The Thing...1982...109 minutes...rated R...starring Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David, and Richard Dysart...written by Bill Lancaster...directed by John Carpenter
Apparently, Norwegians hate dogs! Or so a team of Americans stationed in the Antarctic wilds would believe, when a helicopter from a "neighboring" station shows up with people using guns and grenades to try and obliterate an innocent-looking husky. Of course, these guys are crazy, aren't they? What could have possibly caused such a rampage? Such is the mystery that we as viewers are led into within the first few minutes of this John Carpenter remake of the 1951 movie "The Thing From Another World".
If you're expecting a calm, possibly staid movie remake...perhaps something reminiscent of the new "The Day The Earth Stood Still"...this is not the movie for you. If instead you are looking for something with gory, pre-CGI creature effects, plenty of action, and lots of paranoia-induced tension "The Thing" may be something for you. Since it's a Carpenter creation, the soundtrack is one that will hit the mood well. (especially as done by Ennio Morricone)
There are some things that may or may not suit you; Kurt Russell is the lead, which is no surprise for Carpernter fans but which may not be a turn-on for everyone. Also, you get to see Mr. Diabetes himself, Wilford Brimley, emote a lot as he tries to look either concerned, grim, or just driven over the edge. It's not exactly what I would call a pretty sight. I watched this movie on cable not long after it had it come out, on vacation no less, and as a teen I thought this was one of the grossest things I had ever seen. (The effects are just over the top, which I found...and still find...a selling point.) Perhaps a modern audience would be a bit more jaded, but I will say that even now this is not a movie for the faint-hearted. And like any Carpenter piece, you'll either find this brilliant, unfinished and perhaps underpolished, or both.
As a Carpenter fan, I give it 3 torn pair of long johns out of 5.
Monday, February 28, 2011
An American Haunting
An American Haunting...2005...83 minutes...unrated...starring Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek, James D'Arcy, and Rachel Hurd-Wood...written and directed by Courtney Solomon, based off the novel by Brent Monahan.
Set in Red River, TN, the movie has a story-within-a-story framework, where a modern young girl is having horrible nightmares, and has managed to recover an old doll as well as some family letters from the attic. Her mother starts reading the letters and is led into the main tale of her ancestors: the Bell family. They have found themselves afflicted with an evil spirit after another townsperson...reputed to be a witch...curses the family for being financially wronged. The spirit focuses on the daughter of John Bell, Betsy, and the tale follows the family and others drawn in to help protect the teenage girl from the wrathful entity.
I'll get to the gist of what bothers me with this movie; and it has nothing to do with acting, cinematography, or any of the other technical aspects of the film as a film. I'll also try to be brief, but it bears some explaining. I'm not a native Tennessean; having moved down to Knoxville from western NY thirty years ago this summer. Still, having been brought up in this area as it were, I'd like to think some of the area's culture has rubbed off on me. And while most of the nation would simply consider the people in the movie fictional characters, it's based off of accounts written by the Bell family...who still have descendants in this state.
I went to school with a young woman who was part of the Bell family. I don't know how directly she was related to these particular peoples, nor were we close...just schoolmates and classmates, which is its own curious relationship. The point, however, is that the story isn't about a "faceless" family, if you can follow my gist. The ending of the movie makes an interesting allegation...I can't say with any authority if it's true or not, and honestly it doesn't make a difference in my mind. If it is, then to my mind the movie is spreading a family's dirty laundry out to the world as entertainment...and while no one has ever accused of Hollywood of having good taste (or accused me of the same, either...with reason.) I find this horribly tacky. If the story isn't true, then the director is damaging reputations, spreading vicious gossip, and acting ...again... inappropriately, in my opinion.
[Also, for something that's supposed to be a retelling of the legend, there's a lot that's just left out. Andrew Jackson's run-in with the Bell Witch, for example...gone.]
So, as spoiler-free as possible (which I also find tacky, but in this case less so than what I just discussed), I give this movie 1.5 old moppets out of 5; for sheer bad taste.
Set in Red River, TN, the movie has a story-within-a-story framework, where a modern young girl is having horrible nightmares, and has managed to recover an old doll as well as some family letters from the attic. Her mother starts reading the letters and is led into the main tale of her ancestors: the Bell family. They have found themselves afflicted with an evil spirit after another townsperson...reputed to be a witch...curses the family for being financially wronged. The spirit focuses on the daughter of John Bell, Betsy, and the tale follows the family and others drawn in to help protect the teenage girl from the wrathful entity.
