capn_crusty Reviews

Face/Off (1997)

Unspeakably foul

[1/10 · 24 May 2005]

The most contrived piece of crap to come down the pike in a long time--premise, plot, dialog, you name it. It's as if every hackneyed "cops-'n'-robbers" thematic device ever conceived was tossed into a hat, then plucked out and patched in helter-skelter--I don't think a single one was missed...and that's just in the first fifteen minutes.

And "Castor and Pollux Troy"? What the hell were the writers thinking? Or more to the point, what were they smoking

The most amazing thing is that this celluloid dungpile seems to have been well-received! If IMDb's "Viewers' Reviews" is to be believed, that is. Oh, well; I guess if nothing else, Woo's re-established the old Menckenian axiom: "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people".

Troy (2004)

Worthy of DeMille...

[6/10 · 6 May 2005]

...although that's not necessarily a good thing

But it's no secret--or shouldn't have been--that all this little effort was going to be was a frightfully expensive, over-the-top quasi-historical spectacle, with two dimensional characters running around spouting long soliloquies in between battles. So no complaint, there.

What bothered me the most trouble about "Troy" was the casting. Oh, I could have gone along with quite nicely with Legolas, Boromir and the Hulk (Orlando Bloom, Sean Bean and Eric Bana, respectively) playing East Mediterranean Bronze Age soldiers--Hollywood, you know. But Brad Pitt as Achilles? I laughed; a lot. Instead of the "greatest warrior of his age", he made me think more of a little kid in dire need of an enema. I mean, some one really should tell him that acting is more than just striking a pose, displaying a chubby profile and staring grimly. Of course, maybe he got it right; it could be that in reality Achilles was nothing more than a baby-faced shmoe with a couple of sword tricks and a rep. If so, then maybe this is why he's mostly remembered for a weakness (ie, world-class tendonitis).

Still, if placing inappropriate individuals in the roles of legendary and semi-legendary heroes should sadly become the norm, I want to get on board as quickly as possible--to avoid the rush. Thus, do I suggest the following:

Cu Chullain--Mike Meyers

Boadicea--Li'l Kim

Roland--Bobcat Goldthwait

Sigfried--Will Wheaton

Tristan--Danny DeVito

Chaka Zulu--Martin Lawrence

Geronimo--Ray Romano

Dan'l Boone--Anne Heche

Saw (2004)

Best Psycho Slasher Movie Ever!

[10/10 · 28 April 2005]

I don't usually give movies of any kind ten stars, particularly the slasher send-ups; I will gladly make an exception in the case of "Saw". Up until now, "Candyman II: Farewell to the Flesh", was my fave, but this offering beats it hook, line, sinker, pole, fisherman and the ding-dong boat--which is probably a mixed metaphor, but I just got done watching this thing, and I'm still not down enough yet to be overly rational.

Not only are the murder situations schizophrenic enough to make me glad that the kid that wrote it lives in Australia (at least, I hope he still does), but plotwise it had more twists than an India rubber man making love to a Circe du Soleil contortionist with a copy of the "Kama Sutra" nearby for reference. And without a doubt it has the best "surprise ending" since "The Sixth Sense". The only reason I can imagine that more has not been made of this little depraved effort is the deep-seated prejudice that most "mainstream" (read: stupid) critics have against horror.

Ten Stars! Ten Stars! Ten Stars!

The Tomorrow Man (2002 Video)

Boo. And hoo.

[4/10 · 18 April 2005]

Don't you just love tough movie broads? You know, the street-talking, wise-cracking, hard-drinking cop-kind that weigh about twenty pounds--twenty SKINNY pounds, and that's with a pocket full of rocks--but can still toss around guys three times their size? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy role-reversal about as much as the next guy. Unfortunately, the "macho-man with breasts" character rarely works--especially if she doesn't really HAVE breasts. Queen Latifah would have done better that this Beth Kennedy person, and for so many reasons.

But even if you can get over the dime-store Dirty Harriet...sorry; this still isn't much of a flick. Way too heavy on the violins and melancholy piano scores, for one thing--in other words, schmaltz. And of course any science was just incidental, since all that continuum-twisting was just a device to advance the tear-jerking plot. But when the kid-grown-up-into-multiple-murderer meets same-kid-AS-a-kid, and starts acting all sensitive, like (wow!) A BETTER FATHER THAN THE ACTUAL FATHER...please.

