Change Your Image
nebbin
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Decent but could use some actual drama
The following review may seem harsh. It is not the intention. Overall I think it's a decent movie, but all I really want to do is point out the one thing that really bothered me. So while I ramble about it a bit, don't think that I am really trying to slam the movie, it's just this one aspect of the film really bothers me. Otherwise it's a decent movie. Note: SPOILERS.
Okay, here goes. Harry Potter was pretty good. There were defenately some good things. Some clever bits like the wizards trading card where the wizard disappeared(can't expect him to hang around all day). I was also VERY pleased that they pulled a switch at the end and made the bad guy a good guy. In fact, I was hoping that that would be the case, but because of the film being a bit predictable, I wasn't sure if it would go the WYSIWYG route and make the bad guy the bad guy with no surprises deemed necessary. So things like that worked quite well and I was happy with.
My main complaint was it seemed a bit too sugar coated for me- everything was a bit too easy. Potter seemed to have a few moments of tough times and then breeze through them, turning them to his advantage. Which can be okay- a hero making a bad situation good can be quite clever, and is the subject of much of the world's heroic characters, like Hercules of Greece, the American Coyote, Germany's Till Eulenspiegel, et al.
Everything had to turn out perfect and he never seemed to fail at anything, and the few times he did seem to fail- which would have been nice for character development and to teach kids that life can still be good even when you fail a few times- he ended up winning anyway.
Potter has to win his first competition. I saw no reason why he couldn't have lost but been satisfied with the fact that he *was* the youngest player in his position ever, and he did quite well in that situation(and the fact that he was sabotoged might have made him feel a little better about losing). This would have worked in the vein of "Hey, can't win 'em all." But instead the movie isn't truly happy unless he succeeds in this game as in everything.
Similarly, there was a ceremony at the end where his particular dorm or whatever lost a year-long competition for best students. Boo hoo. So you lost a meaningless contest. I would have ended it with the heroes accepting that stuff happens, life goes on. After all, they foiled the machinations of one of the world's most powerful and feared sorcerers; defeated a troll, which is even a menace to potent wizards; among these triumphs, was a silly little contest that important?
But instead we get this feelgood happy ending where a last-minute update makes them win. Personally, I would have liked it more if the movie ended with a minor failure that is overshadowed by their earlier successes.
I know it's a kid's movie, but that doesn't mean it can't be intellectual. I direct you to Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain" books, a children's series that actually had the hero fail again and again and yet still accept at the end that he was a good person, and even gave up immortality to stay behind and help people rebuild- here kids learn that failure happens, get over it, and also learn the idea of sacrifice for the greater good. Yes, the hero Taran wants to be a mighty warrior, hoping to be discovered a prince. He never does, but accepts that his fate is not to be such(at the end of four books!). And finally he is offered eternal happiness in paradise and turns it down to instead help his war-torn nation rebuild. As a children's series, I find this much more intriguing(not to mention clever, intelligent, and moral) for both adults and children than having a hero who succeeds at everything he tries. I got to the point where I never worried about the hero because it was obvious he could never lose at anything.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a BAD movie per se, it was fun and I am glad I saw it, but it really could have done with a little more 'risk' and 'humanity' in the hero. I suppose *** out of *****, which may be rounding up a bit, but it WAS fun.
...E tu vivrai nel terrore! L'aldilà (1981)
Very interesting if you look closer
E tu vivrai nel terrore - L'aldila, translated "And You Shall Live In Terror- The Beyond(afterlife)" was released in the USA, with large bits of what little plot the film had, chopped off under the title "The Seven Doors of Death." The box art was compelling, looking like the cover of an issue of "Vault of Horror" from EC Comics and promising(From the looks of it) extreme carnage and violence.
This was not so. Not only were the first couple minutes lopped off(which were already only barely explaining the plot's beginning) but much of the gore as well. Viewers were left with a watchable film but without the gore that the video box promised- thus alienating the main viewership- namely gore hounds. Others only knew the movie through reputation, and may have picked it up through curiosity.
Fortunately, what was once relegated to crappy bootleg video transfers is now available on video and an excellent DVD edition, and "The Beyond," as it is known in its uncut glory in the USA, is now accessible.
Enough history.
The film itself, as I said, does not explain much of the plot. What we see is a man painting a picture- it looks like a dark landscape with dead bodies laying around. A group of men break into his hotel room, drag him into the basement, and whip him with chains, nail him to a wall, and throw a convenient bucket of acid in his face(I heard this was some sort of limestone-remover or something. I would be worried about getting it on my hands if I were to scoop it into a small bucket and throw it in someone's face!). They obviously disbelieved the man's warnings that the hotel was(gasp) built over one of The Seven Gates of Hell(tm)!
That about wraps up any storyline as far as why the gate is opened. So what's the real story? Why did the gates open? Was this so-far unnamed painter some human cork, plugging the gate? Was his death simply hideous enough to open the gates in and of itself? Or did he mumble some sort of prayer to the dark powers, a spell of some sort, and open the gate at the moment of his death?
I don't know. I always assumed it was just the horrible nature of his death. The men called him a warlock, but the film never reveals whether this was true or whether they were just superstitious because of his weird paintings- which was my original assumption, but he *did* know about the gate! On the other hand, the hotel was called the "Seven Doors Hotel" or somesuch, so I guess it couldn't have been all too secret.
We learn later that the man was named Sweik, because one woman(a ghost in fact) cries out to him for pity right before she gets her throat ripped out, in an only somewhat-convincing scene(yeah, the director was known for gore, but never really made it look all that real, except for two now-legendary scenes from Gates of Hell, which was something of a 'Part One' to this film).
So all in all the plot is not the driving force. The driving force is gore, fear, weird happenings, shock, and gore. Maybe I repeated myself, but it was intentional.
The whole movie revolves around simply weird things that happen in a haunting. The whole film, while not heavy on character developmet, plot, or even decent dialogue is very heavy on one all-important thing in Italian horror cinema: atmosphere.
And Fulci knew *that* area well. No matter if the movie didn't make much sense or the gore was silly. The film *still* gave you a dark feeling of growing dread, or at least a feeling like you needed a shower. And that's horror!
Italian horror films revolve so much around atmosphere that the movies come off less like an ongoing story and more like an unraveling nightmare. Especially "The Beyond," of all Fulci's movies. Of Fulci's 'big three'(which consists of this film, "The Gates of Hell aka City of the Living Dead," and "Zombie aka Zombie Flesh Eaters aka Zombie 2") The Beyond is most successful as an entertaining movie. Gates of Hell was all gore, but much of it was tiring(about three people died in the same way) and boring. "Zombie" had nice makeup effects but the main attraction, a scene in which a woman gets a wooden splinter into her eye, is very easy to see through- you can tell exactly how it was done, and that's a bad thing when it comes to gore. Zombie had a more sensible storyline than "Gates," but "Gates," had an eerie story and atmosphere in its own right.
Enter "The Beyond." The film was not as creepy an atmosphere throughout much of it as "Gates" or "Zombie," but the pacing outshone both. Although "Beyond" didn't have the famous gore scenes of the other two, it did have a higher all-around gore level, although it still suffered from some of it looking fake(you can't help but wince at a scene of tarantula's eating a man's face, although you can still see the glue from the prosthetics being stretched as the pieces are ripped off).
This review is quite wordy already so let me cut to the end as fast as I can. "the Beyond" has some flaws- the plot is not fully explained, and there are some silly mistakes. Why did Liza find the bloody nails in Sweik's old room when he was crucified in the cellar? Do Louisiana homes even have cellars(I don't think so)? Indeed, why did the gates re-open when she moved in- was Sweik waiting for someone to move in, or is it as silly as some people say(that the plumber knocking the wall down opened the gates- I mean, come on, the zombies in the film can teleport! Who cares about a wall?).
