Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Eraserhead (1977)
1/10
Movies have a purpose
1 August 2008
That purpose is to tell a story. I don't care what anyone else tells you otherwise, the reason movies exist is to tell stories in a visual form. The stories themselves can be about whatever the filmmakers want them to be about, but it should at least tell some kind of story.

Okay, so before I start sounding like a broken record, I'll just cut to the chase - Eraserhead was a colossal failure as a movie. Yellow Submarine made more sense, and I've never been high in my life. Fewer things actually happened in this movie than a typical episode of Dragon Ball Z. The plot (if there was one) was so wrapped up in multi-layered metaphors as to become completely irrelevant. If you want to use metaphors and symbolism in a movie, that's one thing. In fact, one of my favorite uses of symbolism in a movie comes from another David Lynch film (Blue Velvet). But in that instance, the metaphor was perfectly clear to anyone who had been paying attention to the movie. Here, the metaphors lose any meaning Lynch may have had by becoming so convoluted that nobody, not even the man who made the movie, can glean any sort of meaning from them.

To summarize, I disliked this movie for the same reasons I dislike abstract art (which I do not consider to be art, as it requires no actual talent to produce) and poetry: it manages to find the most confusing way possible to say absolutely nothing.
9 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Birds (1963)
5/10
Meh...
22 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
On the surface, this movie sounds like gold. Flocks of birds attack a coastal town. Simple, yet effective. Plus, it's attached to the name Hitchcock.

But something about this movie didn't quite sit with me. Maybe it was the fact that it set up this big mystery, yet never even tried to solve it. Why have these birds suddenly turned hostile? We don't know, and apparently, we don't care. Never mind the fact that if we took a moment to figure out what was going on, we might also figure out how to, I don't know...make them stop killing us? Maybe it was the fact that Veronica Cartwright seriously needed some acting lessons. I've said it before and I'll say it again - was it really that hard to find a child who could act in the 50's and 60's? Or maybe it was the end. How may of you remember the old Saturday Night Live? You know, the good ones. Remember those sketches where it was obvious the writers had no idea how to end it, so they just made John Belushi randomly have a heart attack? It's kind of like that.

In the end, I've seen worse. I've also seen a lot better.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Exorcist (1973)
10/10
Not scary, but otherwise brilliant.
21 January 2007
First, I'm just going to come right out and say it - this movie did not scare me at all. I don't know if it was because I have an unusually high threshold for grossness, or because I knew about most of the scary scenes in advance, or because I find the concept of organized religions laughable, but for whatever reason, this movie, touted as one of the most terrifying ever made by just about everyone, did not scare me.

Now that I've established this, you're probably wondering why I gave it 10/10 stars. And I will answer in the following way - because just about everything else was perfect. Linda Blair's performance was spot-on, even if it wasn't her voice during most of the possession scenes. Father Karras had my sympathy the entire length of the movie, even if I disagreed with him on matters of faith (a sign of a truly good character). I could've done with a few less demon faces, but that didn't *really* detract from the movie.

But above all, I will say what I always say about The Omen (1976): if the very premise of a movie is the exact opposite of everything you believe in, and you totally believe it by the end, it truly is a great movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cape Fear (1962)
9/10
Now THIS is a thriller.
1 August 2006
Let me start by saying that I am, and have always been, a fan of the villains. When I first started learning how to use Macromedia Dreamweaver, my test site was a shrine to the various villains in the various stories I've written throughout my life. The villain remains to this day the best way to advance the dramatic tension of the plot, and I hold a deep respect for them because of it.

That being said, this is possibly the first movie that has made me root for the hero to win, while still having a truly good (so to speak) villain. Gregory Peck's caring and responsible family man plays perfectly against Robert Mitchum's sleazy, cigar-smoking, prostitute-beating rapist. (It would've been nice if Mitchum could've done something like this seven years earlier in Night of the Hunter, but I'll gripe about that in its own review.) Peck plays one of those heroes that even a villain nut like me can't help but root for, and Mitchum couldn't have been a more despicably good villain if he tried.

Nearly everything else about this film is perfectly executed. The suspense, the relations between the characters, the script, the believability of the situations and actions, and of course, the acting...with one rather glaring exception. Where did Lori Martin learn to act? Talk about annoying! No, she wasn't bad enough that I didn't care about what would happen to her character, but it would've been nice if she had taken a few acting classes before showing up on set. I probably could've given a more believable performance as Gregory Peck's daughter when I was that age. And when I was that age, Gregory Peck was eighty-six.

But in the end, the movie came through. If you ask me, this, not Night of the Hunter, is the film Robert Mitchum should be remembered for. (And before anyone (because I know there are some of you out there) starts berating me about only saying that because I was disappointed by Night of the Hunter, I actually saw this movie first.)
16 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Deep Hurting
19 February 2006
Good...gravy. Mother of God. Even with Tom, Joel, and Crow on the sidelines, I only just barely managed to avoid shooting myself in the head to end the pain of watching this movie. The acting was cheesy, the dubbing was horrible, and the sandstorm scene...excuse me, but the memory of that scene has given me a fresh urge to slit my own throat...hang on, I need to go quell the urge...

All right, I'm back.