All right, there was a little humor. Like Corbin Bernson's line: "This is the future; this is SERIOUS!" And Mom the Elder was a real hoot, for the most part; kudos to Jeanne Cooper for that.

But overall, I can't really give this bit of transparent PC misandry (look it up; but you better have a REALLY unabridged dictionary) more than four stars. And that's with a tail-wind.

Slipstream (2005)

Too Much "Time" on Their Hands?

[1/10 · 13 February 2005]

Maybe spoilers--not that you should care.

When I write my award-winning screenplay, two things will NOT happen: The custodian, the security guard and the family dog will NOT be the first ones to die at the hands/claws/tentacles of the monster; in fact, they will not only outlive everyone else, but will be instrumental in DESTROYING the creature.

And two people with Glocks and business suits will NOT stand up straight in front of half a dozen bad guys in body armor and armed with automatic weapons, without the former buying the farm in two seconds flat.

Sad to say, the second scenario happened, not just once, but three times in this croaker, thanks to a time-travel device that looks like nothing so much as a PDA. In short, the film violated one of Cap'n Crusty's Pet Cinemagraphic Peeves, and did so over and over again; which means simply that, barring some neat gimmick or wondrous perception--or maybe outright Beyonce nudity--nothing will stave off a "half-star" rating. Not "even" Sean "Samwise Gamgee" Astin.

Centipede! (2004)

Jesus wept...and so did I.

[7 November 2004]

I guess it's time all sci-fi/horror/fantasy fans rose up and seized control of the SF Channel. The current directorate is certainly doing such a lousy job that even a committee could do better. I mean, a long line of incredibly foul made-for-TV movies--of which 'Centipede!' is the latest--is NOT the reason I continue to pay 60-some-odd bucks a month for cable. I can hardly wait to see how SFC mangles 'The Wizard of Earthsea'; maybe Ursula K can be our new commissar.

Okay, okay, I should know better by now. In all my years of viewing these kind of flicks (damn near a half-century), I've resigned myself to the fact that most of the genre is not going to be 'Lord of the Rings', 'Star Wars' or 'Clockwork Orange'. But is that any excuse to not at least attempt the production values of moderately well-done mainstream movies? You don't need big bucks, just a measure of talent. None here, I'm afraid...or if there was, it was exceptionally well-hidden.

Take special effects; they had to be kidding. Were those sock puppets? I've seen more believable animation at a Punch and Judy show.

And plot? A bunch of kids celebrate one of their group's pending marriage by going caving in a really deep cavern system, and end up getting eaten by giant centipedes. Oh, yeah; and they got this device that tracks individual transponders ($129.95 at Radio Shack) that each one carries, so that when one of the kids gets noshed, the survivors can--SURPRISE!--actually track the monsters! Hoo-hah! With such clever originality, how could you ask for more?

Might as well forget character development, too. This is one of those rare movies where absolutely NO one is sympathetic. I wanted them all--even the native comic-relief, with his politically-incorrect 'funny Indian' accent--to DIE HORRIBLY. Unfortunately, they didn't--die horribly, that is.

They just died. And so did the flick.

I can say one good thing about 'Centipede!', though; it's over, and I'm not watching it any longer.

Nature Unleashed: Avalanche (2004 Video)

Why does the Sci Fi Channel hate sci-fi fans?

[16 October 2004]

Seriously. I mean, alienating one's fan-base can't be the wisest business decision to make. And while I'm pretty sure making a genuinely entertaining movie isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, it can't be THAT difficult, either; it DOES get done, after all, at least occasionally. Nor is there a shortage of decent science fiction, horror and fantasy writers--amateurs and otherwise, all of whom would jump at a chance to create an original, intelligent storyline.

So why do the "good folk" at SFC continue to spring garbage like "Nature Unchained: Avalanche" on us?

Wooden acting. Implausible premise. Illogical plot. So-so CGI's. Incomprehensible interpersonal relationships. Pointless characterizations. Dialog that would have to improve to be cliché.

Makes a long-term fan of the genre wanna cry.