Despite these problems, "The Beyond" is a true nightmare scenario which jumps about from horrible scene to spooky scene to weird scene to horrible scene to nonsensical scene to horrible scene. The needed thing isn't to ignore the plot- it's to build on it yourself. Why are these things happening? If you fill in the gaps yourself, you can come up with a sensible answer that you can debate with your friends. A horror movie that can start a debate- wow.
Answers? Debates? What about the ending? I don't want to give away the ending, but the ending is quite interesting if you look closer. You can turn off the VCR and say "The ending was (whatever)" and never think about it again. Or you can think- what really happened? Was it a descent into the beyond? or madness? what happens now? they become like Emily? or they make their own hell? There are lots of questions to ask, and lots of debates. I think Fulci was smarter than people credit him for with this ending. Which is a place where the other two films fail. "Gates of Hell" had such a lame ending that it practically ruined the movie. One explanation was that someone dropped acid on the film and the visuals for that ending were lost. Whatever. Even the ending, if it hadn't been burned, was lame. And the ending for "Zombie" was obvious. I *liked* the ending, but they could have tried to make it a little less guessable. The ending to "The Beyond," however, was well-paced, well shot, the 'scenery' was great and you really couldn't see it coming(or maybe I'm just bad at guessing endings).
So what it amounts to is this: If you can watch a movie without being spoonfed all the answers; if you love watching films with atmosphere as much as plotline; if you like violence and can overlook if it looks fake sometimes; if you like nightmare scenarios; and if you'd like to see what is hailed by many to be the best film of who is hailed to be one of the best Italian horror film directors of all time, check out "The Beyond." I'd skip "Seven Doors of Death" if I were you- get it uncut. You could even make it a double feature with "Gates"(it will probably be listed as "City of the Living Dead").
I will stop the review now, as it is already long enough. If the above sounds like you, stop reading reviews and just check out "The Beyond."
Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders (1996)
This is a 'family' movie?
I really don't want to take a whole lot of time with this, since others seem to have explained already how horrible this movie is. However, I would like to point out some problems that really aggrivated me.
a) Merlin came into the world in order to bring magic back into the world. From the look of things, I'd much prefer a world without magic thank you very much. All this 'magic' did was hurt people and caused evil. Yet the movie tries to put on this nice face- it really tries to give you this feeling of wonder and enchantment when all it really does is give you a feeling of horror and disgust. How can you be enchanted when things are happening like: people getting mauled by a cat they've just cast a spell on(And if I remember correctly charred it alive later), animals dying because of cursed toys that threaten to kill children, etc. Wow, what a wonderful tale! Even with Mike and the 'bots I was still a little sick.
b) Uncle Ernest says that a familiar is a magical animal that is loyal to its master(or something like that). So why in heaven's name does the non-enchanted cat immediately attack its master?
c) Who couldn't see the ending coming to story number one, and how much of a letdown is the ending of story number two?
d) Rock and roll martian? Was that kid on crack?
e) Since when did Merlin get married? (Okay, so this question is only for nerds like me that know about the history of the Arthurian legends.)
Without wasting any more time on this, I just want to recap for you: This is *not* a children's movie. It is *not* good family fun. It is *sick* and *nonesensical*. I would make the claim that it would probably scare little kids, but with a generation of children raised on films where a man in a hockey mask chops up kids, killer dolls stab people to death, and they are told to laugh at sick and disturbing things(Scary Movie, among others) I kind of doubt it really would scare kids. But don't be fooled. Even if you don't believe this movie is that sick or disturbed, you can't deny that it SUCKS.
(final note: I realize that I am pounding this 'disturbed' and 'sick' thing into the ground, which is hypocritical considering I enjoyed movies like 'A Clockwork Orange.' Let me defend this by saying that no-one sees 'A Clockwork Orange' and thinks it's a family movie, but 'Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders' tries very hard to put on this act like it's a family film. *That's* the part that disgusts me.)
