Change Your Image
triton_ogletree
Reviews
The Devil's Rain (1975)
It deserves to be better!
This is one of the best bad movies ever. The cast that you've heard of does a great job. The rest are garbage. The effects are great (although some are less impactful than they should be), but the lighting allows too much to be seen. In short, this movie should be remade by someone who understands what you don't see is the scary part and that evil stained glass should actually look like evil stained glass and not like Evel Knievel's tattoos. Explosions should startle people, not make them say, "Ok."
This movie deserved to be better than it was. Anton LaVey is the consultant on this, which can't be replicated. However, The Church of Satan will always have someone that can be used as a consultant. Certain aspects can be duplicated to a great degree and other aspects can exceed the original film's abilities. If this film had a good budget, a director who actually understands cinema (or at least, specifically, horror cinema,) and it still managed to retain the Hieronymus Bosch, the Church's influence, and the choral of voices, etc. Then, this movie would be amazing! This is one of the only movies I have ever seen that should be remade (by a vet of the horror genre, preferably.)
The story is that a bad guy wants a book from a good guy, and will stop at nothing to get it. The good guy's family becomes quickly involved and it spirals out of the realm of normalcy. A lot of Satanic concepts and themes are involved. It is weirdly graphic but nothing that a horror fan can't handle. Chances are that you'll probably laugh over the gore because once again, it's too well lit. Either way, it's a basic Good Guy vs. Bad Guy story that's reasonably executed but it fails in some of the most basic ways. Although, if re-done correctly, it has the potential to be a masterpiece.
If Hollywood is reading this, remake this movie, please (and hit up the Church of Satan for advice, like this movie did.) This concept is cool and certain people pulled their weight. Others, did not. This film suffers from far too much "did not."
Atlanta (2016)
A show about "nothing" plus monsters of the week episodes!
This is a really good show. Tragically, I have not seen every episode. In fact, I've only seen a few of them. However, the concept is not particularly new. Like any good film, it takes ideas from successful things that came before it. Two shows stand out in my mind: Seinfeld and X-Files.
Weird, right? Don't worry, it makes sense...
Seinfeld's claim to fame was that it was a show about nothing. Yet, it had something to say about, well...everything. I don't care how you feel about Seinfeld. That's not my point. My point is this is a semi-dramatic but comedic show where nothing much happens but it still makes its point. Atlanta definitely has something to say but if you miss an episode, you are not going to "not know what is going on." Each episode has a story to tell that isn't exactly life changing (for the characters) but it can stand alone and be graded on its own merits with a bare minimum of call backs.
The X-Files is a show about oddities, weirdness and aliens. Atlanta is fairly dissimilar except in the methods of its storytelling. The X-Files had its continuous storyline, which fans dubbed the mythology episodes but it also had its "Monster of the week" episodes that weren't really centered around the main characters and didn't do much to continue the basic storyline. In other words, Atlanta has its continuous story (the mythology episodes) and it throws in monsters of the week to keep things interesting.
In a nutshell, Atlanta is a very smart show that tells the story of a few guys trying to make it big in the music industry. They go on a series of misadventures and honestly, not much happens. They fail, succeed and their lives continue. They typically deal with everyday things in everyday life, ultimately, it's a show about nothing. Then, every once in a while, there's an episode which doesn't center around the main characters (some don't include them at all) and all of the episodes are able to stand as their own distinctive (but brief-30 minute) story. Both types of episodes are fantastic and of the highest caliber!
Atlanta makes smart comments on social issues while simultaneously entertaining you with everyday nonsense that seems trivial but actually makes its point abundantly known. I don't "get into" TV series' too often but as someone who didn't see all of it, I wish I did. That said, it still doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the show. I highly recommend it, even if you miss some stuff!
Im Westen nichts Neues (2022)
"Not the book"...but still excellent!
Is this film 100% faithful to the details of its source material? No.
Is this film 100% faithful to the entire point of its source material? Yes.
Is this a good film? It is in fact, a masterpiece.
Get over it.
This is a phenomenal anti-war film about a kid named Paul who goes to war thinking about the "glory" of it all and he quickly realizes that war is hell and his pre-conceived notions were not at all accurate. The film has most of the same characters and main plot points from the book and the impact is just as deep, real and important today as it was when it was actually happening.
Naysayers have been complaining about deviations from the book, lack of character development and too many scenery shots. I disagree with all of the above. The characters are developed enough to care about them, which is the point, many of the deviations are either inconsequential (as in, a missing scene from the book doesn't change the mission of the film,) or they work well to make the film's impact stronger (in reference to added moments, characters, etc.) and the scenery shots add both juxtaposition (beauty buried within the dread and misery) and a feeling of reality. All of it helps strengthen the point of the narrative. In short, I think people just love to hate on things.
This is a brutal film that (like the book) dares to tell people that the reality of war is neither glorious nor is it a necessity and this film succeeds at conveying both of those aspects. Ignore the "critics" and watch it on its own merits. It's amazing!
Black. White. (2006)
Unfortunately, it's fake...look it up...
This show was awesome, UNTIL...
...I was looking up stuff about the show and thought it was slightly odd that the white family had all different last names. I just figured that the husband and wife may have gotten divorced (or perhaps the wife chose to keep her last name in the marriage) and that the daughter may have gotten married (and chose to change her last name,) therefore, giving each of them a different last name. It seemed simple enough. It turns out that the explanation was MUCH more simple than that. They don't have the same last names because they're all actors (actually the mom is a casting director,) and none of them are in fact, related...at all...I stumbled across that info after watching it...
