Change Your Image
mrthrill
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Loved it. One of the greatest superhero movies ever made...
...right up there with "The Dark Knight" Trilogy and the first "Avengers," IMHO. I don't agree with a single critique from the legions of haters. The script was imaginative, philosophical, tight and witty - yes, it had some great humor, so it was not the relentlessly downbeat bummer you might expect, based on inexplicably negative reviews - in fact, I found the camaraderie and chemistry between the main protagonists quite inspirational. The politics were timely, the morality was compelling debated, the special effects and dreamlike cinematography were stunning, and the lead characters were all suitably complex, emotionally and psychologically.
For my money (literally), this movie fired on all cylinders, from casting to pacing to tone to interwoven story arcs to spectacular (and sensible) set-up for "The Justice League." It wasn't nearly as "dark" and much more fun than I was led to believe - moody and atmospheric, yes, but hardly nihilistic. The Nolan Bat-films were far more violent and brutal (and way less kid-friendly), though this latest incarnation should satisfy Bat-fans all of all generations, from Bob Kane and Bill Finger (finally given his due screen credit!!) to Frank Miller, borrowing elements from each era, forming the most faithful live action version of the character yet (though Adam West will always have a soft, sentimental place in my heart, and he was the ideal "camp" doppelganger, totally true to the comics of his time).
Ben Affleck absolutely nails the role, in and out of the costume, which is also the best yet - doesn't look like melted down tires for a change (sorry, Christian Bale - you know I still love you, affected deep gravelly voice and all). Batfleck's triumphant acting here reminded me of the backlash against Daniel Craig when he was first announced as Bond - and then he went ahead and proved he was more than worthy of that storied, beloved legacy. In fact, this is my favorite big screen portrayal of both Batman and Superman to date, and while no one can ever replace Lynda Carter in my heart, Gal Gadot kicked serious ass on every level, adding a uniquely exotic, intriguingly mysterious, mystical, mythical allure to the character. I am now even more anxious to see her solo "Wonder Woman" next year. I hope Affleck does a solo Batman soon too, since this movie perfectly balanced screen time between him and Superman, so despite the length, which literally flew by without a dull moment, it just left me wanting more. Batman's action sequences and fight scenes were brilliantly choreographed and executed.
Cavill really steps up his game here as well. This movie plays successfully as both a far superior sequel to "Man of Steel" and an ingenious followup to the Nolan trilogy. Superman here is brooding and conflicted, but also soulful and heroic - much like Batman, qualities which ultimately bond them. The depictions of both icons were both refreshingly original and canonically correct, as opposed to pointlessly revisionist. Initially I was most skeptical about the casting of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, but by the end, he was an entertainingly offbeat yet ultimately definitive take on that legendary super-villain. Casting-wise, Zack Snyder's instincts were right on the money.
When this project was first announced, I was hoping for another cinematic comic book on the level of "Watchmen" and he did not disappoint (me, anyway). Contrary to some reports, there were only a couple of (extremely interesting) "dream sequences" that did not interrupt the flow of the narrative whatsoever, Basically, I don't understand any of the vitriol aimed at this neo-noir pulp epic - which totally winds up feeling like an issue of "World's Finest" or an episode of "Super Friends" during the finale, which was a bit too CGI-heavy for my tastes, but so are all of these blockbusters nowadays. In short, this was just further evidence of why I always ignore mainstream film critics and reserve judgment until I've seen the object of raging fan boy controversy myself. Cheers.