Avoid. * out of *****, with * being the lowest.
Creepshow 2 (1987)
Could have and SHOULD HAVE been much, much better...
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This film is, of course, the sequel to CREEPSHOW. It includes three stories this time, the first story of which is the worst of both films. It revolves around some young hooligans who brutally murder an elderly storekeeping couple, only to be served a dose of "frontier justice" by none other than the cigar-store wooden indian which stands outside. How can he move? What gave him the power? Who knows, the movie didn't explain. Perhaps if this segment had been a bit shorter, and perhaps had a bit of history telling where the indian got his power from(perhaps it was possessed by the spirit of a vengeful indian god?) it would have been more entertaining. As it stands it was quite dull, but the final scenes where the indian takes his revenge was fairly entertaining by itself. It didn't seem to have that "EC comics twist" like the other parts did- that is, some little bite in the rear end to jolt you. The original movie had some of these, like the scene in the Father's Day tale where it was revealed exactly what the undead father had on his silver platter- his "father's day cake." I won't give it away, because I hope you will see the first one and be surprised.
The second story, called "The Raft," is pretty good but encounters one of the problems that this segment and the next encounters- sex. No, I am not opposed to sex in movies, but in this series it is uncalled for. These stories are supposed to be in a comic book a young kid is reading, and I find it doubtful that the store would sell a kid this young something with such nudity and explicit adult material. That's not the worst of it- the sex in this segment was completely stupid and needless. The story was about several teens who go out for a swimming party- and get trapped on a wooden raft in the middle of the water, surrounded by a black mass that reminds me of another one of my favorite movies, The Blob(the remake). The sexual scene happens after all but the main character and one girl are dead, and she is sleeping as he stands guard. For no apparent reason other than he was a teenager, he decides to take a peek at her breasts by lifting her shirt up. It wasn't just a quick look, which may have been acceptable- it was quite a stare and in fact was a bit more than a look(but for the sake of keeping my review PG rated I will not proceed any further). Still, despite this flaw, the story is entertaining and has an ending quite like the original film's tales. Like most of these stories, the hero gets it in the end and of course, also like these stories, he deserved what he got.
The third and final story is one that is actually a bit chilling. A woman leaving a male prostitute's house hits a hitch-hiker on the way home. She had told her husband she was over a friend's house, so of course if she called the police he would find out she lied. So she leaves the man there to die and takes off. As can be expected, the hitch-hiker returns from the dead and seeks revenge. The main problem with this story is not the sexual aspect(even though, again, I find it hard to believe this was in a comic book, at least it made sense storywise and wasn't thrown in just because the director wanted to see some breasts) but the ending. Yeah, she gets killed, but so what? There was nothing spectacular or bloodcurdling, or indeed shocking about her death. Her husband simply finds her corpse. Now, maybe if she had been run over a few dozen times, that would have been something. Actually, there was a slight variation on the death which did very little to add shock, which was that she was holding the hitch-hiker's sign(you know, the sign they hold up to show where they are going).
Between each story is the continuing adventures of Billy. I don't know if this is supposed to be the same loveable Billy who tortured his dad in the first movie, or if they simply forgot there were kids' names other than Billy, I don't know. It is a different actor when he's there, but most of the time he is a cartoon, as is the rest of the between-story segments. I think the major problem with the film was that Stephen King and George Romero wanted to make it but simply didn't feel like putting any effort into it. It almost looks like an unfinished project- if the film had a little bit more effort put into the first story(as I mentioned above) and had two more stories, maybe they would have balanced out the first story. In addition, the first film was written by Stephen King and directed by George Romero. This film was written by George Romero(but based on stories by King) and directed by someone new. Perhaps if it had been written by King and directed by Romero, and had two more stories, perhaps we would be on Creepshow 4 or 5 by now. But instead, the series was ended prematurely with this film. I really would have loved to see a new film every few years, with more delightful stories by the master of horror, Stephen King. As a side note, "Tales From the Darkside: The Movie" had one story written by George Romero and based on a story by King, just like Creepshow 2. Interestingly enough, it was the only story worth seeing in TFtD:TM. Perhaps if it had been included in THIS film along with one other story(maybe the legendary "killer roller coaster story?)... but alas, "if" is a bad word, especially when depressed about what a great movie something could have been. Still, the movie is enjoyable if you can wade through the first story and try not to get too upset watching the cartoon interludes.