The whole point of the show (or what they suggested it to be) is to let the viewer observe how everyday people deal with being the opposite race. This was an amazing concept that worked great and was very informative...until it turned into a huge kick in the teeth when I realized it was staged. All of the lessons (or lack thereof, as at least one "character" doesn't seem to learn much of anything,) go right out the window when you realize that at least three of the six people in question are characters, not everyday people who are supposed to be related. This literally negates the whole point of the show, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Lessons can be learned from written characters, but a person who is NOT an actor is actually genuine! This show dropped from being a good program to being a pile of crap in two seconds.
If I wanted to watch a dramatization, I would have watched a movie! It sold itself as a documentary-style show making a great commentary on social behavior, not a TV movie, which is tragically, what it essentially is. This show is literally pointless! That's a shame, as the concept was fantastic and I feel like it WOULDN'T have been hard to find a REAL family with similar quirks and values. Even if they weren't "as interesting" as paid character actors reading dialogue, it would have been real, or, at least, as real as reality TV gets. This was the entire point of the show! When the entire point is faked, the show becomes useless, so, who cares? It sucks too, because it was actually pretty good! It instantly became a waste of my time out of nowhere, and it DIDN'T have to be!
I wasted my time, do not waste yours...LAME...
The Four Poster (1964)
Fun short
A pretty simple short (it's a six minute silent film) involving a naked girl in a threatening hotel room. It doesn't take itself seriously and it's a fun-filled, sleezy few minutes. I recommend it.
Frankenstein (2004)
What could have been...
This is a very good and very accurate adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic gothic horror story, Frankenstein. It is in fact, by far the closest adaptation and it pains me (a horror fan and gore hound) to say that. It's not a bad thing to admit but it's still oddly unsatisfying.
First off, this a great film and well worth any horror fanatic's time. The performances are great. The minor characters are especially noteworthy. The production value is good and the story (as in the novel) is literally timeless. Why not 10 stars then?
Simply put, this is a Hallmark (I repeat Hallmark, as in the greeting cards) channel miniseries and it is far more gruesome than anything that I have seen on the channel before or since but leaves me longing for more in that department. While it is extremely well done, it makes me sad to realize that no Hollywood production could match it.
The things that this film lacks is shock value, which was definitely present in the original story. In short, this movie lacks cinematic flair. While this doesn't make my viewing experience negative, it makes me realize what could have been. Had someone stuck to the original source material with a great budget and a greater cinematic eye, we would have a definitive Frankenstein film. The film, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein had the horror and gore (even to excess) but it missed important parts of the novel that this version did not.
If someone in Hollywood would have tried as hard as the people who make greeting cards, we would have the masterpiece that Shelley's novel deserves. Again, I am not trying to say that this isn't a great film. I'm just depressed that someone else didn't try this (a faithful adaptation) first.
The story of Frankenstein is typically well known but in case you are wondering what it's about, it is the story of a man who essentially throws caution and reason to the wind to delve into the science of life after death. Frankenstein's arrogance, neglect and narcissism take center stage and the character has to deal with the collateral damage created by his actions. Again, I highly recommend this to any horror fan but don't expect to be spooked or grossed out because it is brought to you by the same company that gave you Soap Operas like "When Calls the Heart." If any big wig in Hollywood happens to read this, just know that you could have made a masterpiece had you simply followed the actual story and made it an adult themed cinematic affair.
The Slaughter (1971)
Dumb but fun!
That pretty much says it all. This movie is poorly made and is still thoroughly entertaining. It's bad but watchable. The story is about a Manson inspired series of killings and is the film within the film of the movie, Snuff, which is likely the only reason you have seen or heard of it. If you haven't seen Snuff (1975,) obviously watch it and this film is the "B-movie" before the brief, "main attraction."
Snuff (1975)
Wait...for...it...it's worth your time...
I just want to repeat the title to you first...it's called Snuff. If this doesn't interest you, disregard this film immediately. If you are hoping for a thought provoking experience, disregard...watch 8mm. It's a way better movie. If however, you are ready for anything and want to know what the fuss is about, check it out!
Enjoy the first hour of this film. I truly mean that. It's a fun ride filled with homages to greater films, boobs and violence. The plot is loosely based on the Manson Family murders. What happens? I don't know but there's boobs and blood and a couple of moments where the film is trying to have a point or be smart or something...but it's not. It doesn't really matter as that is not really the point of the movie. Just drink a couple of beers with your horror film friends and enjoy the ride (truly enjoy it, it's like an Ed Wood movie) because when you get to the end, it's all worth it. Keep in mind, this film came out in 1975. Pretty cutting edge and pardon the effects a little.
Is it great? Absolutely not. Is it important? Not really. Is it essential viewing for a Gore Hound? You bet! You won't agree with me throughout most of the film but trust me, it's worth your time. Like I said, enjoy the Rocky Horror-esque nonsensical film for what it is...a means to an end.
Dune (2021)
"He who controls the..."-what is it called again?
I have read Herbert's book, seen the original David Lynch film, watched the mini-series and I saw the documentary about the film that never was (Jodoworsky's Dune,) so I feel like what I have to say is fairly valid. In other words, I had knowledge and expectations. Hearing Pink Floyd in the original trailer made me think they took a lot from Jodoworsky's Dune. Knowing that the general public (in general) despised Lynch's Dune made me think they would dodge some of the bullets that movie created. Having extra time (whether post or pre-production) before its release due to COVID certainly made me think they would iron out any flaws.
I'm not able to say that all of the above occurred if any at all. It certainly wasn't a bad movie but it wasn't as great as I had hoped for and it gets worse...
Again, I read the book and so on but not everyone has. This was a huge flaw that occurred with the original Lynch film. It was as if they assumed everyone knew the story. It is just as untrue here as it was then. For instance, the original film downplays a lot of characters and situations and doesn't fully explain key moments or important things. This one did the same but in different ways.
In most ways, this film is visually greater than its predecessor but it also fails along the way too. An example of this is The Harkonnen family. In the original, they are grotesque to the point of nausea (which is essentially the same as the book.) In this version, they're barely in it and seem like typical bad guys without much umph. Many of the characters of this film are barely fleshed out and several are completely ignored...so far...
