Change Your Image
maggot_brain
Reviews
Frantic (1988)
One of the best thrillers ever
If you want a realistic, well-directed, atmospheric thriller that maintains its momentum the whole way, look no further than this film.
The plot is threadbare initially, with Harrison Ford playing a doctor whose wife disappears from their hotel room. What follows is his journey through Paris' streets, nightclubs and apartments in a quest to find her.
Roman Polanski shows why he's a world-renowned director with his languid, slow, deliberate pace. The first hour follows Ford's investigation, and we are treated to many great little details such as his interaction with various storefront owners, concierges, police, and American embassy officials. These interactions not only further the plot but parallel the feelings of a tourist lost in a foreign city perfectly.
The plot gets convoluted, but it is never hard to follow. Polanski also milks the beautiful backdrop of Paris as much as possible. This is one of the best 'Paris' films in terms of locales. Harrison Ford turns in a solid performance. Emmanuelle Seigner, whose work I am not necessarily a fan of, is also excellent here and really brings the combined youthful charm and doomed naivety of her character through.
Watch this if you're in the market for the perfect thriller.
The Ninth Gate (1999)
Interesting premise breaks apart
The Ninth Gate starts promisingly - an immoral, unscrupulous book dealer is tasked with uncovering the secrets behind a middle-age occult novel which was purportedly written in conjunction with Lucifer himself.
Roman Polanski is excellent at portraying cities - from the skyscrapers of New York through to its dinghy rare book stores and rain-flecked streets. Likewise, Paris and surrounding Europe gets fine treatment as with his previous flicks. Most of the acting jobs here are done well, especially Johnny Depp who portrays the nonchalant, cynical protagonist with measured calculation ("All I care about is my percentage..."). The first half of the film unfolds slowly and methodically, with a subtle sense of dread underlying proceedings.
It's a shame, then, that the movie takes its atmosphere and characterisation and squanders it in its final third. We are treated to over-the-top occult psychobabble, some silly fight scenes, and somewhat cheap special effects. Some reviewers championing this film have complained that people may not 'get' the film. I think most do understand its underlying concept and twist, and are complaining (validly, in my view) that it's carried off in such a haphazard, glaring and abrupt way that it ruins the atmosphere which Polanski spent the first hour of the film building up.
If you want a good psychological, occult-themed thriller with twice the atmosphere, better performances, and a ending that's half as half-baked (went there), check out Angel Heart instead.
Land of the Dead (2005)
Good movie, not great
George A. Romero's 4th entry into his legendary 'Dead' series is a good enough movie to justify the series, but is not as great as previous installments. This movie shows how humans have created a city to fight the zombie menace, but there are huge class divisions in the city between the poor and destitute in the slums and the well-to-do, carefree rich in the giant complex of "Fiddler's Green". The movie sees these problems erupt against the backdrop of a zombie menace, as zombies become more and more intelligent.
This movie has plenty to keep a fan of Romero's movies satisfied. The setting is excellent and although the movie has high production values, it very much feels part of Romero's universe. The backdrop is interesting and the action scenes are excellent. Romero does not shy away from the gore and there is plenty to see here. Although the gore is more streamlined and occasionally helped by CG animation, it still retains the raw goriness of past classics like Day of the Dead.
Despite this, the movie has several fundamental problems that keep it from reaching the standards of the previous films, particularly the first two in the series (Night and Dawn). Romero's social commentary, of class systems, is a little too heavy-handed in this installment, so much so that it seems to control the plot. There is also little room given to character development. This interesting new world that Romero has established is also given no room to grow. All of these problems can be traced to the movie's running time which, at 95 minutes, is at least half an hour too short.
Land of the Dead is, overall, a slickly produced zombie film with an interesting premise and lots of action. However, the interesting setting and its characters are not explored enough, and Romero's trademark social commentary is too heavy-handed as compared to his previous zombie films.
Metal: A Headbanger's Journey (2005)
Great overview of a genre for fans and newbies
Metal: A Headbanger's journey is a great little documentary about the bands, culture, and public reception of the genre of heavy metal music. It follows a heavy metal fan as he makes his journey to discover more about the culture and reception of his favourite genre. The documentary sees him discussing the history of metal, the culture of metal (fans, looks, drugs/sex/gender, and the hows and whys of metal's reception by the outside world. Helping him are some heavy metal heroes and some amazing characters like Ronnie James Dio, Alice Cooper, Lee Snider, and several members of the 90's Norweigian black metal scene.