I'll get to the gist of what bothers me with this movie; and it has nothing to do with acting, cinematography, or any of the other technical aspects of the film as a film. I'll also try to be brief, but it bears some explaining. I'm not a native Tennessean; having moved down to Knoxville from western NY thirty years ago this summer. Still, having been brought up in this area as it were, I'd like to think some of the area's culture has rubbed off on me. And while most of the nation would simply consider the people in the movie fictional characters, it's based off of accounts written by the Bell family...who still have descendants in this state.
I went to school with a young woman who was part of the Bell family. I don't know how directly she was related to these particular peoples, nor were we close...just schoolmates and classmates, which is its own curious relationship. The point, however, is that the story isn't about a "faceless" family, if you can follow my gist. The ending of the movie makes an interesting allegation...I can't say with any authority if it's true or not, and honestly it doesn't make a difference in my mind. If it is, then to my mind the movie is spreading a family's dirty laundry out to the world as entertainment...and while no one has ever accused of Hollywood of having good taste (or accused me of the same, either...with reason.) I find this horribly tacky. If the story isn't true, then the director is damaging reputations, spreading vicious gossip, and acting ...again... inappropriately, in my opinion.
[Also, for something that's supposed to be a retelling of the legend, there's a lot that's just left out. Andrew Jackson's run-in with the Bell Witch, for example...gone.]
So, as spoiler-free as possible (which I also find tacky, but in this case less so than what I just discussed), I give this movie 1.5 old moppets out of 5; for sheer bad taste.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Are You Scared 2
AreYou Scared 2...2009...95(ish) minutes...R...starring Tristan Wright, Chad Guerrero, Kathy Gardiner, Andrea Monier and Tony Todd...written and directed by Russell Appling and John Lands
Two guys and their female companions are a web-cache tracking team, where they track down hidden stockpiles of stuff others have hid and posted on the web. They log their exploits on the Internet as Team DNA and are on their way to being the world record holders of this variant of hide-and-seek. Needless to say, their last hunt turns into a BIT more than they bargained for.
How do I describe this movie? When I saw the title, and wondered to myself that the original title would inspire a sequel, my initial answer was "Yes.I'm scared. Scared anyone would make a franchise out of such manure". But in my wildest dreams, I could never have imagined the depths of inadequacy that this straight-to-video release would take me to.
I have found the Eleusinian Mysteries of the bad horror movie, and allow me to explain this statement. I can tell you (and I do...yeah, verily, I surely do) that this movie is bad. I can say that this is positively one of the worst pieces of crap I have wasted an hour and a half of my life on. But saying these things cannot convey to you the sheer experience of this tripe...only by watching it (and please, please don't) can you truly KNOW how bad the genre can sink to. My only question is: Why, Tony Todd, why? Did you really need the small amount of money that these people could get you -that- badly?
If you're curious, this story has nothing to do with the original. They left the original open for more, but that wouldn't have been bad enough. I'm not even sure I can point to any one thing that makes this thing so terrible; it's the perfect storm of terrible vectors that create a tsunami of tragic filmmaking. I could make better. I think I did when I was 8 or so making short movies with my action figures.
Now let me explain my rating. I give it 1/2 of a briefcase out of 5...only because deep in my soul I have the terrible knowledge that if I give this thing the zero that it truly deserves, I will somehow stumble onto something worse. I'm not sure that's possible, but by acknowledging the slimmest of possibilities, I hope to stave off a fate worse than having a 100 Cthulhu Mythos score. If you'll excuse me, I need to gargle with some Lovecraft.
Blech, uck, and barf!
Two guys and their female companions are a web-cache tracking team, where they track down hidden stockpiles of stuff others have hid and posted on the web. They log their exploits on the Internet as Team DNA and are on their way to being the world record holders of this variant of hide-and-seek. Needless to say, their last hunt turns into a BIT more than they bargained for.
How do I describe this movie? When I saw the title, and wondered to myself that the original title would inspire a sequel, my initial answer was "Yes.I'm scared. Scared anyone would make a franchise out of such manure". But in my wildest dreams, I could never have imagined the depths of inadequacy that this straight-to-video release would take me to.
I have found the Eleusinian Mysteries of the bad horror movie, and allow me to explain this statement. I can tell you (and I do...yeah, verily, I surely do) that this movie is bad. I can say that this is positively one of the worst pieces of crap I have wasted an hour and a half of my life on. But saying these things cannot convey to you the sheer experience of this tripe...only by watching it (and please, please don't) can you truly KNOW how bad the genre can sink to. My only question is: Why, Tony Todd, why? Did you really need the small amount of money that these people could get you -that- badly?