Jodoworsky's Dune had a visual, musical and surrealist style that would have been incredible had it been made but alas it was not. I truly thought this version would steal some of the concepts while staying faithful to itself and the book. I guess not.
Ultimately, I feel like it was a decent film and certainly well produced but the story and characters fall horrendously short of most expectations based on the various media versions available. Most importantly, they downplayed the spice which, (aside from Paul,) is basically the main character. They barely mentioned its powers or reasons for being so coveted. To me, that's the biggest mistake the film makes. I unfortunately know the plot already so as a person who does, I could understand everything that was going on but I am not sure everyone will fully understand it as it is not explained correctly for someone who is unfamiliar with the story. Again, not bad but not great.
The movie involves a family made up of a son, mother and a father. They are given a planet to rule that just so happens to have the most important resource in the universe. Treachery, betrayal and so on ensues. There's more to come (it's only Part 1 of 2,) so maybe I judge too harshly but I say again, it didn't live up to my expectations and I am doubtful it will live up to yours. Honestly, while not as impressive, the mini-series did the story the most justice and I would recommend it to anyone who doesn't care to read the novel.
The Strange Thing About the Johnsons (2011)
So...this exists...
If you saw Hereditary or Midsommar or both, well here's where the director started and boy is it messed up! The 30 minute film is very well done but the concept will boggle your mind. This film is DEFINITELY not for everyone. It is an interesting perspective that I have never seen on film before but be warned it is quite disturbing. Fortunately for me, I am a big fan of disturbing films. If you are not, you should probably avoid this one.
Dreamcatcher (2003)
"Hated it!"
First off, I should explain that I am biased...no, not because I am anti-Stephen King (although many of his adaptations are total garbage.) I am biased because a friend of mine told me this movie was awesome, so I went into it with expectations but I have also seen this lump of poo three times, so I assure you that I am not just saying what I say because of my initial thoughts but because I forced myself to watch it more than once to make sure there wasn't anything I was missing which actually made it good. On to the review...
This movie is awful! In fact, this is the movie I hate the most of all the movies I have seen and I assure you that I have seen some really terrible movies. Some of them are hilarious because they are so bad and some made me want to gouge my eyes out Oedipus Rex-style minus all the incestuous nonsense. This is the latter and here's why...
First off, this film is WAY too stupid to be taken seriously and therefore, it is not remotely scary. This is written by the master of horror...it should be at least unnerving! Second, this movie had way too much going for it to be so bad! It's directed by the guy that wrote Empire Strikes Back and had an all star cast, including Academy Award winner Morgan Freeman. The production value is exceeding its on screen limitations. I mean, the special effects are cheesy, cheap and silly looking and yet they look like they were expensive to make, which makes them cringy but not funny. While they aren't the worst effects ever, they should be more impressive considering the amount of money they used to create them.
Now for the real reason nobody should watch this movie: it's stupid. It's really, really stupid. Every character is cheesy and does something incredibly dumb at some point in this film, often for no reason at all. I'm talking, "push this button and you will die" so the character pushes the button-level of dumb. All of them! Not a single character in this film displays any semblance of intelligence whatsoever and much of what you will see will make you question your eyes, sanity and especially ask, "Why?"
The story itself is also stupid and often incoherent with pointless monologues from characters who don't matter, catch phrases that aren't catchy or even fun enough to be laughed at and grotesque beings that come from an area where the sun doesn't shine. Yeah, that's a main aspect of this movie. I'm not kidding. I love gross stuff (I'm a gorehound) but this isn't witty enough to get away with being gross and it's not gross enough for me to care.
A group of guys who have special powers get together to discuss their mutual friend every year. They stumble into a doomsday scenario and have to rely on their powers and their friendship to defeat the bad guys. Where did they get these powers? Why, the mentally handicapped kid of course! Yeah, I'm serious...
It sounds like it would at least be good for a laugh, right? Wrong! It's not smart enough, self-aware enough or surprisingly, not cheesy enough to be laughable. It takes itself way too serious and has too much money injected into its veins to be chuckle worthy. It's simply dreadful in the way that the Star Wars Holiday Special is dreadful. It's overly long and poorly executed and considering all of the talent involved, this should have been a masterpiece! Do not waste your time! I'm serious, this is the worst movie experience I have ever had and I lived through a lot of trashy films. I have about 3,000 ratings on IMDb currently and I hate this movie most of all, partially for what it is but mostly for all the things it isn't. Watch literally anything else! At least Bog Creatures and The Room will make you laugh. This will make you sigh and question why you didn't listen to me before you had to deal with all of the nonsense. Again, just don't waste your time, it's not worth it!
Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
It's just not very good...
This film is quite graphic and it exhibits real animals being killed, as well as scenes of rape, plenty of blood and guts and other disturbing imagery and yet, this film was able to inspire both the found footage film genre and gore flicks all while telling a cautionary, "moral" story. That said...
I can drone on about how animals were killed to make this and how this is just an excuse to be gory and exploitive like everyone else seems to but the fact is that all that sensationalism takes a back seat anyways because, this movie just...isn't very good.
The film quality is bad (as are a lot of horror flicks.) The quality is somehow beneath TCM, Night of the Living Dead and in parts, even The Blair Witch Project. The unnecessary dubbing is less like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (which is another Italian made film) and more similar to that of Godzilla (not Gojira because that version of the film isn't dubbed.) Most of the actors and actresses are speaking English which is the film's language, rendering the dubbing useless in the end anyways. I understand that Italian films were often dubbed later but whoever did it was amazingly bad at it!