But all that aside, there is one good thing I can say about this turkey dropping, something that actually made me go, "huh; lookee there". It involves what is laughingly called a "spoiler" (how does one "spoil" something this rotten?), namely: the Lead Young Guy makes it with a HOMELY chick, not the blond bimbo! No, really; and to top it off, the Homely Chick--a scientist, of course--has only got two toes on one foot (the others were taken off by frostbite, I think)! And they SHOW it!

Now that's slightly different.

Frankenfish (2004 TV Movie)

Ain't no tell' what come up out de ba-yo

[9 October 2004]

This was not a terrible movie; really. Particularly for the SciFi Channel.

There's plenty of tension, for one thing. And while some may think it's far and away too gory (so why are they watching it in the first place?), personally I get a little tired of monster movies where the victims get done-in all neat and clean. As a matter of fact [POSSIBLE SPOILERS], neck-stumps and severed torsos gushing blood and displaying all manner of internal anatomy gives what would have otherwise been a run-of-the-mill "man vs mutated swamp beast" flick a rare air of authenticity. Add to that a crazy 'Nam vet getting chewed on, and one of the best rotted and gnawed prop-corpses I've ever seen, and the result is a cinemagraphic experience measurably better than might be expected from the genre.

I give a 6, maybe even a 7, out of 10. Probably would have gotten more if the CGI's had been a little better.

Darklight (2004 TV Movie)

One more Sci-fi flop

[18 September 2004]

If you don't have a sense of where you're going when you put together a movie, anybody more mature than the average twelve year old is going to know it. I think that's what's wrong with 'Darklight'. Watching it, I had the unshakable impression that the actors were making up lines and situations as they went along, while the plot seemed not so much to unravel as it did fray; to sputter, rather than flow.

The special effects weren't all that hot, either. Aren't we supposed to be in the age of highly-developed CGI technology, where the creation of, say, a realistic demon (if that's not an oxymoron) on-screen almost requires nothing more outré than a software suite from Circuit City? Where nowadays what is needed most to be convincing is an actual vision, not just a vague, cartoonish idea?

And it's too bad; it's an interesting idea: Lilith, Adam's first wife, lives today, but with artificially-induced amnesia. While 'somewhat evil' herself, she is nevertheless 'kept in reserve', so to speak, by one of those secret-brotherhoods-that-last-for-millennia which has served occult fiction so well over the years, and is brought back to fight a greater evil.

At least, that's what I think is going on, but after a half-hour or so, I found myself not really caring. Even some good creepy atmosphere was not enough to save this latest 'bad babe' fantasy--particularly when the babe in question, seemingly meant to be one of those 'damaged waifs' so popular in modern fiction, comes across instead as rather mentally challenged.

If it's a cold, rainy night, and you're all sitting around, feeling a need to have some background while you play Yahtze, give it a watch. Otherwise, check out the Weather Channel.

Horror of the Blood Monsters (1970)

Best viewed while "Carradined"

[20 August 2004]

This was, as others have pointed out, a pretty disjointed effort; thus, so will my comments be. Spoilers? I dunno; how do you spoil something like this?

Let's see: out of the twelve dollar budget, how much was spent to keep John Carradine in Wild Turkey? I mean, LOOK AT HIM. If he hadn't been sitting down, he'd have had to have been propped up.

Did anybody else see fingers holding on to the tip of the toy rocket, as it "landed"? When I saw it with my own MST3K buddies about 20 years ago, we were all pretty, uh, "Carradined", but I seem to remember THAT.

Also seems to me that, at one point, there would be a phony control panel of sorts behind John C, then in the next shot, it would just be a blue screen. Seems that way...but then again, see above.

And weren't there some guys who threw snakes as sort of "poisonous boomerang" weapons? I vaguely remember thinking, that was at least a somewhat original idea.

Recommend it? Yeah...kinda. Just don't do it without someone to bounce sarcastic comments off of. And you might want to keep a full cooler handy, too.

House on the Edge of the Park (1980)

Possibly the worst movie ever perpetrated upon humanity

[19 August 2004]

Usually, I try to avoid broad cultural censure, but in the case of 'House on the Edge of the Park', I feel driven to make an exception:

Hey! Italy! Don't ever make a horror/suspense movie again! Puh-LEASE! You ain't got clue one on how to pull it off with even a modicum of competence...or if you do, it's yet to be proven to me. Leave it to America; we don't do much else right--look at our president--but in this we excel.