Fido (2006)
The Perfect Movie
On a night when everyone else was going ape over Harry Potter and the All-Star game, I was sitting in a near empty movie theater enjoying the perfect flick - stunning mid-century Modern decor and fashions, gorgeous old school Technicolor cinematography, wicked irony, witty dialogue, zombies, gore, cool cars, the works. I loved the opening newsreel relating the story of the Great Zombie War and its aftermath, when a major corporation, Zomcom, created idyllic suburban oases for the living amid the "dead zones" populated by ravenous undead, "taming" many of them via electronic devices into useful house servants, gardeners etc. I loved the swingin' neighbor with the hot zombie chick girl-slave. I loved the "Lassie"-like stuff with the kid and his pet zombie roaming the beautiful countryside, just before all hell breaks loose. I loved the cornball 50s music playing over zombie carnage. I loved the vibrant colors. I loved all of it. It's funnier than "Shaun of the Dead," "Bubba Ho-Tep" and certainly anything starring Will Ferrell, and at least as funny as "Dead Alive." It mixes elements of Romero's "Day of the Dead" and "Land of the Dead" seamlessly with 50s Sirk melodramas like "All That Heaven Allows" and "Magnificent Obsession" plus elements of "Leave It To Beaver." I laughed all the way through it, but then maybe it just happens to hit both my sick sense of humor and retro-aesthetic sensibilities square in the bullseye. IMO sheer genius and an instant cult classic. If I was ever going to make a zombie movie, this would be it.
Diary of the Dead (2007)
The Return of the Zombie King
DIARY OF THE DEAD is George Romero's best zombie movie since LAND OF THE DEAD (2005). I put it at par with that one, meaning neither are as great as the original trilogy of NIGHT, DAWN and DAY, but Romero is in his latter, softer, grumpier phase and now that I've just done it, it's time to stop comparing the two Testaments. The New Dead Testament is lighter, kinder and gentler than the darker, vengeful, violent Old Dead Testament, but each have their unique virtues, appeal and lessons. Romero is our Savior, so have faith in Him, eat of his flesh, and drink of his blood.
Each of our Leader's films, or Gospels, from both Old and New Dead Testaments reflect not only the social politics of their period but also the currently popular style of film-making. While LAND is done like a typical studio blockbuster, DIARY is the indie DIY answer to the YouTube generation. Both are successful in their visions, both completely different, both done by the same old dude in response to the same era. Amazing.
The widely panned narration didn't bother me nearly as much as I thought it would. It seemed in character for some pretentious slacker chick filmmaker to talk too much over her own work. After all, the "film within a film" wasn't meant to be a professional product, but a subjective POV. At first I felt queasy with the conceit, especially when she talked about adding music to scare the audience. But once I got to know her better, it made sense within the context, at least enough so I wasn't distracted by it. I was there for the zombies and that's what I got in spades. Not a legion of zombies, but what was lacking in quantity was more than compensated by quality. The creative kills were real crowd pleasers, and the dialogue was often hilarious. Keep in mind I find zombie movies to be by far the funniest film genre, and Romero is the Buster Keaton/Woody Allen of zombie flicks, as well as the Orson Welles/Elvis Presley. He can do it all - make us laugh, cry and scream, often all at once. He invented this schtick and for my money (though I got in free) he's still the King.
I used to find NIGHT, DAWN and DAY deeply disturbing and depressing, dripping with apocalyptic dread. Now I've seen them so many times I've grown immune to their initial shock value and have come to appreciate them purely as sharply satirical pop pulp art of the highest order. At this point, with 40 years of Romero ripoffs and remakes readily available on DVD, and 8 years of Bush/Cheney, it's hard to scare me now. The fear factor has been diluted by overkill. I'm not a kid like I was when I watched the first three, either. I don't necessarily need to be scared. I can get that from the evening news. I just want to be entertained, and that I was by DIARY.
But DIARY, morbidly amusing as it is, also has its bleaker moments. Along with the near non-stop hilarity was possibly the single grimmest scene in the entire series, or one of them - when the bitten, and bitter, solider says about the poor old couple "F*** em, don't shoot em in the head, shoot em in the heart, let em wake up f***in dead", which he proceeds to do before blowing his own head off. Nice nihilism.
The script, including the sometimes annoying narration, has been criticized by many but I think that has to do with the documentary artifice in play, and the expectations that sets up. In a regular movie format, what seems incongruous or forced here would sound downright poetic, or at least acceptable. The images are slick (but suitably shaky at times) and the dialogue obviously scripted, and while some of the lines ring a bit hollow, consider this: people act differently when there's a camera on them. As for the lead guy not turning off his lens while gruesome action is within his sights, no matter who the victim is: that's how people are. Hell, I love my wife but if some zombie started tearing her blouse off, I'd have to record at least part of it before she got bitten...I'm a voyeur, I admit it. I'm sure you're probably not - right?
