Change Your Image
TTUCHY
Reviews
Company of Heroes (2013)
Non-stop action war ride
Director Don Michael Paul takes us on a journey with these genuine characters who are thrown into a much bigger situation than they had signed up for. The protagonists and antagonists have good dimension. Nate's character (Chad Michael Collins) is identifiable as the guy who comes in with boots on the ground and is forced to grow a pair real quick. Vinnie Jones is the stand out British airman that steals scenes. He's always ready for a fight. His fists seem ready to connect with Nazis at a moment's notice. Tom Sizemore, though a veteran to the genre, brings a fresh take to a platoon leader that has been knocked out of rank, but is still able to guide young Nate through his life and death decisions. The movie has a crisp, energetic look, with some authentic-looking scenery that is pretty effective in selling the hardship that the soldiers experienced during WW2. The coverage of the action is fast-paced and complete. Although I'm no ballistics expert, the equipment and guns looked and sounded awesome. The movie is pretty relentless as the action sequences come one right after the other. It's a worthwhile watch.
Tron: Legacy (2010)
What a blockbuster movie should be
I was never a fan of the original Tron, but liked the trailer for Legacy so much, I wanted to give it a try. I was blown away. A truly stunning spectacle of visuals and sound. Between the production design, the sound fx, the amazing score, and the pure skill of story-telling, this movie reminded me of what a true blockbuster is. Science fiction is a rough genre' because it demands such a high suspension of disbelief. Not all massive budget fare can deliver. Movies like Transformers or the Star Wars prequels proves that bigger is not always better. A film needs consistency. It needs heart. You have to be sucked into a world for 2 hours and stay contained in it's walls until the credits roll. Tron: Legacy does this. It takes the very basic conflicts and never lets go. It hinges on a very simple and specific goal, and sees it through. It doesn't distract (other than beating you over the head with some minimal PG rated exposition). It's a movie that never forgets what it's meant to be. I enjoyed it very much.
When You're Strange (2009)
Doors to the world
I was expecting a doc on a band that had seen it's share of success and torment. What I got was America. This film, while showing archival footage that would rival a reality show of today, chronologically documents the highs and lows and highs of a band that TRULY defined a generation. They were there at the blooming of the hippie revolution and died with it in the End.
In it's humble beginnings, the Doors were a voice of freed minds. A chance to finally let your inner soul speak through poetry. The song writing spoke to many in it's delicate balance of fluent mainstream melodies and complex, poetic lyrics. Morrison seemed to be Pied Piper- ing a pack of non-political politicians into a drug induced state of ultimate awareness, until finally crashing into a world of drunken vulgarity. Ultimately, the veil is lifted and the man "with very little to say" shows that he is indeed vulnerable to destruction.
By the conclusion, you realize you've been taken on a historical journey through America during the time period where growing pains were most prominent... the 1960's. And you've done all this watching through the eyes of a rock and roll band that, for better or worse, showed us who we really are.
Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy (2010)
Another amazing doc by these guys
I am a big fan of F13, and when "His Name Was Jason" came out, I was all over it. It was great to get a true insider's scoop from the series' collaborators. It did not disappoint. When I heard "Never Sleep Again" was coming out, I was intrigued ( although I was never a HUGE fan of the Elm Street series)... but I knew the same team was behind it that produced HNWJ, so I picked it up. Dare I say that I enjoyed this one MORE? I viewed the piece in such a way, that I would watch a segment or two, then turn it off, so I had more to enjoy the following night. Even though it plays out longer than 3 hours, it is not long at ALL! I wanted another 5 hours! I cannot wait to see what these guys do next. They have a great cutting style, where the interviewees finish each other's sentences, and they're able to segue from one subject to the next seamlessly. I know, particularly with a documentary, you are inundated with hours of footage, and are forced to choose from a multitude of directions/styles/tones. These guys were able to find the jewel in the mountain and create another special product. Can't wait for the next one guys!
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Could've written this in my sleep
I was very much looking forward to the new Nightmare. I'm a fan of Bay's Texas Chainsaw and F13 re-dos. Even though I'm somewhat of a purist, I'm open minded enough to adopt new approaches of tonal storytelling. This film started like a typical Elm St sequel (not a great thing), and then coasted into VERY familiar ground, rehashing the first movie with MINOR adjustments here and there. Because it did not offer enough new things to stand on it's own and avoid direct comparison w/ the first film, you pretty much new what was bound to happen from scene 2 till the end. Any adjustments that Strick made were so subtle, that it felt like his script was a revision to the 84' original, with zero deviations. One example being that there was question at one point whether or not Freddy was guilty of being an actual molester before his lynching, and that detail quickly turns on itself and becomes void. And the style of the movie didn't tread any new ground either (love the look of the new F13). I thought the worst part was Freddy himself... Almost any unknown could've played Krueger. I wanted to get excited about Haley's performance, but it felt like there just wasn't enough substance for him to work with. Boring, lazy re-hash.
