magic trick of major magnitude: making the audience forget it's actually her. She does so quickly and seemingly effortlessly, which is crucial to the suspension of disbelief required to become involved in this sappy love story. It's no minor feat, considering she's Meryl-f*cking-Streep! (attach as many exclamation points as you like, depending on how gay you are).
So, what about the movie itself? Clearly a superior work to the underlying novel, thanks to skillful direction and overall good performances. Definitely moving in a bitter-sweet way. In my opinion, it's just a little too soppy for me to think it's truly great. But despite its being such a blatant tearjerker, it's nevertheless appealing and gripping. Something to cleanse your sinuses and refresh your soul.
Kudos especially to Eastwood, who has repeatedly proved himself a far superior director than actor (and that's saying some). But overall, this is Meryl Streep's victory over her own cult status. Halle Berry was right: she must be the best actress of all time.
Tightrope (1984)
More kind than kinky
I'm watching a re-run of this flick on the tube as I write this. Seeing this again has reminded me of how much I like this film. Writing this is an attempt to figure out exactly why.
Plotwise, it isn't a remarkable movie; there are literally hundreds of cat-and-mouse psycho thrillers around with the same basic fable. But it's a well-told, suspenseful adaptation of the "psycho stalker" thriller genre. Sparse but to-the-point dialog, skillful use of silence and pace, and good performances all around raise this one a tad above most. It's also pretty funny at times.
Leave aside the story for the moment, or refer to other comments for a quick synopsis. Let's focus on the subtext of the film: the duality of human nature. More specifically, the dual nature of the main protagonist, Wes Block.
Personally, I don't perceive his 'naughty' side as particularly 'dark'. Sure, he's a little kinky, but only in the completely believable context of a divorced man experimenting with sex as a stage in figuring out his own identity. As kink goes, his escapades seem pretty tame; handcuff play and such shenanigans is nothing compared to the vast variety of aberrant sexual practices out there. Granted, at the time (1984), it must have seemed pretty daring.
Note, for instance, that he himself doesn't initiate any of the encounters, but is actively invited. In other words, he yields to temptation and curiosity rather than being actively perverted. A hint of another interpretation is given by his conversation with a male prostitute propositioning him:
"How do you know you won't like it until you've tried it?", the gay young man teases. "What makes you think I haven't?", Block responds.
What, indeed? Other than the fact that he turns the young man down, as opposed to the (very) female prostitutes he's hitherto been carnally involved with.
Obviously, he has trust and intimacy issues, as is made obvious by his interaction with Beryl (Geneviève Bujold). But then again, what divorced male past forty hasn't?
More worrying is the apparent disintegration of his personal mores and work ethic. A man with a badge and a gun, sworn to uphold the law, shouldn't having sex with prostitutes (although it's never made clear whether money is involved). And if he steps across that line, what's to say other transgressions, such as taking bribes and using unnecessary force, aren't far distant?
Overall, he's a remarkably sympathetic character. A man who obviously loves his children and is a sucker for stray dogs can't be a bad guy in my book.
Had this movie been made today (2007), we might have seen a more David Lynch-like set of perversions in him, such as fighting incestuous impulses (his oldest daughter is really super-cute, although obviously too young to be any healthy adult's love interest) or being into more explicit S&M-oriented games, such as sexual asphyxia, degradation, and water sports. Then again, that kind of stuff would make most people (including myself) shrink away from him, making identification and assignment of sympathies well nigh impossible. And this is more a reflection of the current sexual climate; our threshold for what's considered acceptable has shifted considerably in the last twenty-five years.
I also like Geneviéve Bujold in this movie. She's strikingly cute, although I can't really put my finger on why; it's inherent in her charisma and personality. She certainly isn't standard fare movie-babe material. And this movie is all the better for it.
Other good touches is the cold, accusing stare of his ex-wife in the hospital where their daughter has been admitted. God, what a creepy bitch! Never has a five second appearance done so much in explaining why the protagonist is unable to maintain a healthy relationship with women. These sequences, completely devoid of dialog and music, are particularly skillful and effective uses of silence and stillness.
Awarding this movie a modest 6 out of 10 is erring on the cautions side, but I reserve higher ratings for the truly brilliant movies. Eastwood's 'Unforgiven' comes to mind. That being said, I really like this flick. It's well worth watching.
The Making of '...And God Spoke' (1993)
Do yourself a favor - watch this!