I can understand some of the gripes about the screenplay and the characters and the lack of follow-through with the set-up - they just didn't bug me personally. I was having too much fun. No, I didn't care about any of the characters (except Samuel), but I also didn't care I didn't care. Well, I did care about the zombies, but they seemed to have the upper hand in the end so I wasn't too concerned with their welfare. They'll be just fine. Even if you pop one there's plenty more where that came from. Gives one hope for the future!
I do wish that blond chick had showed more of her boobs. Brief flash in the dark doesn't cut it as real exploitation. That's my only real complaint but that's always my complaint with movies made before and after the 1970s.
I also loved: the Amish guy, the mummy zombie, the clown zombie, the melting brain zombie, the eye-popping zombie, the mommy zombie eating the daddy zombie, the swimming pool of zombies, and the final zombie head "shot". There was some cringe-worth corny stuff here and there ("Don't mess with Texas") but then Romero would turn right around and poke fun at it, immediately diffusing my momentary disappointment with witty irony. He seemed to know exactly what he was doing every step of the way, fully realizing not everyone would get it, or dig it, as he intended.
Anyway, DIARY is exactly what I thought it'd be - the documentary style coda to a legendary career.
Grindhouse (2007)
Greatest Movie Ever Made.
The mainstream prefers the spoon-fed stupidity of Wil Ferrell but for anyone who truly loves Movies as a visceral visual experience, this is as great as it gets. Rodriguez and Tarantino have brilliantly mined vintage 70s exploitation cinema for a no-holds-barred trip - not down memory lane, but up the Road to Glory. This will become the Ultimate Cult Flick. QT's half "Death Proof" seems to start slow but on reflection the character buildup is a shrewd calculation, making the shocking midway slaughter and the breathless vengeful finale that much more devastating. RR's 'Planet Terror" is the most slam-bang action/horror/sci-fi flick EVER, with (almost) no filler. Even the fake trailers - "Werewolf Women of the SS," "Machete," "Thanksgiving" and "Don't" - are more imaginative, entertaining and original than the "respectable, serious" glorified garbage nominated for Oscars (like "The Queen" - the worst movie I've ever seen, because it is insufferably dull.) Rose McGowan is the B Movie Queen of the 21st Century. For intelligent people who dig their thrills cheap and fast, "Grindhouse" is a work of sheer genius, made by and for B Movie Buffs. Anyone who doesn't even know what the term "grindhouse" means won't truly get it, so skip it. For everyone else, it is The Greatest Movie Of All Time.
Masters of Horror: Haeckel's Tale (2006)
Old school classic, one of the series' best
This is squarely in the tradition of AIP/Hammer/Bava period Gothic chillers (with a touch of Romero) which mixed horror and eroticism back in the 60s and 70s on a routine basis, before nudity again became somewhat taboo in our increasingly conservative culture. For me, this one has it all - a naked nympho, atmospheric sets, cool monster makeup, and best of all - ZOMBIE SEX! This is totally a B movie - B meaning going back to the basics of breasts, beasts and blood - and I loved it unashamedly. The scene in the fog-shrouded graveyard with the orgasmic babe being mauled by horny zombies is stunning, like an uncensored full page panel from one of those B&W horror mags of the 70s, Creepy, Vampirella or Eerie - in the full-colored flesh. I'd like to freeze-frame it and hang it on the wall of my tiki lounge. This is the greatest zombie sex flick since "Cemetery Man" and the addition of the zombie baby is a nice nod to Pete Jackson's "Dead Alive." Along with the equally erotic (and twisted) "JENIFER" and "SICK GIRL" - another very entertaining drive-in throwback - this is my favorite of the MOH series so far (season one.)