Laid to Rest (2009)
Effective piece
Strengths: Good, original content. Nice atmospheres/settings (Funeral home scenes reminded me of "Phantasm". Solid characters that drew me in to a piece that was skillfully assembled. Photography and editing kicked up a notch, surpassing other low budget fare like "Leslie Vernon" and old school "Hatchet". Awesome "Monster on the Box" killer/mask. Very graphic, but satisfying resolution. In the "making of" doc, even the crew was groaning. I, a seasoned horror pro, almost puked. Weaknesses: The score. It often tried to hard to manipulate you into an emotion when it absolutely did not have to. The film also suffered from a benign sound mix/sound FX job that made audible scares limp. In short, I would totally rent the sequel, and watch "chrome skull" wreak more havoc.
Be Kind Rewind (2008)
Rewind those 100 minutes - I want them back!
This movie gave me nothing. I remember reading about it in the trades when it was pitched... "Video store has tapes demagnetized... and must remake popular movies from scratch." I thought it sounded thin then. Wow. It's that AND less. It's basically a sketch stretched out to feature length. It gets tiresome quick. I have to say - I love Jack Black. His delivery style is dead on, but a handful of laughs from JB does not a good film make. As a viewer, you are invited into a world where a customer walks into a video store, does not get the tape they want, so the workers at the store feel obligated to make that movie for release the next day. And the remakes they produce don't even offer any fresh twists on the originals. It's just their slapstick, hack version of Ghostbusters, Driving Miss Daisy, King Kong, etc... Funny, huh? No, not really. Admittedly, the first few shots of the Ghostbusters library scene is amusing, but after that, I was watching the clock. It tries to "feel good" at the end, but just feels anti-climactic and inconsistent.
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
For Parents and the MPAA alike...
I'll just start by stating this is a VERY well made film. Good production value, sound, visuals, performances, etc... It's a relentless, thrilling, scary freakin' ride! Don't know what the point of the film is - but does it really matter? This is a horror remake that can truly be labeled "HORROR". It offers a true sense of dread. I can't say I "enjoyed" it. It wasn't "fun". It was, however, horrifying. It seems like movie makers, like video game designers are interested in shock value, pushing the moral envelope, if you will. Since there is so much real terror in the world now, then our entertainment should be that much more, right? Maybe. As long as we, as adults, can decipher what is real and what is fiction... we should be okay, right? Maybe. It's when I buy a theater ticket to The Hills Have Eyes remake, and see a guy, his girlfriend, and their 3 kids (all three clearly UNDER the age of 8) sitting in front of me that makes me sick to my stomach. In my opinion, this movie is a clear case where the MPAA should have rated it with an NC-17. And parents, even if it's only an R rating, do you, your kids, and the rest of the viewing audience a favor, and LEAVE the little ones with a freakin' babysitter.
The Maize: The Movie (2004)
I'm aMAIZEd this made it to the video store shelf
I rented Dark Harvest (the first one) because it looked like a cheesy monster-on -the-box type of thrill ride. Scarecrows also freak me out. The movie had an effective title sequence, but what followed was pretty lame (flat, bad lighting, acting, editing, direction...). Recently, I noticed that DH 2: The Maize had a pretty extensive ad campaign. I thought maybe the first one was marginally successful, so they upped the ante on this one a bit, possibly delivering some bigger budget scares and fx from the killer scarecrows. Well, there are no scarecrows in the video... Not a problem. The problems start in DH 2 with a title sequence that looks like an unfinished concept, with strange shapes and bars wiping away titles and whatnot. As far as the actual photography... every time the sun shines in a shot, you'd have all these blown out whites, confirming that you're watching some ultra-low budget mini-DV project that some Midwesterner filmed at his Uncles farm. The acting was not acting at all. The cheap rip-off of The Shining twin girls was below freshman film student standards. The editing was extremely amateur and lazy. The sound was jarring and choppy. (e.g.- every time the editor would cut to a new shot, you'd here the sound change perspective with it). It's as if someone gathered their friends and family (actors), took a video camera out in a cornfield for three days, put a light on top of it for the night sequences (no joke - that's what they actually did), burned through some tape, stuck the footage in their computer, cut a (very) rough version, tossed in some music, bypassed any imaginative sound work or mixing, burned it directly to DVD, and threw it on the video store shelf. Any horror fan should be insulted by this type of direct to video work that is void of ANY skill or style. Just because a person owns a video camera and is able to get somewhat of an image on tape, doesn't mean it should be released to the public. If I could give this a rating lower than a ONE, I would.
I Saw What You Did (1965)
...And wished I didn't
After reading the synopsis of this "Thriller", I thought it was a must see. What a great idea gone to crap. The photography was flat, the acting was beyond WEAK, the score was from a sixty's sitcom, and the thrills were non-existent. This movie had such a foolproof concept, but the writing was contrived and convenient. I try to see a silver lining in most bad movies, but there's no hope for this one. I haven't seen the TV remake of this, but it has to be better. I found it hard to believe that this came out after PSYCHO, because it felt so naive and benign. Joan Crawford was the only highlight of this turkey, and I'm not even sure if it warrants the word "highlight".