The acting is atrocious! The only decent actors are a few of the victims. The musical theme, while memorable and slightly eerie, is also extremely repetitive and ultimately nothing to write home about. The effects are ok but not extremely impressive as they are just basic splatter make-up effects on a shoestring budget. In fact, most technical aspects of this film are at best, middle of the road.
The message of the movie is probably its strongest aspect. It's simply telling the viewer that sensationalism (while a great selling point,) tends to be "wrong" and turns "civilized" people into monsters. It makes this message well known, all the while ironically creating a sensationalistic movie where the actual film's crew also behave in a similar (although far less dark) manner. Again, they killed real animals on set which I would say is kind of sensationalistic, wouldn't you?
At the end of the day, the viewer is left with a story about a man who goes in search of a film crew and discovers that they are victims of local cannibals (if you believe this to be a spoiler, you apparently didn't consider the title to be much of one) only to consider why this would happen to "good people" in the first place. It sounds like it would be powerful and interesting but it just isn't that well made. The level of gore is a small achievement but is probably less impressive than Dawn of the Dead. The commentary on society is present and valid but not well delivered and as previously mentioned, it is not a particularly well made movie which ultimately results in a very mediocre film experience. Hence, you don't really need to hear about how "gross" this film is. All you need to know is that this movie shoots itself in the foot by becoming that which they are warning the viewer about and creating that with only mediocre skill level. If you are a gore hound/completist, I probably wasn't going to stop you from watching it anyways but if you are just randomly curious about this film, just know that it's really not worth your time.
If you want gore, watch Traces of Death. If you want horror, watch The Shining. If you want a powerful message, watch The Shawshank Redemption. If you want none of the above in one package, watch Cannibal Holocaust.
Traces of Death II (1994)
Death + Death Metal makes this one the best!
This is the best of the series or of any similar gore film series! It keeps the narration cheese level down and the much more appropriate, Death Metal cranked up! Apparently, there are actually gore hounds that don't like Death Metal, (although, I have never personally met one) and they all seemed to have written a review complaining about the soundtrack to this film. I believe this film's soundtrack to be far superior and more appropriate for the visuals you see, making this "movie" the best of the bunch. I guess if you prefer to see a human body destroyed to the spaced out synthesizer soundtrack from Logan's Run, stick with the first one. Me? I will take Unleashed's Swedish Death Metal soundtrack for the win!
Beyond that, it's more of the same as the first one (which I assume you have seen if you're reading this.) In a nutshell, it's a plethora of nasty bits of real Ultra Violence splattering your screen and your dreams for over an hour. There's some narration telling the viewer what they're seeing and that's the basic concept.
"Highlights" include:
Accidents, executions, suicides, punishments, murders, a sex change and at least one act of revenge that is sure to be a crowd pleaser! Seriously, it's probably the most satisfying death to be displayed in any of the five films. Obviously this film is not for everyone. I own the 5 DVD collection, so I guess that says something about me.
Death + Death Metal is a winning combination!
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
(Spoilers sort of) From a film scholar point of view...
This is easily the first great film to ever be made. Nothing came even remotely close to it at the time of it's release...nothing! NOTHING!!! It's still an impressive film today. Without further adieu, here's an incomplete checklist of firsts that this film created/established:
Tinting, close-ups and wide angle shots, the first truly developed plot, I mean you name it, this is the film that brought it to your television/cinema screen first. The only thing that this film wasn't first at was sound. That's pretty much it. Anything from a technical or really even story telling point of view that you see in movies came from this film. Even the acting is decent for the time.
So, what's the story?
...therein lies the controversy...
The story of The Birth of a Nation is simply that, The Birth of a Nation. The film however, does not take place during the American Revolution but rather the Civil War because that's when the nation really hashed out (most of) its own problems...or did it? The story is good. People love and laugh and then go to war. There's great care taken with the first half of this film. EVERYONE even mourns the death of Abraham Lincoln in the film, referring to him as a great man. Then the second half begins...
The second half of the film suggests (as did Gone with the Wind to a lesser degree) that there was still turmoil in the South after the Civil War had ended. Ultimately, what results of this is that the family we stay with throughout this film ends up boarding up their house to keep the villains out, Night of the Living Dead style until the "white knights" come to save the day. Sounds exciting, right? It is!...
...until you realize the zombie horde is actually the (poorly educated and villainous) African American slave population and the "white knights" are the (suave and heroic) Ku Klux Klan. Yeah...that happens...
...SO...From a completely film-goer's point of view, this is THE movie, like THE MOVIE that truly started it all. However, from the perspective of a husband who is married to a black woman, this film is an atrocious and cntemptuous lie (despite what Woodrow Wilson will tell you). The "villains" are portrayed as stupid people who want to rape and murder all the white folk. From a film point of view, the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad and if I were an alien watching this film, it would be a thrilling experience from start to finish but I am not an alien and frankly, watching an enslaved people who were tortured for hundreds of years suddenly rise up and become the bad guys by claiming they decided to kill all the whites in their path is a lie that my brain can't easily handle. In reality, it was the other way around, with the slave owners rebelling against and attacking/lynching/hanging the former slaves, but clearly historical accuracy wasn't on the menu.
As a film buff, I still give it 8/10 on technical and unfortunately storytelling prowess. As a human being that doesn't like to swallow BS and propaganda from haters (no, the director, D. W. Griffith was not necessarily a "hater,") I say that I hate that this is a good movie and I wish it was ANY other film that achieved all of this first but, it wasn't. I also pretty much hate this movie in general and I (weirdly) hate that I hate it. Confusing, isn't it? I guess that's why everyone refers to Griffith's follow-up "Intolerance" (1916) more at this point. Watch it if you wish for the history of film but not if you're looking for historical accuracy.
The Searchers (1956)
Difficult to describe...
On the one hand, this movie is extremely impressive. On the other, it's unnecessarily campy/cheesy to the point of irritation. I'm not sure how I feel about this movie (I didn't dislike it) but here we go...