Miami Vice (2006)
Fans of the Show Will Dig It
This is not so much a reinvention as it is an update. All the actors are "in character" (even Barry as Castillo doing his low-talking best) and echo the originals without mimicking them. Favorite new take: Gina, who has the single best "shot" in the flick. Otherwise the dangerous mood, downbeat tone, slick use of music, sporadic then ultimately intense and cathartic violence can all be directly linked to the source material. You won't miss the 80s clothes or alligator if you loved the TV show for its cynical attitude and hard-boiled demeanor. The show's stock guest characters from the heavily-accented Latin drug kingpins to the slimy Feds to the trendy nightclub denizens are all on the big screen too. So are the familiar atmospheric locations, from a lonely exotic beach to a glistening nocturnal skyline to an industrial shipyard to a bleak white trash trailer park. Best surprise: the "plot", pleasingly simplistic, was obviously culled from various episodes of the series, most notably "Smuggler's Blues" but with smatterings of "Prodigal Son" "Evan" and all the doomed romance pieces like "Definitely Miami" and "French Twist." True fans will notice these touches which are more of a true tribute to the series than a pastel palette would've been, and this will greatly enhance the experience.
Critics who say this is "darker" than the show never watched the entire run. There's nothing here grittier (or even as gritty, really) than the whole Burnett amnesia story arch, or grimmer than TV SPOILER ALERT Crockett's pregnant wife getting shot in the back by a criminal he helped saved from Death Row on a false tip. There's more blood and more swear words and more nudity in the movie, but the show pushed those envelopes as far as possible, breaking new ground for its medium. It's only natural a feature film in 2006 would be bloodier and sexier than a TV show from two decades earlier. But it's not bleaker or more daring in context. It's totally true to the pioneering, uncompromising vision and spirit of the original.
The whole point of the original "Miami Vice" was that it was cutting edge in terms of style and reflective of its times in terms of content. Mann's film version naturally retains those elements, since those are the real reasons his show became in icon in the first place, and still holds up despite the often outlandish fashions. Setting the new flick in the 80s would've been like setting the series in the 60s. This is "Vice" as if it never went off the air but just kept progressing with the times (as the series did - the pastels, the alligator and even Zito gradually disappeared by mid-season three). It does seem chunks of storytelling were axed to fit a shorter time slot, but these cuts (like the boat race) didn't seem to tighten up the often languorous pace anyway, and their inclusion may have helped fill a few plot holes. The tension remains and it's fun just to watch a new "Vice" unfold since it's been 17 years since the two hour finale of the show, "Freefall" (yet another subtly plundered episode.)
I need to see it again soon since my first reaction was one of being satisfied yet somewhat underwhelmed. However, flashbacks to scenes of humid intrigue warrant a second immediate viewing. It's like recalling an epic fever dream. I already rate it as Mann's third best flick, behind "Heat" and "Thief." (Sorry, Cruise's miscasting totally ruined "Collateral" for me.) In time I think this movie will be seen not as a remake of the show, but as a continuation of it.
ADDENDUM: On second viewing, this flick fired on all cylinders. The pace, camaraderie, use of music, etc all worked in cool concert, with no scenes seeming extraneous. If you're a Mann fan, a Vice fan, or a fan of unique, expressionistic cinema, see it. More than once. Destined to be a cult classic. It's still #3 behind "Heat" and "Thief," though, at least in my book - but still a worthy companion piece in Mann's impressive neo-noir pantheon.
Land of the Dead (2005)
Lotsa Dead, But Where's the DREAD?