Take 'HOTEOTP', for instance (please). The dialog, characterization and action might have been cutting edge fifty years ago--and I emphasize, 'might'--but by now the crazed-hoods-with-razors-menace-helpless-people theme has been worked to a deserved bloody death. And if it hadn't, this surely would have killed it for all time. Even a vaguely clever, but completely improbable, twist of an ending couldn't save this shoe-scraping.

I won't go into detail as to why I feel 'House' fails abysmally, and on so many levels--not because doing so would involve spoilers (as if anything but a sequel could spoil this croaker), but because it would only bring back far too many agonizing memories that I would just as soon not relive without an endless supply of Chianti. All I CAN say is, don't, by any means, see, or allow yourself to be shown, 'House, etc'...that is, unless you like the feeling that your only hope for ultimate salvation would be to strangle yourself with week-old pasta.

Christmas Evil (1980)

Really proves, "There ain't no Sanity Clause"

[18 August 2004]

Usually, when a film is labeled "cult", that means that, despite an overarching appeal to certain fetishists, something remains very, very wrong with it. In the case of "Christmas Evil", it was cinemagraphic values, from completely unbelievable "slasher" scenes to the ho-hum reactions of witnesses to same ("Oh, look. Santa just offed a bunch of guys. Huh.").

And it's too bad. As one whom enjoys a good evisceration of syrupy icons, such as all those associated with the holiday in question, I had hoped for something with a little more bite (pun intended). And in all fairness, there are some scenes that help this effort along toward what I believe is its intended goal--namely, that of effecting a little allegorical vengeance upon holiday hypocrites.

Still...I can't give more than a star-and-a-half out of four. But a STRONG star-and-a-half, if for no other reason than an honest effort was made by the production staff to do something a little bit original.

Cathy's Curse (1977)

Ai, carumba!

[17 August 2004]

If the MST3 boys were still doing their schtick, they no doubt would take one look at "Cathy's Curse" and immediately reprise one of their famous lines: "This has got the bacony stench of Canada all over it".

I didn't bother to do any research on the production of this gobbler, but I visualize a handful of Canadian film students (high school?) with about a twelve dollar budget and one (count 'em, one) really, REALLY cheap video camera--below the old standard 8 mm quality; maybe 7 1/2 mm.

Single takes, all the way; direction by a palsied moose; written by someone whom had just discovered Horror, but wasn't sure what they had. And the actors: oy vay! Either chosen at random from the timber camps of British Columbia (beware: plaid!), or else picked out carelessly from Calgary's gutter-sweepings. The latter especially applies to "Old Paul", the handyman, who would look more at home "sitting on a park bench, eying little girls with bad intent" (thank you very much, Ian Anderson, for one of my childhood's more indelible images, ie, "Aqualung").

Whatever the case, surely no one associated with this film can be any kind of professional, not even by the hypothetical standards rampant in the Great White North.

All that taken into account...yeah, there actually ARE a few genuinely creepy scenes, like (possible SPOILER!) that which takes place in the attic, with the little girl, the doll, the painting and the ever-lovely Agatha the Medium. Thus, I really DO recommend this, but with the following caveats: drink much Molson first; and it is best viewed at the tail-end of a Saturday-night-all-guys-with-beer-and-pizza bash, when the gang's thought processes are sufficiently enhanced to where ANYTHING is entertainment.

By the way, as did some of the other posters here, I got this on one of those schlocky 10 DVD Brentwood Specials. It was a birthday present, believe it or not, by people who actually like me (well, they claim they do).

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

Not Shakespeare

[17 May 2004]

Quick, before it's too late: someone, somewhere, PLEASE inform Brannaugh that Shakespeare and Shelly are NOT the same thing, despite the coincidence that they share the first two letters of their names.

What I mean is, you can get away over-acting with the former's work, since people are used to a certain amount of floridness (floridity? fluoridation?) when it comes to performing the works of the Bard; and admittedly, the grand soliloquies of Hamlet and MacBeth do lend themselves quite well to a certain level of pomposity.

But this is a freakin' MONSTER MOVIE. You know, superhuman brutes in high-lift shoes, complete with neck bolts and enough stitching to rival Spalding's production for the year, lumbering about, grunting phrases like "Fire: bad; cigar: go-o-od". Even Mel Brooks got the flavor better.

