eyesmalloy Reviews

Frankenstein (1910)

Over A Century Later, The Original Monster Still Lives!

[6/10 · 27 September 2019]

Twenty-two years before the brilliant James Whale classic that made Boris Karloff a star and spawned a slew of outstanding to mediocre sequels, a silent short film became the first adaptation of the Mary Shelley novel. While it cannot compare to many later versions, this surviving Edison Studios production remains an important piece of cinematic history. At only sixteen minutes, director J. Searle Dawley successfully manages to tell a coherent story as well as capture both the plight of Dr. Frankenstein and the tragedy of the monster itself.

Despite the picture quality being nearly unwatchable in parts and intertitles (title cards) that tell what's coming before each scene, this long forgotten gem is still worth a watch by horror aficionados and silent film buffs alike. As of this writing, Frankenstein (1910) is available to stream on several networks such as Halloween Flix and can probably be found on numerous websites too. In my opinion, having access to technology that enables us to view a film that is over a century old makes for a very special experience indeed.

Christopher Robin (2018)

You Can't Go Back...and That's Okay

[4/10 · 10 April 2019]

I grew up in the 1980s, when Saturday morning cartoons were still a staple of American television. As a boy I watched everything from the Looney Tunes to Duck Tales to Garfield and Friends to the dozens of shows featured on the USA Cartoon Express. One of my favorites was Disney's The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. My mother had introduced me to Pooh through A. A. Milne's books, beginning with the classic When We Were Very Young. I loved each character and followed their adventures every weekend. Like millions across the world, when I heard about the British biopic Goodbye Christopher Robin and its Disney counterpart Christopher Robin, the little boy in me began to stir. Though I haven't yet seen the former, I watched the latter last night. It was my first experience with Pooh and pals in almost thirty years.

With a promising trailer, the star power of Ewan McGregor, and the return of Jim Cummings as the voice of Winnie the Pooh and Tigger, I was hopeful but reserved in my expectations. Everyone knows that attempts to rekindle the magic of beloved characters from long ago generally fail, but there are the occasional exceptions. Is Christopher Robin one of those exceptions? Did it successfully recapture everything we hold dear about our friends from the Hundred Acre Wood? Sigh. I think my rating speaks for itself.

Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot of good to be said about this movie. Despite the familiar characters, an instrumental version of the famous theme song, and some of the most outstanding CGI I've seen in years, Christopher Robin is a dreary, pointless, poorly written mess. The extremely cliché, formulaic storyline finds an adult Christopher Robin as an overworked, underappreciated office drone in post-WWII London. He's forgotten his youth, is too busy to be a good family man, and plans to send his young daughter away to boarding school. His wife resents him for the long hours he works and his slimy boss plans to take credit for his work.

In what appears to be another dimension, Winnie the Pooh wakes up one day to find his friends missing and realizes that Christopher Robin is the only one who can help him find them. Much like in Stranger Things, Pooh is able to cross into the human world via a portal at the base of a large tree. (This may have been in the cartoon, but I don't remember.) He quickly finds Christopher - who is not pleased to see him - and eventually convinces him to return to the Hundred Acre Wood to help him find the others. The whole thing reminded me of Steven Spielberg's Hook, in which Peter Pan has grown up, forgotten who he is, and must return to Never-never Land (which is essentially another dimension too).

This is one of those movies where you keep expecting it to get better but it never does. The film is slow, slow, slow. I'm all for a slow burn that grows more intense and complex over time, but that doesn't happen here. Somehow, no amount of running or bouncing can keep Christopher Robin from feeling static and lifeless. Adding insult to injury is the dark color palette used to reflect the bleak emptiness of Christopher's life. The purpose, of course, is to contrast his adult life with the happy, brightly lit world of his youth, something which might have worked fine if it didn't take two-thirds of the film's running time to get there.

It was clearly a rushed effort by Disney, made solely to cash in on Winnie the Pooh's re-emergence in the public consciousness after the announcement of the British biopic. There are scattered laughs to be had, but hardly enough. Winnie the Pooh himself is easily the best thing the project has going for it. As mentioned before, the combination of some spectacular CGI plus Jim Cumming's excellent voiceover work as both Pooh and Tigger is something special to behold. I suspect the other original voice actors would have participated as well, but sadly they have all passed on. Fortunately, Brad Garrett and Toby Jones as Eeyore and Owl respectively do a good job as do the actors providing voices for Piglet, Rabbit, Kanga, and Roo.

If you need to see it, I understand. I obviously did. But if you're expecting a sweet, emotional tear-jerker or a fun, high-flying adventure, you will be sorely disappointed on both fronts. On the upside, I must confess I agree with the primary implication of this film and others like it: There's nothing wrong with growing up. We all have to do it. But even though you can never return to your childhood, you can always keep your heart young.

Welcome to Willits (2016)

Great Potential Lost on a Mediocre Script

[4/10 · 20 February 2019]

IFC Midnight has occasionally produced some pretty terrific horror films, but Welcome to Willits is not one of them. When a group of kids sets up camp in the small town of Willits and goes in search of the town's hot springs, they find instead a huge marijuana farm. What first seems like paradise quickly turns to hell when the farm's crazy owner, Brock, becomes convinced he's under an alien attack. High on crystal meth and armed with a rifle (never a good combination), Brock takes action to protect himself, his niece Courtney, his girlfriend Peg, and his crops. It's just as ridiculous as it sounds, but it isn't without its merits.

The good stuff: Bill Sage (American Psycho, Boy Wonder) is an awesome, highly underrated actor who creates a terrific lunatic in Brock. Between flashbacks of being abducted -which may or may not be drug-induced- and hallucinating that each of the kids is an alien, Brock is highly motivated to not only kill, but to utterly dismember his intruders. Like most grade B horror, the violence is too over-the-top to take seriously, but Sage sells it well.

Equally impressive are the special effects. The "aliens" are accomplished via practical, surprisingly state-of-the-art costumes, masks, and props which add an unexpected layer of realism to the film - something which wouldn't exist had they used CGI! I also enjoyed the intercutting between the kids as they are and the kids as they appear through Brock's twisted imagination.

The bad stuff: How can I praise these things yet still give the film a measly four out of ten stars? The script. Despite the original setup, the dialogue becomes stale and the story never takes off. The tone vacillates between silly and serious instead of committing to one or the other. This is important because dramedy rarely works with horror. Worst of all are the endless plot holes: If Brock and Peg are regular meth users, why is he suddenly seeing aliens now? If his hallucinations are being caused by this particular batch of meth (which is implied at one point), why is he having flashbacks too? Was Brock really abducted or not? Why do the kids look like aliens to Brock while Peg and Courtney look like themselves? Why does Peg seem to see the aliens too yet never has flashbacks of her own? (I've considered that Peg's extreme co-dependence on Brock has made her susceptible to his psychosis much like in William Friedkin's Bug, but thoughts like that run far too deep for a simple movie like this.)

Honestly, Welcome to Willits had a lot of potential that was ultimately squandered on a mediocre script. The acting and effects were solid, but not enough to save the film. Good writing is crucial in any genre and too many filmmakers -especially in the horror field- fail to realize that. Horror comedies in particular are notoriously hard to pull off which is why successes like Shaun of the Dead and Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil are so rare and special. Both managed to be hilarious as well as clever and heartfelt. If that's what you want, this film doesn't measure up. On the other hand, if you just want to kick back, pop some popcorn and enjoy a goofy, gory horror flick, you could definitely do worse.