I give it ** and 1/2 out of *****. If the first story had been better it would be ****.
Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula (2000)
A few flaws brought down an otherwise great film
This film was of definate interest to me since I have read about Vlad Tepes in the past. I always thought that his story was scarier than anything Hollywood has done with Dracula, vampire or not. I got my wish... kind of. If you do not want to get the ending ruined(because there is no way to review this WITHOUT spoiling the ending), please do not read the rest of the review. In fact, if you can, I suggest you watch the movie so you can be surprised(whether it is a good or bad surprise is your own taste I suppose). If you don't care about spoilers, read the rest, otherwise, stop now.
There were a few minor things about the film that bothered me, but not enough to really ruin the film. For one thing, they never really explained where Vlad got the idea of impaling people(he got it because when he was taken prisoner as a child, the cruel captors made him stand over a stake for hours on his tip-toes, waiting to see how long it would take before he lost his strength and impaled himself). I did, however, like the fact that they dismissed some of the crueler aspects of Dracula(dunking his bread in blood, making mothers eat their babies, etc) which many historians believe to be propaganda spread by his enemies anyway(which they dismiss in the film as rumors). One minor historical problem which, I can understand them changing for a censored TV movie, was the fact that the way they impaled people was much more painful and horrifying(although I am not going to get into that). I assume that they would not allow this sort of thing to be shown on TV, although it would have been great if they could have shown this happening, ala Cannibal Holocaust. But this is not something I hold against the film, just an observation. The fast-motion battles get annoying though.
The thing I really was upset about was the ending. Here I was, thinking the whole thing was going well and being historically accurate, and then they revealed that a statue of the virgin wept tears of blood when he was born, and that it was not a legend. I was seriously hoping this was to be explained away, but no... and when they went to check on his body, how did I know it would be gone and he would be a vampire? Geez... I guess if I expected it to have a fantasy-type ending, I wouldn't have been so disappointed, but I wasn't so I was(if you can interpret that).
It wouldn't have been so bad if it had just ended with him killing the priest and escaping, but it showed him walking around with his wife, who was either a ghost or also a vampire. Really, if you're going to go the Bram Stoker way and say he's a vampire at the end, at least have the courtesy to make it so that it would make sense with Stoker's story. Why would the statue weep tears of blood at his birth? He wasn't a vampire yet. And if he became the vampire-version of Dracula, and what happened in the book happened next, then how did a heroic(but misguided) character like him become so inhumanly evil(as in Stoker's book)? And what happened to his idiot wife in the book? Was she one of his vampire wives? And I mean, seriously, Dracula(the vampire version) was hardly the antichrist. So I can forgive the writer(s) for putting in a bit of vampire silliness in the end. The Excommunication idea actually kind of does explain(in a hollywood/illogical Christian kind of way) how he became a vampire, but at least have it make sense. Explain why his wife is there. And why the statue cried. Did it just know he was going to become a vampire? Or was he the antichrist(which, as I said, doesn't make sense)? Hollywood, I hate you. I hate you for giving us Adam Sandler. I hate you for giving us Batman and Robin(the movie, not the characters). I hate you for "A Virgin Among the Living Dead". I hate you for Gallager. I hate you for "A Return to Salem's Lot". And I hate you for ruining an otherwise great movie with a bunch of nonsense thrown in at the end. Hollywood, one request. Please, please, please don't make me hate you for the upcoming "Lord of the Rings" series. Please. Oh yeah, and one other thing: Hollywood, stop using fast-motion for battle scenes. That was another annoying aspect of "Dark Prince."