This movie is hard to come by, but in the event that it should air on a TV station near you, or play at some cult flick cinema club, don't hesitate to see it. It'll be the best 90 minutes you'll have all year.
Myself, I don't remember just when I caught on to the fact that this was no 'true' documentary. It might have been as long as 15 minutes into the film. My girlfriend at the time didn't catch on until the 'product placement' scene. Believe it or not! Which goes to show, these guys know how to make a mockumentary. The string of ridiculous snafus which haunt the production team were pulled off with such skill and sensibility that you couldn't help but believe it. And no, it's not just a film for movie makers. It's for anybody who enjoys rolling on the floor laughing their hind ends off.
No, Spinal Tap it ain't. I've only seen ST twice, and I could watch this movie over and over again. It's most awesomely hilarious, and I can't wait until it comes my way again.
"Does anybody have a bible?". Indeed.
Night of the Demons (1988)
Moronic teenage gnasher with some good points
It's difficult to decide whether this movie suffers from crap dialogue or if it's just made to appear so by crap actors. In any case it suffers from storywriting which is mediocre at best.
Although made in the late '80's, the first part of the movie plays like a 60's teenage screwball comedy (barring the absence of any actual humour), especially the part of the 'good girl', which is as annoying a Doris Day figure as you could hope/fear for, including the slightly whiny opposition to anything 'fun' her friends want to do. The net effect is, after a while you start to hope she'll bite it so you don't have to listen to her voice anymore.
Some profanity and gratuitous nudity, plus some really 80's style clothing is your only clue that this movie was made in the 80's. Oh, and some pretty passable music, too.
Storywise, it's pretty formulaic stuff. A bunch of horny (apart, obviously , from 'miss nice girl') teenagers decide to celebrate Halloween night by throwing a party in a haunted house. Partying and fornication ensues, along with an ill-advised 'seance' which kicks off the demonic possession spree which is the subject of the movie. After this, the only suspenseful part will be trying to guess in which order the characters will expire. You're sure not to care whether or not they will. The actors are so bad that becoming demons/zombies/dinner actually improves their performance somewhat, and the ridiculously cliché dialogue is so annoying that you squirm in your seat.
Gorewise, this flick ain't nuthin' special, unless you think cheesy is kind of 'special'. For example, the demon head which occasionally appears is so screamingly fake that you wonder if it's a 5-year old trick-or-treating.
This is not to say there's nothing enjoyable in the flick. Some of the music isn't half bad, and the first of our insipid Scooby gang to get possessed performs a marvelous and really sexy dance routine at one point, before she turns nasty.
Also, and I don't know why, towards the very end of the flick, I actually managed to get somewhat involved. The suspense lacking in most of the movie made a late appearance, and I started to squirm out of unease instead of annoyance. Which is what a horror movie is supposed to do.
Concequently, I cannot bring myself to give this movie a rock-bottom rating, since by some inexplicable miracle (I don't rule out being possessed by demons) I was actually a little creeped.
Don't pay money to see it, though. It's hardly worth your time, yet alone hard cash. Watch it on YouTube while it's there.
Zombie Night (2003)
Coudn't even finish it
You don't really appreciate mediocre actors until you've seen some godawful ones. And there are plenty of them in here.
That's okay, though, see, because everything else about this movie is just as godawful. I'll have to second the other reviewers' acrimonious bashing of this film, and offer the following additions:
Fans of horror movies quickly become inured to bad movies, since bad movie makers all too often start out in this genre. But nothing can prepare you for badness such as this.
Everything about this movie is amateurish! Not even 'good' amateurish; you won't get any Blair Witch vibes here. It's so amateurish that you can safely defy anyone involved to _spell_ the word; I've seen kindergarten school plays with better writing, better production and better acting than this. And that is the feeling you get when you watch this; that it's some high-school student film project which got misplaced and by some horrible freak accident wound up on the shelves of the video store. It's so bad it isn't even funny.
When I saw this a few months ago, some emergency (such as the need to clip my toenails) prevented me from finishing it. So I don't know how it came out. But I simply cannot be arsed to find out. This is 20 minutes of my life better spent watching infomercials.
Yeeech!
Doomed (2007)
Scarier than "Scooby Doo"
Every so often lucky stars align in the making of a movie.
In this case, the lucky stars of crappy writing, cliché dialogue, ham acting, cheap special effects, and inept direction align to produce that all-too-common of beasts: a movie which can be released directly to the 99 cent bin. It's overpriced at that.