And what's up with having Otter ("Animal House") involved in any way, shape or form? I kept expecting DeNiro to spew mashed potatoes, or crush a beer can on his forehead--although, come to think of it, he DID do some substantial window-peeping with those peasants in the forest.

I give it two out of five stars, if for no other reason than the set, costume and makeup folks at least were able to portray Old London squalor effectively.

Garden of Evil (1954)

Only one reason to watch this...

[1 May 2004]

The dialog oscillates between contrived and pure corn. Gary Cooper delivers his lines with all the aplomb of a chimp on valium. Richard Widmark tries for sneers, ends up with spasms. Cameron Mitchell could have been deliberately aiming for an award for over-acting. And even Susan Hayward, usually a 24K babe, flounces around like a crude imitation of a woman.

But Rita Moreno, at age twenty-three, heats up Old Mexico by more than a few degrees Celsius in a brief appearance as a cantina singer. And it is for this, and this alone, that "Garden of Evil" worth watching... at least for a few moments.

Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (2002 Video)

There oughta be a law

[15 June 2003]

Hokey smokes, Bullwinkle! Are they really allowed to make movies this foul? I mean, I'm all for freedom of artistic expression...but then, how does the term "art" apply in any meaningful way to this piece of crap?

For instance, I can't help but wonder if the producers got half their cast off the street. I don't think I've ever witnessed such so many instances of broken, staccato line delivery in a single movie in my life (well, maybe in John Wayne flicks...).

Negative stars, a whole fistful of 'em.

Route 666 (2001)

Not terrible.

[13 October 2002]

Good tension throughout, the living-dead guys are creepy enough (not easy to pull off in bright desert sunlight), and the Native American shaman looks more like a deli counterman than the time-worn cinema stereotype--all in all, worth a look-see. Personally, I could have lived without all the jiggling camera work during the action shots, and the ending was a little weak, but otherwise I'd give it a 6 out of 10.

One big problem--though out of fairness it's not something that is peculiar to this flick alone. In fact, this has been a pet peeve of mine for years, and I dearly wish it would be advised against by every teacher of cinema...

ACTION RULE # 1: If people shoot the "bad thing" fifty damn times, and with no effect, THEN DON'T HAVE THEM KEEP ON DOING IT!

Blood Surf (2000 Video)

Hokey smokes, Sci-fi!

[5 October 2002]

I have to say it: if the Sci-fi channel can't find anything even moderately worthwhile to fill time slots, they should just let the screen go blank for a couple of hours. I find it hard to comment on this vile effort without resorting to long strings of four-letter words. If not for the scenery--both topographical and feminine--this would easily be in the running for the WORST MOVIE EVER.

Bad acting, stupid plot, inane characters... Even Nancy Reagan would have relented, and advised the perps to "just say yes"; being doped to the gills could only have resulted in a vastly improved flick.

Don't watch it.

Don't watch it.

Whatever you do, DON'T WATCH IT.

Killjoy (2000 Video)

God, I hate clowns.

[29 September 2002]

Clowns are, IMHO, intrinsically annoying--like mimes, the style is reserved for wannabe performers with little or no real talent, posers who think genuine, quality entertainment consists of putting on fifty pounds of makeup and a suit that would be an embarrassment on Fat Tuesday, and then goofing on people--whether the people want to be goofed on or not.

But that aside, let's face it: the devil-clown concept has been done to death anyway, from Steven King's Pennywise to this latest poor attempt. I'm not sure what the attraction is: maybe as a kid, the writers were scared by one of these hyperactive buffoons, and thought the subject would thus be good fare for a horror story. Or it could be a weak attempt at clever irony, ie, taking a figure meant to be funny and enjoyable (and I emphasize, "meant"), and making it into something menacing.

Whatever the case, though, this movie just don't cut it, my homies. I'll have to admit, the dialog was a little more "authentic urban-black" than the usual fare, penned as it too often is by suburban white boys. But still the effect seems to perpetuate the tired--and unjust--image of African-Americans as ignorant, brutish thugs, even when faced with an otherworldly terror that should cause anyone to question their most cherished cultural precepts.

Black exploitation hits the Third Millennium. No progress to report...