The good:
The sets (natural settings in Utah) are fantastic!
The cinematography is masterful!
The film requires further viewings (this is a good thing.)
The bad:
Some of the characters are bad...like, really bad.
Some of the dialogue is also bad.
The review:
This is a complex movie with a simple plot (but perhaps not so simple.) Basically, a man returns from the Civil War after several years of the war being over. He is suddenly independently wealthy and decides to stay with his brother. Already his character is suspicious to say the least. His brother and him don't seem to get along too good which instantly makes the viewer question why he would stay with someone he doesn't seem to care for in the first place...and that's the point...
This is a rare movie that doesn't try to spell everything out for you. You are meant to come to your own conclusions and consider why characters do what they do and what's going on behind closed doors. It is extremely successful in this aspect. Ultimately, some natives arrive and kidnap the main character's niece (in theory.) John Wayne gives probably his best performance in this film (sorry Rooster.) His character then embarks on a recovery mission to bring back his niece. As previously mentioned, the setting (although, not believable, as the film is supposed to take place on the plains and NOT Monument Park, Utah) is stunning and each shot looks like a painting. Seriously! It's breathtaking how good some of these scenes look. I love great scenery, cinematography and films that you have to think through and this is great in every facet of that. So what's the problem with this masterpiece of cinema? Why wouldn't I give it a 10?
Some things in this movie are just plain stupid. First off, the antagonist (again, a Native American) is played by a very Caucasian (blue eyed) actor...why? There were plenty of native actors in America at the time, so why did this guy have to be so obviously not native? It almost feels like a black face moment for no reason at all. There's also a character that is (supposed to be the comic relief but in reality is...) just plain stupid. This particular character is annoying in the same way that I find Jar Jar Binks annoying. All of his lines are atrocious, he's not funny and he brings an unnecessary level of camp to an otherwise un-campy film.
There's also some really melodramatic stuff that happens and it seems out of place in keeping with the tone of the film. I realize that the plot is melodramatic on its own but it doesn't need to become a soap opera and it occasionally does this and seems out of place. I liked this movie and want to love it but there's definitely some flaws. If you can get passed the ridiculousness that seems to be stitched in to make you feel things, this movie is pretty amazing. After you watch it (assuming you will,) let it resonate in your brain for a while and watch it again because like a magician performing a card trick, this film will make you think you know what's going on but you will realize quickly that you may have been incorrect in this assumption.
It's absolutely worth your time (again, it's a flawed masterpiece but it's still a masterpiece) and is probably worth seeing several times (you'll see and realize things that you didn't on the first go around.) I just wish that a few things in this film were different as I would easily rank this as the best western that I have seen were it not for some cheeseball nonsense. Don't let that destroy the movie for you. It's great despite this but you may just end up with mixed emotions like me.
...I shutter to say this but...this might be a movie that could actually stand to be remade...if done correctly (which it wouldn't be)...but it's still hard not to imagine The Duke in the role...
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
"Behold! She is singing to bring..."
As a kid, I loved monsters. In fact, I watched a lot of horror movies as a result of my obsession with monsters...and I still do. I remember running across the most hideous monster that I'd ever seen in a random book in the library. It was The Phantom of the Opera and it was brought to life by an actor named Lon Chaney.
I was instantly intriguiged by this hideous creature's face and so I read a little into it. It turns out, Lon Chaney was a big star of the silent era. He was born to deaf parents and he became a master of theatre makeup. Due to his skills, creativity and his need to use body language and other forms of communication with his parents, he was basically born to be a great actor. I immediately begged my parents to find the movie for me. They reluctantly bought a VHS copy for me for my sixth birthday (thinking I was going to hate it and waste their money) and my life officially set sail.
The copy I had was black and white, grainy as hell and completely silent. You would think that I (or any six year old) would have tuned out immediately. You couldn't be more wrong. It was hard to see what was going on at times and with NO sound (there was no music either,) it made it even harder and there were even a couple of slow, romantic parts (as a kid mind you, the pacing is fine if you're an adult) but that book was spot on about Chaney!
It starts with a man wandering around in the catacombs of the Paris Opera House (which I admittedly assumed was immediately The Phantom.) Cut to ballet. I was suddenly concerned, I thought maybe this was going to be a lot singing and dancing that I could barely see and couldn't hear but my concerns were unwarranted. All of this was just creating atmosphere which I didn't understand at the time. The movie picked up almost immediately. After the ballet scene, it passed to some men who were buying/selling the opera house to each other and one of the old owners brought up a ghost. The fun began. I wore that tape out.
Many moons later, I bought the masterpiece DVD edition (it was about $25 at the time and worth every penny) and finally saw the film with colored tinting and a soundtrack (in fact, there were several, including one with snippets of dialogue.) I hadn't seen it in a while but remembered it quite well, at least that's what I thought. I was wrong. The film was a masterpiece! I always thought it was a good movie but it wasn't until I saw it in all of its glory (with an awesome Technicolor section) as an adult that I realized just how good it was.
The movie suffers from some dated acting by a couple of the old stars and there's a few editing issues but keep in mind, this movie was made in 1925! Actors were known for stage acting, not film acting, which means they wore more make-up, used more unnecessary gestures and exaggerated more to get the point across. Hollywood had not quite discovered the concept of subtlety in film...but Chaney did. There's a few moments where that subtlety comes shining through. Often he would lift his eyebrows slightly or smirk a little, as if he understood the point of a close-up.
The story is a classic Beauty and the Beast tale which you have no doubt heard before in some form and aside from a few minor aforementioned hang ups, this film holds up extremely well for being nearly 100 years old. Despite the film going through all kinds of behind the scenes nonsense, it was so well done that I fell in love with it again. Ultimately though, this is Lon Chaney's movie.