All in all, after a long bit of meandering and ranting, I give the movie, as a whole, not counting the ending, **** out of *****(with * being lowest and ***** obviously being the highest). However, the ending gets * out of ***** for a grand total of:
*** out of *****. It's worth watching, and actually enjoyable, if you can overlook the ending. And considering the fact that I got nasty e-mails over my bashing of "Virgin Among the Living Dead" from fans who could do no more than tell me it was a masterpiece and make fun of me because I made a stupid mistake in one of my sentences, there are probably people out there who will like the ending. The only way you can find out is to watch.
The Little Shop of Horrors (1960)
Funny, underrated film; worth seeing
I re-watched this movie last night after not seeing it for years. As it turns out, it was better than I remembered. Lots of jokes go by quickly, and you have to listen close to get them all. Look out for Mushnick's English problems("Does [the plant] have a scientific name?" "Of course, but who could denounce it?"). The thing that makes these little things funny is they are off to the side, said quickly and moved along. It's not like a joke as seemingly weak as the one above is said real loud, and given ample time for a rimshot; this is said and then we move on quickly. This film is full of little chuckles and funny dialogue, but is not loaded down with huge guffaws and side-splitting gags. Certainly, this little shop is full of little laughs, but they keep going and keep your attention.
By the way, the listing in the main cast list on the IMDB for this film says Seymour's last name is "Krelboined." I think they missed the joke: His name is Krelborn(as his boss calls him), but his accent made it so he pronounced it, when asked, as "Krelboin." I could be wrong, but that was what I got out of it.
Finally, I have to say: When they packaged this with 2 other Corman movies for DVD, why didn't they include Bucket of Blood? They were both the same story with slightly different elements(instead of someone accidentally killing people to feed to a plant, he accidentally kills them to make statues out of. Otherwise, it's the same story), and they go well together. If *any* movie should be packaged with tLSoH, it should be Bucket of Blood.
Night of the Living Dead (1990)
Good movie, about on par with the original
Everyone knows the plot: Several strangers, trapped in an old farmhouse, combating the cannibalistic corpses of the recently deceased. This was very similar to the original, but a few plot additions, for example, being told who the farmhouse was owned by, added to the story. In addition, the ending was completely different and less apocalyptic. Barbara, instead of being a woman who has gone out of her mind, is more powerful and strong-willed. I liked the original ending better, but those out there who like happier endings(bah) should like this one. And to answer someone who asked: The reason Ben died and became a zombie even though he wasn't bit by one is because you do NOT have to be killed by a zombie to become one. ANYONE who dies becomes a zombie, regardless of how they die(unless of course they died from being shot in the brain). He died because he had been shot. A few interesting facts: this film was originally supposed to have a much larger scope, I assume it would have included different things outside the house like in other states and such. This was not done due to budget constraints. Also, the original NotLD was supposed to end with Barbara being the only one who survived, but this was changed. The new movie had something closer to the unused, original ending. Finally, there is a much more graphic version of the film floating around, and you might be lucky enough to find it somewhere. It supposedly shows more graphic shots of zombies getting blasted in the head, and one zombie's head explodes. This explains to one of the reviewers why the head shots didn't look very good- they were considered too graphic and cut. According to this very IMDB, the original cut of the 1990 film was rated X. Since this movie was only made to make back the money they lost on the original, they probably felt it best to not "go for the gore" like they did in the other films and release a more marketable "R" rated film. In summary: a good film with a few flaws here and there, but definately enjoyable. See both versions. I give it *** and 1/2 out of *****.
The Unnamable II: The Statement of Randolph Carter (1992)
Much more enjoyable than the first but more plot flaws
This film was much more original than the first movie, which was just a typical "teens get killed in an old house" movie. This one took a new approach, with a bit more humor, a fresher plot, and a more entertaining atmosphere. I enjoyed this a lot more than the original, but unfortunately, this film had a few problems. If you have not seen the movie yet and want to be surprised, DON'T CONTINUE READING, there are SPOILERS ahead. SO, still with me I see? Okay. The idea is that the creature has been trapped by tree roots to the wall of an underground "cave" or something and Randolph, now being helped by the dude who played the Professor in "Sliders," apparently tried to figure out what the most stupid approach to the problem would be. they finally decided that they should use a spell from the spellbook Randolph found(the Necronomicon), in fact, a spell which will seperate spirit from flesh. It wasn't until after the spell was cast that one of the characters said aloud, "Is this a very good idea?" I laughed at that one. I don't have a problem with this bit of nonsense though; many people would be just that dumb. The main problem I had was: the creature is now seperated, one half is a beautiful girl and the other half is a monster, which is now MANY TIMES MORE POWERFUL than when it was in the body of the girl. Yet, the creature was chasing them around the whole time trying to get back into the girl. WHY?! It had MORE STRENGTH, FLIGHT, etc. Now, what would have made sense was if they said the demon had to be in a human body by sunrise or it would be banished back to its dimension. This would have made a "beat the clock" scenario and also explained why it actually wanted to rejoin the girl and become weaker! The only other problem I had was the ending. It just seemed very phony and cheap. On the other hand, if they had done the "beat the clock" version, then the monster could have been beaten by eluding it until sunrise, thereby eliminating the really dumb ending they used. Still, I enjoyed the film and give it *** out of *****.
The Unnamable (1988)
Disappointing, but worth a look
I saw the sequel first, and, despite one plot flaw and some rather stupid plot developments, I enjoyed very much. So I jumped when I saw the first one for only $10. After putting it in the VCR, I was a bit upset that it was in EP but could live with it(hey, it was $10). Unfortunately, this movie had plot with less holes than the second but was no where near as entertaining or original. This was a pretty standard "stupid teenagers go to an old house on a dare and are slaughtered one by one" movie. If you like HP Lovecraft or have seen part 2 and liked it, this one is worth a look. Otherwise, it's an okay time killer but not great. ** out of *****. Also see my review of Part 2.
The Frozen Inferno (2000)
Pretty good, if incomplete film
Pretty good, if incomplete film. Being on such a low budget and being a student film, it was done very well. Too bad it was never finished. However, it is worth a look and as another person here stated, Mike Martinez may very well go into theatrical movies.
Escape from Chernobourg (1999)
The best movie ever made... with a camcorder
This is definately worth seeing. Full of corny "punching" and "kicking" sound effects straight out of kung-fu movies, (purposefully)bad dubbing, and very funny moments. Things to look for: the dead man's endless supply of brothers; music from various other movies, including "City of the Living Dead"; extreme gore; cool morphing effects; day changing to night and back again in seconds, like an "Ed Wood" film; and more.
If you want to get this movie, e-mail Mike Martinez. He's a very friendly guy and I'm sure he can get you a copy, especially if you have any rare horror or sci-fi films to trade him in return. And if you're lucky, he'll include the outtakes and a preview of his upcoming film "Frozen Inferno," which looks to be great.
By the way, I don't think this was really filmed on a camcorder, but I felt like saying that anyway.
Life of Brian (1979)
What happened?
I saw parts of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" when I was younger, but couldn't get all of it. However, in recent times I have become more of an AD&D fantasy-mythology type fan, and since I had found a rare Monty Python book which I found funny, I decided it would be the best of both worlds and rented it. I really enjoyed it and rented "Life of Brian" when I returned "Holy Grail." I hate to say it, but something happened. Holy Grail was a series of related skits which met at the beginning and end to form a full story. Because of this, many wacky, outrageous adventures took place. They were all unbelievable silliness, like singing a goofy song in Camelot, killer bunny rabbits, a knight who attempts to fight even when all his limbs are severed, etc. But as soon as I began watching "Life of Brian" and got to the beginning credits, I knew I was in for something I didn't want. I tried not to let it get to me, and many parts of the movie were still funny, but not enough to keep the movie afloat. The only silly scenes in the style of "Grail" were the alien scene, which seemed more pointless than funny, and the singing crucifixion victims. There were a couple other scenes too, but the whole thing honestly reminded me of "History of the World part 1," which I also didn't find funny.