To put it simply, this movie sucked on every level. Even MST3K couldn't fix it. I'd give it my coveted "Bloody Stool" award, but one star is the lowest you can go on IMDb, so I'll have to save the Bloody Stool for my own website.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark Water (2005)
7/10
I will never understand some people
10 January 2006
This is sad. I've read the "hated it" reviews of this film. Most of them seem to be centered around two main themes. The first was "This movie was too slow/not gory/not violent." Hey, guess what? The old Universal films from the 30's and 40's were not overly violent, not gory, had no nudity, and were not fast-paced at all. Are you going to say Bride of Frankenstein sucked? The other school of Dark-Water-sucking-related thought seemed to be "the movie is a total rip-off of the original/The Ring/The Ring 2/blah blah blah." Look, I'm only gonna say this once: THIS IS A DIFFERENT MOVIE THAN THE ORIGINAL!!! If you can't judge a movie on its own merits, you have no business reviewing said movie. And I defy you to find one movie made after 1950 that isn't like some other.

Oh, and the whole "it wasn't scary" thing? I'm sorry, I missed the part where a movie had to be scary in order to be good. True, most non-scary movies weren't marketed as such, but when I watch a film, I tend not to judge it by the previews, and instead on, call me crazy, THE ACTUAL MOVIE!

Now, with that gripe out of the way, on with the review.

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. After hearing about how bad it was supposed to be, I happily discovered that this film is, in fact, well-acted, well-written, well-directed, and brilliantly suspenseful.

For those who plan to watch this movie, here's some advice: if you're going to hate the movie, do it because there is something wrong with the movie itself. Judge the movie on its own merits, or don't waste board space complaining about how it wasn't like a different movie.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Horrifying, disturbing, and entertaining all at once.
20 November 2005
There are some movies where, if you're a fan of the genre, you'll enjoy it, and if you're not, it will just really disturb you. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is one of those movies.

For some reason, I decided to watch this movie at midnight. It has been a month and a half since I saw it, and it still remains one of the most sickening, disturbing, shocking, terrifying movies I have ever seen. Put simply: it did everything it was supposed to. It was violent without being graphic. The music (if you could call it that) has nudged out the Halloween theme as my most terrifying movie score (sorry, John). Leatherface is one of the most horrific antagonists I've ever seen in a movie (and I've seen The Thing and The Evil Dead). Quite simply, as a horror film, this one works. With stuff like The Toolbox Murders, The Mangler, and Crocodile under his belt, Tobe Hooper should be grateful to this movie for making him more than a horror footnote.

All right, I've conquered TCM. Bring on The Exorcist!!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crocodile (2000 Video)
4/10
Two parts Jaws, one part Cujo, and a pinch of Jurassic Park, and whaddya get?
24 July 2005
In the world of horror, anything is possible. Electricity can bring the dead to life. Girls can develop telekinesis at puberty. And the brain behind Poltergeist and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre can be responsible for Crocodile.

The acting was all right. I never found myself sympathizing with the main characters, but I still thought that they were (for the most part) well performed.

But that's about it for what was good about this movie. I'm not even going to touch the blatant Jaws rip-off at the alligator farm. The primary antagonist was Flat Dog, a gigantic crocodile (and when I say gigantic, I mean think she was actually a prehistoric crocodile, rather than a Nile crocodile as the movie claimed) who apparently had the ability to jump like a dolphin and charge like a rhinoceros. Some bozos smash her eggs, so she gets angry and goes on a killing spree. I never thought I'd say this about a horror movie, but I think I preferred the CGI croc (used whenever we saw her in her entirety) over the animatronic (used when we only saw her head). That's not to say the CGI was particularly realistic, however. Flat Dog wouldn't have looked out of place in an episode of Animal Face-Off (if you've ever seen the show, you'll know what I mean).

I won't go into any depth about any of the characters' deaths, but the first major one to die is counter-intuitive to everything horror deaths should be (not to mention what actually happens if you're attacked by a crocodile). To be scary, a death needs to be painful and drawn-out. As the guy who created Leatherface, Tobe Hooper should've known this.

This movie tried so hard to be Jaws. And it failed so miserably.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Am I missing something?
5 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well, this was a disappointment. Every review I had ever read of this movie was full of nothing but praise. Praise for the cinematography. Praise for the atmosphere. Praise for Shelley Winters' haircut (okay, maybe not that, but you get the picture). So when I saw that it was going to play on Turner Classic Movies, I was understandably quite excited. I sat down and prepared to watch one of the most incredible movies ever made.

So imagine my surprise to discover that Night of the Hunter was an incoherent mess. The characters acted seemingly without motive at times. The acting was tired, wooden, and contrived (Mitchum being the glowing exception). I know fifth graders who could write a better script.

On the plus side, Robert Mitchum was one of the better actors of the mid-twentieth century. His performance as the film's primary villain, although nowhere near as menacing or threatening as Max Cady in Cape Fear, was still well acted. That the role didn't really do anything for me was not his fault, but rather that of Charles Laughton, who re-wrote the entire script from scratch and directed the film (except for the part where he abandoned the kids on set, forcing Mitchum to direct those scenes himself.)

But that's about all the movie has going for it. Rev. Harry Powell had this gentle, fatherly persona to him, even when he was holding children at knife-point, that made it impossible for me to feel any sort of fear or revulsion towards his character.

What else can I say about the movie? I never got the sense that the children were in any real danger. Perhaps that's why they continued to view the man who killed their mother and tried to steal their money as a paternal figure. The pace and focus of the movie changed so frequently, I could never really tell what was happening. Did I mention the children? I did? Well, did Imention that the children (Sally Jane Bruce more so than Billy Chapin)were annoying and lame? Were child actors really that hard to find in the 50's and 60's? (see my review of Cape Fear to see whatI mean.)

This movie had so much potential, but didn't really use any of it. Only Robert Mitchum saved it from being total garbage.
15 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed