Change Your Image
ShadowDragyn
Reviews
Phantasm (1979)
What am I missing?
Maybe I should have seen this when I was a kid. Perhaps viewing it for the first time in the 21st century just doesn't provide the necessary atmosphere to appreciate what this film is about. But for whatever reason, this movie didn't grab my attention at all. It was full of long, and as far as I can tell, pointless shots of people walking, riding bikes, driving cars, or just plain standing around. They were accompanied by spooky noises or music, but they still dragged on for way too long. Maybe that was the late 70's way of building tension, but by the time 20 minutes had gone by, I was so disenfranchised that there was no way I could be apprehensive. And this while watching it in the dead of night alone with the lights off.
I love horror movies, and especially hokey ones like Evil Dead. My wife and friends start groaning whenever I go off on some movie that everyone else thinks is stupid. But this one...it just didn't work for me.
Doomsday (2008)
It must have looked better on paper
I don't know what I missed here. Ordinarily, I love pointless action and horror movies. I repeatedly watch films that my friends cringe at the mention of. I loved Dog Soldiers, and I really enjoyed The Descent, so it's not like I don't like Neil Marshall's style.
But this...
After it was over, I turned to my wife and summed it up in one sentence. If The Road Warrior had sex with John Carpenter and they had a retarded child, it would be named Doomsday. Not a single thing in this movie hasn't been done better in some other cult classic that has come before it. Initially, I thought this was going to be an homage to Escape From New York and the Mad Max series, but it turned out to be an insulting travesty instead.
I didn't even mind the acting. Rhona Mitra comes off as believable enough, as do the supporting cast for the most part. There are a couple of laughable performances, but there always are in this type of movie. But the action just didn't work for me. Nothing meshed at all. It just sort of chaotically unfolded on the screen, with no real direction.
If you want action for action's sake, watch Shoot 'Em Up. If you want to debate about whether or not another movie could be as bad as Catwoman, then see this.
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
A solid sequel that adds depth to the title character
The Bourne Identity showed a man on the run from an enemy he couldn't identify. It showed what that man was capable of when pressed, and the lengths he would go to for survival. It was interesting stuff, and Matt Damon played it beautifully. You got the sense that a very dangerous man was hidden behind that stony mask, though you only caught glimpses of it when things went sour.
This time out, we get to see what Bourne is capable of when he's just plain p****d off. Here is a character much more parallel to the one presented in the novels, a much more ruthless and imposing figure who will stop at nothing to accomplish an objective. This is Bourne as he should be: a very dangerous man indeed.
That's not to say that the sequel is better than the original. In fact, in most ways it's a tie. Excellent fight choreography (though we don't get to see much of it in this film), incredible car chases, and bits of edge-of-the-seat suspense are showcased in both. Personally, I give The Bourne Identity a slight edge thanks to the freshness of the storyline and the more coherent action sequences.
An 8 out of 10 movie that I give a 7 because of the much overused "frantic" fight scenes.
Note to Hollywood: stop filming hand-to-hand fights by hanging a camcorder between the two combatants to make us feel like we are actually there. It's a movie. Let us watch it.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
Its defenders define it as "spoof", but it's much closer to "spoor".
I am a fan of mindless action and horror movies. I have titles in my collection that most people groan at when browsing my shelves. I think it's fair to say that I have a rather large appreciation for movies whose sole purpose is to provide a "plot" only as a vehicle to present action. Because of this, I have defended numerous films to my friends over the years which they are determined to make me hate.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is not one of them.
Over-the-top action is terrific when done right, and just plain bad when done wrong. This movie is a classic example of how not to do it. I'm all for checking my brain at the door and just having a good time, but when a movie is totally devoid of anything resembling a brain, when it's just flat *stupid*, I have to cry uncle.
This movie, like the recently unleashed-on-an-unsuspecting-public debacle that is Catwoman, has some people campaigning for it because it presents women in a strong, hero-type role. But what good does it do to take two steps forward and three back? Sure, these girls kick ass (in the most ridiculous of ways, but that's neither here nor there), but they also reduce themselves to sex objects every chance they get. It's nothing but exploitation without the fleshy payoff. Is that the sort of role model that feminists really want to see? Films like The Long Kiss Goodnight present a much more believable female action figure without reverting her every 5 minutes to a walking Viagra advertisement.
Luckily I caught it on cable. If I'd paid money for this, even as a rental, I'd likely have wasted even more of my life trying to get my stolen money back in small claims court. Maybe theaters should be able to get refunds for stuff like this. Perhaps, were that the case, Hollywood might think twice about damaging our psyches every summer.
2/10 just because the four female stars are so damn easy on the eyes.
Paycheck (2003)
I don't understand what everyone's problem is
Doesn't anyone just go to a movie for fun anymore? It's almost like Lord of the Rings made it so that all movies are expected to be masterpieces. This isn't an epic. It's just an action-packed popcorn movie. Of course the plot is ludicrous. Who cares? Just sit down for two hours and enjoy it for what it is: a decent science fiction action movie. Maybe if everyone stopped trying to over-analyze every movie they sit through these days, they'd have a better time.
Then again, most of you will probably just think I'm a pretentious jerk who loved the movie. Isn't it amazing how anyone with an opinion on the internet is an expert?
My score: 7/10.
House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
Is Rob Zombie a genius? You'll have to decide for yourself.
This movie is a twisted, convoluted, mess from the opening scene to the closing credits. It jumps from scene to scene with no direction whatsoever with no real cohesive plotline or story to speak of. By the time the film is over, you're left not knowing exactly what the hell just happened, with no idea how you're supposed to feel or what you're supposed to take away from the experience. I wandered out into the open air almost in a trance, trying to sort through all the disturbing and seemingly unrelated events of the past 90 minutes.
Oh, sweet horror, how I've missed thee.
Since when did we as a society start expecting horror movies to make sense? When did we start demanding a real plot that ties everything up into a nice, neat little package at the end? Critics seem to think that any movie that doesn't explain itself is garbage. Well, I say that any "horror" movie that you can understand is not horror at all. Movies like The Sixth Sense and Red Dragon should really be labeled suspense or thrillers. Even classics like Frankenstein aren't true horror. A real "monster" of the genre should never be given sympathy. No, true horror is about people being in situations they can neither control or understand. Would Leatherface have been as disturbing a figure if we'd been given an explanation or motivation for his actions? Of course not.
And that's what Zombie has given us; a true horror movie for people who love *horror*. I don't *want* to know why. I don't *care*. All I know is that my mind was reeling for hours afterwards from the visual assault I'd just sat through. It's not a great film by any means. The truth is, I'm not even sure if I *like* the movie or not, but that doesn't even matter. I will buy it and watch it again and again, not because of any artistic value, but because it's true horror. And true horror movies are few and far between.
The Ring (2002)
A must for any true horror fan
I'm gonna make this short and sweet. The Ring has the 3 best traits a horror movie can have:
1. Makes you jump halfway out of your seat without relying on "cheap" scares.
2. Maintained a creepy atmosphere throughout the entire film.
3. Had me unnerved for *hours* after I saw it.
I can think of no greater compliments.
Caligola (1979)
One of the most misunderstood movies of all time
Caligula is not a masterpiece of modern cinema, or even that good a movie. What it is is a no-holds-barred-in-your-face-boot-to-the-head glimpse at the Roman empire during the rule of the most infamous Caesar in history. Most of the negative comments I've read deal with the movie's excessive violence and sexual depravity, and certainly there are mass amounts of both. But that's what the movie is about.
You think it was too violent, too disgusting? It's gratuitous sex and sadistic violence made you sick to your stomach? That was exactly the point. Caligula is no fairy tale story of the glory of Rome. It is an examination of the debauchery that pervaded everyday life. Many condemn Bob Guccione for turning the film into a cornucopia of sex and violence. I believe that someone like Guccione *had* to be involved. To use a more reserved filmmaker would lessen the impact, and therefore cheapen the message.
Caligula is not for everyone. If you are disturbed by strong visual images, then steer clear. But if you want a more accurate picture of life in ancient Rome, check this one out.