If you're curious, this story has nothing to do with the original. They left the original open for more, but that wouldn't have been bad enough. I'm not even sure I can point to any one thing that makes this thing so terrible; it's the perfect storm of terrible vectors that create a tsunami of tragic filmmaking. I could make better. I think I did when I was 8 or so making short movies with my action figures.
Now let me explain my rating. I give it 1/2 of a briefcase out of 5...only because deep in my soul I have the terrible knowledge that if I give this thing the zero that it truly deserves, I will somehow stumble onto something worse. I'm not sure that's possible, but by acknowledging the slimmest of possibilities, I hope to stave off a fate worse than having a 100 Cthulhu Mythos score. If you'll excuse me, I need to gargle with some Lovecraft.
Blech, uck, and barf!
Friday, February 18, 2011
My Bloody Valentine
My Bloody Valentine...1981...90 minutes...rated R...starring Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier, Neil Affleck, and Keith Knight...written by Stephen A. Miller and John Beaird...directed by George Mihalka
Valentine Bluffs, up in Nova Scotia, has a bit of a history. Twenty years ago, there was a Valentine's Day party going on while 7 men were still down in the mines that are the town industry. 2 of them were supervisors, both eager to get to the party. Forgetting to check the methane levels, the supervisors left...and an explosion sealed the other men in. Only one survived: Harry Warden. Harry was never quite the same again, and went on a murder spree the next year, serving up the hearts of the two supervisors and vowing to kill again if anyone ever celebrated Valentine's Day again. Of course, there couldn't be any danger in holding a party 20 years after that horrible day, could there?
Here's a hacker film from the golden age of slashers, and while it has all the horrible cliches and pitfalls of a film made in this period, there are some moments of gold both in sheer grisliness and in humor that make this one worth a rewatching. That's not me saying that the movie is -good-, per se... but it's enjoyable if you know what you're getting into. Admittedly, there's something fetishy-freaky about a killer who runs around in a gas mask, and the opening murder sequence (beautiful girl about to make time with a guy who doesn't want to take his mask off deep in the mines) sets the tone of the hour and half to follow.
Without spoiling the movie too much more for the five people who may have missed this the first time around, the movie's lead is one of the few people outside of Fred from the Scooby-Doo cartoons who is working the whole scarf/ascot/whattheheckever look. There's a few false scares, a few wonderful monologues by crazy town elders, a system of mental health care that is positively criminal in its record-keeping, and lots of gore that was shocking in its day but nothing that would make a modern "Saw" audience flinch...too much.Let's not forget a minecar fight sequence that has to be seen to be believed. *dry sarcasm* With luck, I'll get to see the 2009 version and compare the differences.
Personally, the threat of a serial killer spree would be enough for me to completely cancel Valentine's Day...but then I was never a big fan. 2.5 pickaxes out of 5.
Valentine Bluffs, up in Nova Scotia, has a bit of a history. Twenty years ago, there was a Valentine's Day party going on while 7 men were still down in the mines that are the town industry. 2 of them were supervisors, both eager to get to the party. Forgetting to check the methane levels, the supervisors left...and an explosion sealed the other men in. Only one survived: Harry Warden. Harry was never quite the same again, and went on a murder spree the next year, serving up the hearts of the two supervisors and vowing to kill again if anyone ever celebrated Valentine's Day again. Of course, there couldn't be any danger in holding a party 20 years after that horrible day, could there?
Here's a hacker film from the golden age of slashers, and while it has all the horrible cliches and pitfalls of a film made in this period, there are some moments of gold both in sheer grisliness and in humor that make this one worth a rewatching. That's not me saying that the movie is -good-, per se... but it's enjoyable if you know what you're getting into. Admittedly, there's something fetishy-freaky about a killer who runs around in a gas mask, and the opening murder sequence (beautiful girl about to make time with a guy who doesn't want to take his mask off deep in the mines) sets the tone of the hour and half to follow.
Without spoiling the movie too much more for the five people who may have missed this the first time around, the movie's lead is one of the few people outside of Fred from the Scooby-Doo cartoons who is working the whole scarf/ascot/whattheheckever look. There's a few false scares, a few wonderful monologues by crazy town elders, a system of mental health care that is positively criminal in its record-keeping, and lots of gore that was shocking in its day but nothing that would make a modern "Saw" audience flinch...too much.Let's not forget a minecar fight sequence that has to be seen to be believed. *dry sarcasm* With luck, I'll get to see the 2009 version and compare the differences.