The documentary is great in that it is aimed at both fans of heavy metal, but can also be enjoyed by those unfamiliar with the genre. The themes of metal culture, its attitude, its audience, and the controversy surrounding it is the main focus of this documentary, and is something that all viewers can see, understand, and hopefully be interested or enlightened by.
On a deeper level, the movie is full of rewards for the discerning metal fan. As a metal fan, I can recognise good taste which the main character certainly has. For example, he wisely strays away from obvious bands to focus on, like Metallica or Led Zeppelin. He interviews Tommy Iommi, guitarist for Black Sabbath, rather than the more obvious choice in frontman Ozzy Osbourne (whom I believe would not have been as interesting an interviewee). There are plenty of great songs and bands alluded to that a metal/hard rock fan would know and love such as Blue Cheer (truly the first band to make the sound), Rush, Diamond Head, Venom, and others. The death and black metal scenes, often overlooked in mainstream metal, are also given a sizeable chunk of attention in this movie, and their analysis was perhaps the best part of the movie for me.
There are few complaints I would have for this movie. The more obvious complaints would mainly stem from those who have misunderstood the movie's nature. For metal die-hards, yes there will be bands that are not covered here (the melodic death metal scene, for example, is only noted, doom metal is not here), but the documentary serves as an overview rather than an encyclopedia in moving pictures. If there are any complaints they may be aimed at the movie's lack of information in some parts - background information is sometimes omitted or merely said off-handedly, and viewers with no knowledge of the genre or bands may feel lost at a few occasions. In a way, this may serve to pique many viewers' interests and encourage their own investigation into the subject. Either way, the themes of heavy metal culture are the main point here and, as stressed above, will appeal to everyone who has paid to see this film.
Overall, Metal: A Headbanger's Journey is a great documentary, an accurate guide through heavy metal culture with a man who is obviously well-versed in the subject. The history is great, the interviews are great (and often very funny) and the way it's presented is excellent, fitting a lot of material comfortably in a relatively short running time. So whether you are a metal fan or not, this is required viewing for anyone with even the slightest interest in the genre.
The Ringer (2005)
Predictable
Other reviews here have been praising this movie but it's average score of 5.4 is more indicative of its quality, as a very predictable comedy that turns sentimental towards the end.
All the ingredients are here: the far-fetched plot device needed to set up the scenario (which in this case is particularly stupid), the love interest, the evil love interest's boyfriend, the funny and/or weird sidekicks (in this case a group of mentally retarded people) and the sentimental ending.
Frankly, this movie does nothing new and most of the time it's not funny. Most of the laughs my friends got from this movie was one of them laughing inappropriately at the mentally retarded people. However, a lot of the time the laughs were intended and I find this to be a bit worrying. To its credit, despite some tasteless laughs the movie does do a fairly good job of treading a line between being too tame and too offensive, but still doesn't manage to be quite funny enough. Its message was predictable and poorly done. The ending was too felt like a quick-fix solution and feels tacked-on.
Overall, I find this to be a fairly entertaining movie with some good laughs, but they are rather sporadic, and the movie itself in terms of its plot is very predictable and not very memorable. Judging from other reviews, people have found a great message in this movie, but I am not among them unfortunately so I find it difficult to recommend this movie as much more than a by-the-numbers comedy.
Doom 3 (2004)
Style over substance (not that it's a bad thing)
Doom 3 had a lot to live up to when it was released, and in hindsight I don't think it quite reached the lofty heights of its predecessors. That said, Doom 3 is a great re imagining of the much-loved series.
The first thing I'll mention is the first thing you'll notice with this game - the graphics. They are spectacular. From a technical standpoint, the character and creature models show unparalleled detail that is difficult to match even in today's games. They animate just as well. The lighting effects are the game's main point and they too are excellent. Lights shine and cast realistic shadows.