Lon Chaney easily steals the show (and rightfully so.) His isolated character is villainous, sympathetic and monstrous. His portrayal and creation (he did all his makeup himself) of the title character is nothing short of masterful. To this day, the revelation of his deformity is still shocking. It's not likely to scare you but it's shocking to see what great lengths the man went through to bring the character to life and it's still fairly hideous. His make-up for the title character remains the closest to the description of the character from the original source material.
The climax of the film is actually more exciting than you would ever think from a 100 year old film. Again, there's a couple colored sequences, a great climax in the House (which is pretty impressive by the way,) an unmasking scene that made people faint back in the day and is still sure to impress you even to this day. Then, there's a climactic choice to be made and a great chase at the end of the film. That's more extravagant and action packed (this all happens in the second half of a 75 minute film) than pretty much any other film of its day.
If you don't like really old (looking) movies or foreign films (the kind with subtitles,) then you are likely to get a little bored or lose your patience with the film but I assure you that if you hang with it, you won't regret it. It's just over an hour of your life and it's really good. If you love silent films and you missed this classic somehow (do you live on Mars?,) then watch it as soon as possible. It easily makes any top 10 list of silent films and along with Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, it is one of the best, if not the best silent horror film of all time. Lon Chaney alone is worth your time and/or your money. Watch it!
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
"Nothing is scarier than the neighbors." - George A. Romero
Right off the bat, I am going to tell you that Night of the Living Dead is a "B movie" which gained fame and infamy from being released through grindhouse cinemas in Pittsburgh. It was an ambitious effort project from new film maker, George A. Romero. The film had virtually no budget. The investors of the film are actually the extras and the main actors are all friends of Romero's. It's that low budget. There's also a few editing issues but keep in mind how old and cheap this movie is. It wasn't supposed to be Citizen Kane.
All that said...
This movie is a masterpiece! There's a reason it is still talked about today and has spawned sequels, ripoffs, spinoffs, reboots, TV series, video games and an entire mythology revolving around the undead (which the United States military has reportedly developed a plan for.)
The quality of the film is part of its charm. The film is in black and white, is highly contrast (in more ways than one) and visually gritty. Romero used these low budget downfalls to his advantage, adding to the intensity and disturbing nature of the film. He also capitalized on the trend of movie violence and sensationalism at the time. It makes the movie creepy to this day.
The acting is mostly good. There's some over acting and a few bits of mediocre dialogue but again, this wasn't supposed to be a good movie. It was supposed to be trash! It failed in being the garbage film to scare up a few bucks for the "real movie's" funding...because it was incredibly successful. In fact, it was one of the (if not the) most successful films until The Blair Witch Project came along 30 years later. By the way, that's "Chilly Willy" Cardilly as the news anchor interviewing the local sheriff. Cardilly was a regional "late night thriller movie" TV personality.
The three things that sell this film are the cinematography, the message and the story. The story revolves around a group of people who seek refuge in a farm house from the dead who are coming back to life and attacking the living. No spoilers here, it gets to the point quickly. It succeeds in giving off a feeling of isolation and impending doom. The true intensity of the film doesn't come from the struggle to ward off the dead but from the power struggle that occurs within the house. The film succeeds in rising tension and keeping you riveted to the screen despite, again, being a throw away film. The interactions between characters may not be the best acted but you can relate to the characters and feel for them, seeing all viewpoints. It will genuinely hook you.
The message of the film is simply just human nature. What will you do when death approaches you and everyone you know? Will you eat each other, step up and be a hero or shrink into a corner and cry? This film also makes a statement about humanity in the 1960's and in the end, it will make you feel uncomfortable...which is the point.
The last great thing about this movie is the cinematography. Romero used Dutch camera angles and harsh lighting to create a creepy nightmarish visual that will probably make you uneasy today in the era of desensitization. All of these amazing aspects of this film make for a "crappy" movie that is exciting, grotesque, thought provoking and at the bare minimum entertaining.
I watched this movie when I was home alone and in the dark on Halloween night at the age of 9 and yes, it scared me to death! It changed my world for various reasons. I bought it the next day, watched repeatedly and cut my childhood short in favor of watching more adult films. It may no longer scare you but you won't be able to look away. Night of the Living Dead is an accidental masterpiece of horror cinema. Watch it in the dark and remember...
"They're coming to get you Barbara."
Game of Thrones: The Bells (2019)
It tolls for thee...
I am only going to focus this review on a single episode of Game of Thrones. The episode is called The Bells (Poe-esque, isn't it?) and it's episode 5 of season 8. Admittedly, I am a huge film buff but when it comes to television, I am at best, a novice. I can give Gone with the Wind four hours of my life but it's hard for me to give most things 70 hours. I have never seen a full episode of Band of Brothers, Breaking Bad or countless others. That said, I can safely say that this episode of this show is the best television that I, personally, have ever seen.
People hate the 8th season of this show and I was constantly defending it because of this episode (more than any other.) This episode is my favorite for lots of reasons. It has the best betrayal, the highest body count (among major, minor and extra characters,) it has the biggest and best plot twist of the series, debatebly the best fight and the most romantic scene that I have ever seen on television.
Although most will say any mention of betrayal that doesn't mention Littlefinger is wrong, I disagree. Varys' betrayal of Dany was a long time coming but Tyrion's betrayal of Varys was one I didn't see coming. No one trusted Littlefinger. Varys and Tyrion trusted each other. The man essentially killed his best friend, hoping it was the right thing to do. He admits it too which makes it even more brutal...that's how the episode starts.
There have always been horrific moments in the series but this was basically a horror film. Perhaps that's the main reason I love this episode so much is because at the end of the day, I'm a horror fan. There's nothing worse to me than watching a horror flick and seeing EVERYTHING coming. That didn't happen here. Some of the horrors depicted in The Bells were true to life and and some weren't but all were great in context. As with any horror film, death toll matters. There are 6 or 7 major to minor characters who don't make it out alive. At this point in the series, that's a lot and it's probably the record for a single episode.