Personally, the threat of a serial killer spree would be enough for me to completely cancel Valentine's Day...but then I was never a big fan. 2.5 pickaxes out of 5.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Wolfman (2010)
The Wolfman...2010...103 minutes...rated R...starring Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving...written by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self...directed by Joe Johnston
Lawrence Talbot, famous stage actor, returns to his ancestral home of Talbot Hall upon hearing the tragic news of his brother's demise. At the urging of his brother's widow, he hunts for the beast or madman that killed his sibling, only to be injured by the beast personally. The wounding passes on the curse of the Wolfman, and now Lawrence Talbot finds the beast within himself as well as out in the wilds of Blackmoor and the city streets of London.
I'll admit that I was excited when I'd heard that they had redone this movie...every once in a while I do think that the classics need to be retold, with hopefully a bit of new life breathed into the story. when I saw the cast and crew invoilved with this release, I was even more hopeful. Now that I've seen it, I understand why the film didn't have as long of a run as I would have wanted for it to.
Let's talk about the pros first. I will say that cinematically, this is a beautiful movie. As a period piece, it's got a wonderful look to it, and of course, the CGI effects on the transformation are all that could be asked for. There's a scene where Lawrence is hunting the creature in the misty moors and finds himself inside a ring of standing stones that I found simply gorgeous. Another plus is indeed the cast that got brought into the movie; though this cast marks where the film starts taking its fatal flaw.
For a movie with such people like Del Toro and Hopkins, I just expected to -care- more about Lawrence Talbot, and the movie itself. Instead I found myself bored and distracted at times. Part of it is in the dialogue; I think that Hopkins (as the elder Talbot) gets most of the best written lines in the script. Part of it is that some of thee writing which could have been interesting never gets followed through. Hugo weaving's character is a Scotland Yard inspector who worked on the Ripper case; so much more could have been done with that, but after saying it, that thread just gets left.
Most of it, though, rests on Del Toro. Unlike the Larry Talbot of before, the only emotion I got out of this "renowned thespian" (character and actor) is exhaustion. He's as wooden and dry as I've ever seen an actor, and while the character of Talbot is certainly one that is haunted, especially when it comes to his family, where is the passion that made this man such a known performer? Why should we care about this guy, in short? It's a question the movie fails to answer, and sadly not the only one either. The main action in the film comes from the very violent werewolf attacks, which are made all the more striking due to the lack of energy from Talbot as a man, but the savagery really doesn't make you feel any more concerned for the guy's fate either.
I would recommend this movie as either a discount movie or as a cable selection, but I can't endorse any serious money being spent on this one. It's nice to look at, but doesn't really leave you with anything, except maybe a senseof disappointment as it did me. I give it 2.5 icy asylum dips out of 5.
Lawrence Talbot, famous stage actor, returns to his ancestral home of Talbot Hall upon hearing the tragic news of his brother's demise. At the urging of his brother's widow, he hunts for the beast or madman that killed his sibling, only to be injured by the beast personally. The wounding passes on the curse of the Wolfman, and now Lawrence Talbot finds the beast within himself as well as out in the wilds of Blackmoor and the city streets of London.
I'll admit that I was excited when I'd heard that they had redone this movie...every once in a while I do think that the classics need to be retold, with hopefully a bit of new life breathed into the story. when I saw the cast and crew invoilved with this release, I was even more hopeful. Now that I've seen it, I understand why the film didn't have as long of a run as I would have wanted for it to.
Let's talk about the pros first. I will say that cinematically, this is a beautiful movie. As a period piece, it's got a wonderful look to it, and of course, the CGI effects on the transformation are all that could be asked for. There's a scene where Lawrence is hunting the creature in the misty moors and finds himself inside a ring of standing stones that I found simply gorgeous. Another plus is indeed the cast that got brought into the movie; though this cast marks where the film starts taking its fatal flaw.
For a movie with such people like Del Toro and Hopkins, I just expected to -care- more about Lawrence Talbot, and the movie itself. Instead I found myself bored and distracted at times. Part of it is in the dialogue; I think that Hopkins (as the elder Talbot) gets most of the best written lines in the script. Part of it is that some of thee writing which could have been interesting never gets followed through. Hugo weaving's character is a Scotland Yard inspector who worked on the Ripper case; so much more could have been done with that, but after saying it, that thread just gets left.