The graphics in terms of artistic design are excellent as well. The Mars Facility is brilliantly realized: a dinghy labyrinth of dark corridors, hissing vents and odd machinery. Unfortunately these same surrounds are a little overused, and in the second quarter or so of the game, you may find yourself growing slightly bored with the constant, sometimes indistinguishable corridors. Fortunately, at about 3/4 of the way through the game picks up again. Creatures also look amazing and are very creatively done. It's especially interesting to see how the team have redesigned old Doom favourites such as the Imp, Pinky Demon, Cacodemon and others. On the whole, they've done an excellent job in that respect.
In terms of game play, Doom 3 falters in many respects, and you may well find yourself loving or hating this game. This is a game that thrives on atmosphere. Your greatest foe is the darkness, and your greatest 'weapon' in this respect is the flashlight. You cannot wield the flashlight and other weapons at the same time - a feature designed to increase tension (although many gamers have taken it the wrong way and have complained about this feature). You also cannot peak around corners, so you'll have to face whatever awaits in the darkness head-on. These restrictions may annoy some, but they actually add to game play.
However, at its core Doom 3 is essentially a very straightforward shooter. The weapons you pick up are standard, each one more powerful than the last. You'll find yourself using any old weapon for any situation, as there are few tactics involved in combat. Enemy AI is very simple, as enemies will either hunt you down or camp down in one spot. There are a few gripes with game play. One especially frustrating aspect of game play is that hitting enemies will not cause them to flinch, but your vision will skew when struck. Against armed foes, this is very annoying as you will hit them several times in the face but their aim will be unaltered (whereas if you're hit by them, your shots will veer off course).
Doom 3 also tries to be scary, and although it succeeds sometimes, it also overuses certain elements far too much. Enemies will often just spawn into the room, which is a very un-creative and predictable way of providing a shock. There are few genuine shocks - there should've been more enemies jumping through windows, out of vents, etc. The game instead overuses spawning, and secret doors that will open when you pick up power-ups, revealing foes. This becomes very predictable very quickly. The only surprising element here is how often you will see this happening... literally hundreds of times throughout the game. The best example of atmosphere in this game is a level where you encounter no enemies at first, and are instead unsettled by various noises and effects. It's moments like these that I would've liked to have seen in Doom 3 more often.
In terms of sound, Doom 3 is a mixed bag. The creature effects are quite good, such as the shrill noises of Imps or the demented imitation of speech by the Z-Secs. The ambient effects, of pipes, creature noises, sometimes screaming, are downright unsettling at times. That said, the weapon effects are surprisingly poor. The shotgun sounds good, but weapons such as the pistol sound severely underpowered. The Plasma Gun is especially disappointing and sounds as if someone were making the sound effects with their mouth.
By what I have said, it may seem that Doom 3 is a flawed experience. To tell the truth it is, but the game is greater than the sum of its parts. The superb graphics, combined with the interesting enemies and atmosphere, succeed more often than not. Encounters with enemies never become boring, even though the scares may somewhat wear thin. The story is also very basic, yet you'll find yourself reading the PDA's scattered around the base regardless. Overall, Doom 3 is an flawed game, but at the same time it is a gutsy decision by id to create a straightforward, visceral shooter than will provide atmosphere over all else. In that respect, they have succeeded.
Overall score: 8/10
Zombi 2 (1979)
Low-Grade Shock Horror
This movie has garnered somewhat of a cult following as one of the best, most violent and over-the-top foreign zombie movies, but really it's just a video nasty that isn't worth your while. The entire movie is just fairly stupid and has no real plot. This is obviously an excuse for the violence, but this too is not that graphic. In terms of the flesh-eating, the gore is quite well done, but the effects of gunshot wounds, etc (in the final scenes) are poorly done in comparison. There is no sense of tension or excitement in the action scenes, they are just an excuse for gore.
The two things that I can recommend this movie for are for its zombies and the famous shark scene. The zombie make-up is very good I must say, as opposed to the cheap-looking zombie makeup in George Romero's Dawn of the Dead. The zombies here genuinely look dead and menacing, as evidenced by the zombie face on the cover. The aforementioned shark scene is also a great, surreal scene with a real shark, which was quite well done in my opinion, and what I'll remember the movie for.
Overall however, this movie is below expectations, the entire foreign zombie scene should be skipped when you have such fine series like Romero's trilogy, and the Return of the Living Dead series.