After waiting 20 years for this flick, I saw it twice within 24 hours just to make sure my initial reaction was correct. It had all the elements I expect from the once, present and future Zombie King - social satire, gore, original SLOW zombies (since it just doesn't make anatomical sense, in any context, that people speed up after they're dead), "biting" humor, etc. I certainly enjoyed it, though I expected a broader, more overtly apocalyptic epic. Still, all 3 previous flicks - which to me, each improved on the former, so "Day" is my favorite, though "Dawn" remains his masterpiece, no doubt - shared that sense of claustrophobia and impending doom. Despite the smaller than anticipated scale (considering the bigger budget) of "Land," one crucial element is missing: THE SENSE OF DREAD. The so-so remake of "Dawn" (why remake an installment of another series and take it out context? That's like deciding to remake "The Empire Strikes Back", ignoring the rest of the "Star Wars" mythology? whatever, it's done) didn't do it for me for the same reason "28 Days Later" failed to impress - fast moving zombies just don't scare me. Too much like a video game. It's the grim, inescapable reality of encroaching hordes of flesh eating corpses that freaks me out - sure, you can pick off one at a time, or even a bunch, but eventually, you're ghoul food. That feeling of "we're screwed no matter what" permeated all previous Romero zombie flicks, right from the first frame. This seemed to be more of an action adventure flick, like the remake of "Dawn." Did the studio spoil the mood? It is the most beautiful looking of the series. But I missed the bleakness. Sure, it had a spooky ambiance, in a glossy kinda way, but not the depressing, depraved sense of desperation that haunted me long after after each viewing of the others. The gore in LOTD was the most creative in any zombie flick next to "Dead Alive," and that one shot of the zombies rising from the water - I haven't noticed anyone pointing out the obvious homage to "Carnival of Souls" there, NOLD's inspiration - was a cinematic moment worth framing and hanging on your wall. But where was the nausea-inducing intensity? The heavy-handed analogies to current events were still dead-on, as it were, and it's the funniest of the four. But beauty and humor aren't the hallmarks of GAR so much as the sense of relentless, overwhelming horror that just doesn't exist in this long awaited installment, for whatever reason. Maybe it'll be on the DVD, but I doubt it. Still, this is MY "Star Wars," man, and I'm so grateful Romero is back from the dead. Like the previous entries, he made a movie of and for its time. I guess we already live in the Land of the Dead - too late for dread.
ADDENDUM: I've now re-watched this flick about 15 times on DVD. I love it, no apologies, no reservations, no missing the "dread". It took me a while to detach it from the original trilogy, but this is New Testament Romero and I dig it for what it is: a socially conscious horror action thriller by the man who defines the Zombie Zeitgeist. Dig.
Mad Doctor of Blood Island (1968)
Exotic Exploitation
This amazingly atmospheric ,surreal and sleazy drive-in masterpiece is a must-see for all fans of monsters, exotica, John Ashley, mad scientists, and cheesecake. I bought it based on its notorious reputation (and some seductive stills) and was not disappointed. It has some HG Lewis type gore, lots of gratuitous nudity, beautiful scenery, earnest bad acting, a seriously scary monster, and more. This is B Movie making at its finest, sheer exploitation with no apologies and no holds barred. Even the eerie exotica music score is cool. Eddie Romero's Filipino horror films of this era will appeal to all fans of 60s/70s Mexican and Spanish horror cinema. They are even as unique, bizarre, and compelling as the Japanese yakuza flicks from Seijun Suzuki of the same era, and much more colorful, entertaining and original than contemporary horror cinema. I also highly recommend "Brides of Blood" (the monster is kinda like a demonic tiki, a relative of the tree monster Tabanga in "From Hell it Came")and "The Blood Drinkers"m featuring a vampire that is as suave as a James Bond villain and incredible photography. I've heard some genre fans hate these movies for being so awful. I was pleasantly stunned at how wrong these naysayers were. What a great discovery.
Dagon (2001)
Best Horror Movie of the Millennium
I just saw this movie on DVD and couldn't believe how great it was. Sure, it's basically a B movie, and since the death of the drive-in, great B movies are hard to find, probably because there's such a small, niche audience for them now. Mainstream mall-minions would not get the appeal of "Dagon," which explains its lack of theatrical distribution, but this is Stuart Gordon's best film since and besides "Re-Animator." What it lacks in that landmark film's outrageous black humor, it more than makes up for with its surrealistic dark pagan poetry. This is an old fashioned "creature feature" with modern sensibilities of sex and gore, combining elements of "Night of the Living Dead," "Lair of the White Worm" "Humanoids from the Deep" and even the original "She Creature," with a genuinely creepy atmosphere that evokes the original "Outer Limits" and the colorful dread of "Tales from the Crypt," (the comics, not the TV show.) But ultimately this is an entirely unique, moody masterpiece, far more compelling (to me) than recent, acclaimed horror "classics' like "The Sixth Sense" or any of the overrated Hannibal films, with the most memorable monsters since, well, I can't even remember when. Gordon is back with a bang, proving he is the greatest horror film director of the last 20 years, with a greater sense of style (and humor) than either Carpenter or Barker, the heir apparent to bold B movie masters like George Romero, William Castle, and Roger Corman. He is also indie cinema's most original visionary this side of David Lynch. Welcome back, Stu, and thanks for the classic grue.