After the "fighting" starts, the horror truly begins. Watching a character transform before your eyes like Jekyll to Hyde is pretty powerful. A beloved hero falls from grace by losing all of her friends and the people who loved her. If you didn't have Dany pegged as a villain, then you weren't paying attention. My only question was would she remain a villain (a beautiful, likeable and in her own way, just villain) or become a monster? As I watched her face turn, I braced myself.
What happened next was less fantasy and more how I would imagine Hiroshima felt. Watching children disintegrate in their mother's arms was the fantasy equivalent of seeing an eight year old screaming naked down the street burning from napalm fire or watching any number of real life horrors. It was incredibly powerful and about as brutal as any fiction that I have ever seen on television.
A lot of people thought the massacre should have been more of a fight. First off, that would have made episode 3 (the true fight) way more anti-climatic and secondly, it wouldn't have made sense. They played up that Dany's army was depleted to make you think there would be a fight. However, Tyrion said multiple times that everyone was going to die. He knew it, Bronn knew it and Jamie knew it but didn't want to admit it. The most ruthless cavalry (think Mongols,) well trained infantry (think Spartans) and a dragon capable of melting metal versus who? The Golden Company, The Kingsguard, The Iron Fleet and a bunch of slow moving ballistics? Yeah, no. It needed to be anti-climatic and it was rightfully, a one-sided bloodbath.
Hearing unarmed soldiers scream as they get hacked to bits was visually stunning and brutal all at once but then there's Cleganebowl which is why I started watching this show to begin with. Although I saw most of it coming (horror fan,) it lived up to my expectation. I liked Brienne vs The Hound and The Red Viper vs The Mountain and The Mountain (my favorite villain) vs The Hound (my favorite "hero") built up as I expected, Sandor being the better swordsman and ended as expected, Sandor being eye-gouged and having to tough it out to achieve his revenge. Kicked off by Sandor quickly dispatching the kingsguard Inigo Montoya-style, and The Monster killing Dr. Frankenstein by bashing his head, this fight was everything I was hoping for.
So how do you top being ground zero during nuclear fallout, epic fights and brutal betrayals? With the most romantic scene (weird as they are brother and sister but whatever) that I have ever seen in TV. Jamie (who, along with his brother) could have easily been the hero of the day but was disregarded by The Mad Queen. And so it goes...
Jamie tried to save the day but his attempt fell on deaf ears. He confirms his escape route and fights his way home (killing Euron along the way, who leaves as he showed up, thinking he was awesome.) Sorry Brienne but a strong attraction and a few nights of sex doesn't get in the way of true love.
Jamie is literally dying when he finds Cersie. I wondered if she would lash out at him (she did ask Bronn to kill him afterall.) Instead, what happened next was simply amazing. A woman who I loved to hate made me feel sorry for her. She embraces him and is as concerned for him as he is for her. They try to make their escape but their way out is gone and then she says, "Please don't let me die Jamie." I had seen her become vulnerable and scared but this was a new level. They both know it's over, so they embrace and die together. Sorry again, Brienne, but you can't compete with that!
I believe that anybody who didn't like this episode was upset because Dany was a monster. She always was but she was always kept in check by her advisors (if people have to beg you to be a good person, you're not a good person.) You can't cure Alexander DeLarge, you can't stop The Bride from killing Bill, you can't hope to defeat Carrie at the prom and you just can't beat Heathcliff on the moors. BEST EPISODE EVER!
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
A bit of the old...ultraviolence...
"Oh? And what's so stinking about it?"
Well, according to my fellow reviewers, it glorifies violence (especially towards women,) it's too weird, the language is too hard to understand, it doesn't stick close enough to the book, it's misogynistic, it's too long and boring, the main character is unlikable and it's just stupid!
Is it?
This happens to be my favorite film ever and I have seen a lot of movies. I was twelve when I first watched A Clockwork Orange. I heard it was violent and there were boobs and (being a psychotic, hormonal pre-teen) I instantly wanted to watch it. The film blew my mind!
This film depicts "graphic horrors" but are they any worse than the horrors depicted in Schindler's List? Is it ok when a serious film (based on a true story) shows deplorable violence but not when a weird artsy film does it?
Is it really too weird for your taste? It's significantly less weird than Donnie Darko (which many people enjoy.) The language isn't any harder to understand than Shakespeare. As with Shakespeare, you should be able to figure it out in context. If you can't, read a book!
Speaking of the book, the book is centered around (much) younger people and much younger victims. It would be fairly impossible to depict the book in a screen format without somebody going to jail. The only reason people EVER bring up the book is because the ending is different (and they hate that.) Sorry that the book ends on a happier note but not every film needs to have a Hollywood ending. Hopefully you're open minded enough to agree to that statement.
If the film was truly misogynistic, it would depict women in a much more negative sense. Just because the women in the film are naked a lot and bad things happen to them, that doesn't instantly make it misogynistic. If it was actually misogynistic, the women would be depicted as dumb. They're not.
If you can't handle watching a movie for less than two and a half hours, steer clear of Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind, The Godfather and don't even try to watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's not that long and it's not boring if you actually try to pay attention to it. Sorry it's not Transformers 3.
The main character is meant to be a monster. A lot of characters are. You know, like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. If you can't find that Alex's zest for life isn't fun or at least entertaining enough to drive the film then don't bother watching (again) Lawrence of Arabia or (again) The Godfather. The main characters in those films are essentially villains as well. Don't bother with Bonnie and Clyde either.
If you find this movie stupid...I feel sorry for you. This film is actually insanely smart, even to the point where it's a high camp, overly melodramatic (and purposefully so) black comedy (which most people don't seem to understand.) If you find this film stupid, perhaps it is you that is...