The thoughtful comments of other IMDb members have been spot on, and I wish I'd taken them seriously before wasting my time with this movie.
"Doomed" has a few redeeming values; there's some nice action choreography, and the visual cutting and the music aren't too bad. Not surprising, since they've been scalped from TV shows like 'Survivor'.
Still, there ought to be a law that a 'horror movie' should at one time or another actually try to _scare_ the audience. If anyone tried here, they failed miserably. The zombies aren't scary, and the characters are so one-dimensional that you don't care whether they live or die. This is a common problem with bad horror films.
The 'kicker', which is stolen wholesale from Lucio Fulci's "Zombie 2", is so predictable that you find yourself counting seconds until it happens. If they'd had the cones to steal more from Fulci, this movie might have been watchable.
The main problem this film faces is indecision about what kind of movie it wants to be, and then failing at each turn. 'Survivor' spoof? Not funny enough. Zombie horror? Not gory enough. Biting social commentary on the reality show industry? Not smart enough. Action flick? Sorry. Not even Jean-Claude Van Damme (whose acting skills I came to appreciate while watching this) could have helped this.
The 'computer game' analogy perpetrated on the audience adds the finishing kill shot to this miserable effort; instead of enriching the experience, it annoys the hell out of the viewer. Getting a score for each body blow or kill is only interesting if you're in control of the game and the score is yours. Otherwise, it's disturbing visual clutter.
While not the worst horror film I've seen recently (that honor might befall "House of the Dead", a *real* turkey), it is plenty awful. Zombie horror fans have nothing to get out of this one.
Look for the leading actors behind the counter of your local Wendy's. And, if you should step over the writer lying in some gutter in Your Town, U.S.A, give him a kick for me. He should have been eaten by Zombies.
Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead (1994)
Waste of time and celluloid
So much is wrong with this abysmal little wet fart of a movie that it's hard to know where to begin.
First of all, it's a remarkably un-scary scary movie, even by Amercian standards. The dialogue is cliché, the characters are two-dimensional, the writing is ho-hum, and what little story there is is neither coherent nor remotely interesting.
We meet the following stereotypes in order: Balding Loser Guy (probably divorced, but who knows? This movie doesn't tell us) with a brave heart, the Young Hero (who doesn't do anything heroic at all), Brave Little Kid (with a homicidal streak a mile wide) and Black Bad-Ass Bitch (with more brawn than brains). These guys take up an ongoing fight with the Tall Scary Reaper Man and his evil Ewoks.
Oh, and the film is full of wicked little metal orbs whoosing around menacing people. Given a chance, they perform impromptu brain surgery on those who doen't have the mental acuity to duck when they come at them. Booh! Actually, one of them is haunted by a good ghost (but then again, it might be a deceitful spectre) who seems intent on helping our Brave Contagonists retrieve their young kidnapped friend.
There is no character background or even an introduction to any of the characters. It starts with some kind of recap of the ending of the previous movie, but this doesn't explain a lot. If you've seen the first two movies, fine. Otherwise you don't know who these people are, how they are related, why they aren't in school or at work, or why you should care whether they live or die. Consequently, you don't. The only point of interest becomes any splatter effects. And there aren't enough of those to keep you awake.
Of potenial interest/amusement are the three Raider Punks, as stupid as they are evil, who menace Our Heroes. But they don't get much screen time. They are offed almost immediately. Then they are buried (why anybody should take the time is beyond me), then they appear again as Evil Raider Punk Zombies. Only to be offed again, literally within a minute.
The rest of the movie mainly seems to consist of Caspar the Friendly Ghost appearing and disappearing, driving around looking for places, and Balding Loser trying to score som Bad Black Bitch Booty, using pickup lines that would embarrass a mentally retarded teenager. No dice there; not even some gratuitous sex could have saved this movie, so good thing there never is any.
The head baddie, called the Tall Man, doesn't manage to scare anyone older than 3 years; howling "Booooy!" every five minutes isn't enough. Why he, with his amazing telekinetic powers and uncanny upper-body strength, doesn't simply squash our heroes like bugs isn't explained. Instead, he delegates the job to his inept retarded little minions, who never manage to kill anyone before being shot to hell.
Filmgoers who like masterpieces like "Friday 13th part XXXXVIII: Jason goes to college" might find some entertainment. The rest of us, who have developed pubic hair, will be bored out of our skulls.