I feel weird putting up a review like this amongst the flood of "This is the funniest movie ever made" reviews, but I'm stating my opinion. I will eventually re-watch it and maybe it will be better the second time(often this happens with me), but I really don't know how much it will hope. The movie simply seems to have the lost the magic and, well, what better word than "zaniness" the first had. Maybe it just had too much if a plot. Some of the other movies I've seen could well have used one, maybe they could have sold it to a more deserving film 8-)
All in all, I give it ** out of *****, making it slightly below average. I don't have it in my heart to give it any less, although I was going to give it *1/2, but that ranks it in the same rating with my opinion of Manos: The Hands Of Fate, and that's not very accurate. Still, if you are a fan of the Python troupe, you may as well check it out. I just wish I had known the public library is renting it for free when I paid for it.
La nuit des étoiles filantes (1973)
You think Manos: The Hand of Fate was bad? You ain't seen nothin' yet!
I bought this movie at a video store near me that is closing down for $5. I got it because a) it is out of print, b) the zombie photos on the back of the box looked halfway scary, and c) the cover art was fantastic!
I got a real letdown. Actually, it wasn't much of a letdown; I expected the movie to stink, but I got more than I bargained for. There are spoilers ahead, so if you actually want to be surprised(frustrated is more like it) stop reading now.
Okay, so the whole movie is this girl being chased by zombies- actually just regular-looking people, some with really bad teeth. And the zombies' scariest mode of attack was waving their hands in front of your face like a little kid impersonating Dracula or something. "Does this bug you? I'm not touching you" was all i could think.
The movie faded from dream to reality, never knowing what was a dream and what wasn't. And finally, at the very end, the whole movie was a dream. I wish the movie had been a dream. Did the director/writers think this was going to make sense... or be scary?
And what about the title? My version was called "A Virgin Among the Living Dead." Well, the girl was never mentioned to be a virgin, and in fact virginity(is that a word?) had nothing to do with the movie. Another title for the film was "Christine: Queen of the Erotic." Was there anything `erotic' about the movie at all? No nudity... no sex... no *mention* of sex. Just dreams about stupid looking zombies. And if some zombies started waving their hands in your face, couldn't you kick the crap out of them rather easily? One other title: "Zombie 4." What is this movie a sequel to? Lucio Fulci's "Zombie" was filmed years later. Am I missing something? Please e-mail me if you know what this is a sequel to!
One last thing: The photographs of zombies on the back of the box were apparently scenes from ANOTHER MOVIE because they didn't appear in this film at all!!! The zombies in this movie were just humans with no(or little) makeup AT ALL. Apparently, the movie stunk so bad they had to use scenes from another movie on the back of the box. Ditto with the truly awesome cover art; I think they paid more for the artwork than the movie(a lot of cheesy movies have great cover art). I think the scenes from the back might be from "Zombie Lake," because the IMDB says in the `Trivia' area for this movie that it used scenes from `Zombie Lake,' although I didn't see any scenes which looked lifted from the other movie. Although I haven't seen the other movie, I assume this because reviews for ZL mentioned green face paint and these zombies had none. Then again, the zombies on the back of the box looked better than the reviewers are saying the zombies from `Zombie Lake' looked, so who knows.
I think I've used up more than my share of space for this review, but the last thing I want to say was Manos was cool compared to this film. I give this movie * out of *****(with * being the least possible stars). Manos gets a *1/2.
Final quote(from the movie!) if you decide to see it: "Don't say I didn't warn you."