So, why is it my favorite film? Imagine my surprise when I watched something that changed my life when all I wanted was blood and nudity. That's how powerful this film is. It took a crazy, weirdo (me) and changed my mindset. I am still a crazy weirdo but I learned to control myself and channel my negative thoughts into positive actions because of this movie.
The plot is basic but becomes complex. A terrible kid named Alex (McDowell) goes out with his friends nightly and strikes terror in people's hearts by committing crimes against society. What happens next will throw you for a loop!
The cinematography is nothing short of masterful. It's the equivalent of watching The Mona Lisa move. The acting is superbly over the top (which is part of the fun.) The message is STRONG and is more "happy" than you may initially think. There's a reason an X-Rated film that people hate on and find so controversial was nominated for Oscars and is still on AFI's and IMDB's Top 100 list.
Don't listen to the naysayers! Bring your attention, your open mind and a strong stomach. It's violent, long and weird but it's not much worse than many other films you've no doubt seen. It may just change your life or at the very least, get your Id out!
Saw (2004)
Se7en meets Cube
I don't care much for this film. My main reason for not liking this film is because almost the entire movie ripped off two movies that I do like. Those films are called Se7en and Cube. Both of these films were released within a ten year span of Saw and both were good. Cube's acting and effects aren't great but the concept makes up for it. Se7en is a gritty, suspenseful masterpiece. Saw is a pretty blatant rip off of both. I understand that most films are rip offs of other films but again, these both came out within a ten year range of Saw. That's a little much. Try ripping off something older next time and try not to be quite so blatant about it. I mean, watching Danny Glover rush to save the day was almost a frame for frame replication of Freeman chasing down Pitt and John Doe.
The film is graphically violent and the plot is pretty basic. Two guys wake up in a room and have to figure out why they're there and how to escape. There's torture devices, red herrings, plot twists, good guys, bad guys, etc. It ends pretty well, although half of it's very predictable, the other half is pretty smart.
Had I not already seen all the film's that this movie stole from, I would likely reward it with an additional star or two but that wasn't the case. So, you may like it more than me. If you have seen those films, you'll quickly realize what I am talking about. This is not the most gruesome or brutal film that I have ever seen but I also own Traces of Death on DVD...so, gore doesn't exactly disturb me. That, said, if you're squeamish, it might disturb you.
There's one more reason that I don't like this film...the sequels...knock it off!!! The villain's been dead forever! Think of something original for a change!
It Follows (2014)
The worst kind of STD...
The plot is simple yet interesting. Someone has sex with someone else and an STD monster stalks them. It walks like a Romero-esque zombie but no matter how far you travel, it keeps coming for you. If it touches you, you're dead. If it kills you, it goes after whoever passed the curse to you. I don't feel like this is a spoiler because they basically explain it in the first twenty minutes of the film.
I had heard it was good and although it had its flaws, it was pretty cool. Yeah, the parents seem to be absent (so were mine) and yes, the rules are bent slightly here and there but I mean, were you expecting The Godfather? It's a stupid horror film. If you can believe in an STD monster, your suspension of disbelief should probably allow your brain to fill in the blanks and get passed the glitches of the film. In short, get over it. It's entertaining and it's more thought out than anything Michael Bay has pumped out...ever.
I think this is one of the better horror films of the decade (not the best,) considering it's up against the 15th Saw flick (only the 10th since the villain died,) Paranormal Conjuring Nuns that Purge and all its spin offs and various other PG-13 "scary movies" as well as a countless barrage of remakes and sequels. At least this film is different and had some balls (it's rated R.) Not great, but worth watching. I still say The Babadook and Get Out are better (along with a few more) but this was better than most recent schlock. Give it a shot.
The Babadook (2014)
The people who didn't like it were too stupid to get it...
People are generally pretty dumb. When the average person watches a movie, they want to laugh, see explosions, be scared or feel closer to their loved ones. This is a movie for the High Tension, Se7en, A Clockwork Orange, Anti-Christ, Taxi Driver, Requiem for a Dream, Blue Velvet and The Silence of the Lambs crowd. One of its biggest problems is that people think it's a horror movie, it's not. It's a psychological thriller. People see the boogie man and think that's all that it is...it isn't. Although, I do dig the Man in the Beaver Hat.
The synopsis is pretty basic, a single (widowed) woman has a bratty kid that she can't deal with. One night, she reads him a bedtime story that begins to haunt them. They have to deal with it. The End.
Anybody who gave a negative review of this movie, saw that film which I just described but this is not Saw or Friday the 13th. This movie is way more thought out than that. Most people simply don't want to think that hard...but I do, which is why I am writing this review.
If you were hoping for a scary movie with jump scares and gore, there are literally thousands of them. Although this movie has a little of that, this isn't one of them. For the record, I love a lot of those movies too but I also like movies that are smart. This movie is smart. If you don't get it, you're either too dumb or you lacked the attention span to care. I have talked to several people who didn't like this movie and they all thought (as did many reviewers) that it was some "boogie man" flick and they all seemed to tune out at the halfway point. That's when you really need to pay attention to this movie. If you watched the whole thing and paid attention to it and you still didn't get it, well, I am sorry but you're an idiot. I mean, they kind of spell it out for you, you were just too dead set on the Michael Meyers in the shadows to realize it.
I believe in being honest with people and I stand by my statement, regardless of the backlashes or negativity my comments might create. I grow tired of catering to morons. If you haven't felt offended yet, then, this movie may just be for you. Honestly, it was harder to watch the second time around for me because I knew what the outcome was going to be.
I don't want to spoil the movie but if you watch it, remember to think for yourself and pay attention when the book shows up on the doorstep. Just remember...
"Whether in a word or in a look, you can't get rid of The Babadook..."