Most of it, though, rests on Del Toro. Unlike the Larry Talbot of before, the only emotion I got out of this "renowned thespian" (character and actor) is exhaustion. He's as wooden and dry as I've ever seen an actor, and while the character of Talbot is certainly one that is haunted, especially when it comes to his family, where is the passion that made this man such a known performer? Why should we care about this guy, in short? It's a question the movie fails to answer, and sadly not the only one either. The main action in the film comes from the very violent werewolf attacks, which are made all the more striking due to the lack of energy from Talbot as a man, but the savagery really doesn't make you feel any more concerned for the guy's fate either.
I would recommend this movie as either a discount movie or as a cable selection, but I can't endorse any serious money being spent on this one. It's nice to look at, but doesn't really leave you with anything, except maybe a senseof disappointment as it did me. I give it 2.5 icy asylum dips out of 5.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Are You Scared?
Are You Scared?....2006...79 minutes...rated R...starring Alethea Kutscher, Erin Consalvi, Brad Ashten, and Carlee Avers...written and directed by Andy Hurst.
Six young adults wake up in an abandoned factory/warehouse and find themselves contestants in a reality show entitled "Are You Scared?" The show is far too real, and apparently the idea of privacy wavers, liability forms, and safety for the contestants has gone right out the window. These things apparently don't matter when the man behind the game is a twisted psychopath...go figure.
This was a straight-to-video release that I found on FearNet, and the obvious note here is that this flick is obviously a low-rent Saw. Two police detectives are running around trying to track down the crazy man...and so far I've seen no revelation as to why the pyscho is indeed a psycho.(I'm writing as I watch.) The contestants are supposed to be facing their deepest fears, but unlike the Saw franchise I don't think there's any hope of redemption or even survival for the poor saps who got mysteriously abducted. Also, in Saw, the killer was indeed fiendishly clever...I don't think this guy quite measures up.
On a side note, I must be getting older: I'm watching one particular scene that isn't scaring me as much as making me go "ewwwww" and wondering if it was really necessary. I never used to worry about excess gore in my scary movies. Of course, applying the word "scary" to this piece of schlock would be highly inappropriate. Who would have thought I would have considered things like writing quality, tone, etc?
Second side note: as much as I say that a movie (like this one) doesn't even rate being called tripe, I would so act in one of these movies. I wouldn't even need pay, although I'd prefer some sort of recompense. Matching my currrent pay would do for me...and would surely be below scale.
Ah, the twist has arrived. *yawn* Am I scared? Not even vaguely.
I give this movie 1 drill-on-a-track out of 5.
Six young adults wake up in an abandoned factory/warehouse and find themselves contestants in a reality show entitled "Are You Scared?" The show is far too real, and apparently the idea of privacy wavers, liability forms, and safety for the contestants has gone right out the window. These things apparently don't matter when the man behind the game is a twisted psychopath...go figure.
This was a straight-to-video release that I found on FearNet, and the obvious note here is that this flick is obviously a low-rent Saw. Two police detectives are running around trying to track down the crazy man...and so far I've seen no revelation as to why the pyscho is indeed a psycho.(I'm writing as I watch.) The contestants are supposed to be facing their deepest fears, but unlike the Saw franchise I don't think there's any hope of redemption or even survival for the poor saps who got mysteriously abducted. Also, in Saw, the killer was indeed fiendishly clever...I don't think this guy quite measures up.
On a side note, I must be getting older: I'm watching one particular scene that isn't scaring me as much as making me go "ewwwww" and wondering if it was really necessary. I never used to worry about excess gore in my scary movies. Of course, applying the word "scary" to this piece of schlock would be highly inappropriate. Who would have thought I would have considered things like writing quality, tone, etc?
Second side note: as much as I say that a movie (like this one) doesn't even rate being called tripe, I would so act in one of these movies. I wouldn't even need pay, although I'd prefer some sort of recompense. Matching my currrent pay would do for me...and would surely be below scale.
Ah, the twist has arrived. *yawn* Am I scared? Not even vaguely.
I give this movie 1 drill-on-a-track out of 5.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
NAMR: A Long, Long Way To Go
19 reviews down, 481 to go. This is the number of reviews I need to write within the space of 260ish days, if I hope to make my goal. It's not impossible, though I'm well versed in knowing that the odds are long indeed. But hey, nothing good was ever easy.
I have not begun to write! Or fight...or whatever the quote is. ;-)
Okay, what's on Fearnet?
I have not begun to write! Or fight...or whatever the quote is. ;-)
Okay, what's on Fearnet?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)