Rocky V (1990)

Rocky V: Different Doesn't Always Mean Bad

[6/10 · 10 January 2015]

Rocky fans are sharply divided when it comes to this fifth and almost last installment in the Rocky franchise, many considering it the lowest point in the series. Whether it is or not, it's certainly the most unique. The story is not so focused on Rocky himself, but split between Rocky, the troubles of his son, and the rise of his protégé Tommy Gunn. That splintering as well as the change in format and the street fight ending are the biggest issues fans have with Rocky V. And of course, Tommy's mullet.

When people fall in love with a film, or film series, the last thing they want is something different. Most filmgoers want to see the same thing over and over with only very modest changes in characterization and story. Rocky through Rocky IV all had roughly the same storyline: Rocky wants to quit fighting, someone convinces him to fight, he trains hard, and finally he dukes it out in the ring with a bigger, stronger, larger-than-life opponent. Sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses. This is the Rocky film fans were used to seeing. Rocky V takes a new road entirely and shows our hero in a very different light.

Adrian's brother Paulie is definitely the antithesis of Rocky in the films. He mistreats Adrian, drinks like a fish, and at times shows extreme jealousy and aggression toward Rocky. At the beginning of Rocky V, Paulie tops all past shenanigans by gambling away Rocky's fortune, forcing the family to return to the dingy, crime-riddled Philadelphia neighborhood where they started. Why does Rocky keep putting up with Paulie's bad behavior? We all love Rocky in part because his heart is bigger than his brain, but this time around the Italian Stallion seems denser than usual. While it is explained early on that Rocky has actually suffered some permanent brain damage, he is a little too oblivious here.

During most of Rocky V, we just want to smack Rocky across the face and tell him to wake the heck up. We can sort of understand why he keeps Paulie under his roof despite his costly blunder, but what follows is nothing less than a string of bad decisions by a Rocky who's clearly asleep at the wheel. He ignores his son's obvious need for attention and guidance, he takes an ungrateful punk under his wing and lives vicariously through him, and he allows a slimy Don King-like boxing promoter walk all over him. Adrian, meanwhile, is wide awake but her repeated attempts to shake Rocky out of his fantasy are in vain because he just won't listen.

Probably the biggest complaint of Rocky V is the ending. All of the other five Rocky films spend their final fifteen minutes in the ring. Not this one. Instead, Rocky's former protégé Tommy challenges him to a bare-knuckle fist fight on the street. Since Tommy is technically the heavyweight champion now, and because the fight is relatively short and doesn't take place in the ring, it does feel a bit unofficial. It makes sense that the audience would want to see Rocky retain his title one last time and that doesn't happen. Furthermore, the film's closing credits are superimposed over a slideshow of memorable moments from the entire series, making it feel even more final.

Having said all of this, the truth is that Rocky V is still a pretty good movie. It may have some frustrating, even awkward scenes, but it's packed with real emotion and is generally well made. The best news of course is that Rocky V isn't the end anyway. Stallone wisely decided to make another film sixteen years later - the surprisingly great Rocky Balboa - which closely mimics the original and gives this spectacular series the ending it deserves.

I love the Rocky movies. Having recently bought the Heavyweight Collection on Blu-ray and watched them chronologically, I have nothing but respect for Stallone and love for his alter-ego. Each entry in the Rocky series is a worthy chapter and none of them stray too far from their origins. From that perspective, I'd go so far as to say the Rocky series is probably the most consistently good film series ever made. Every series has its black sheep and Rocky V is certainly that. But does that make it a bad film? I don't think so.

All Hallows' Eve (2013)

All Hallows' Eve is Underrated As Hell

[6/10 · 22 January 2014]

Given the overwhelming popularity of shockfests like Martyrs and the Saw series, the nearly universal disapproval of this film is itself shocking. It's strange how some films can make their mark for the very things that cause others to be rebuked. All Hallows' Eve is low budget and has its mistakes, but overall is a wonderful, very scary exploitation horror film with a memorable villain and surprisingly good production values.

All Hallows' Eve is an anthology film. Like most horror anthologies such as Tales From the Darkside: The Movie, Twilight Zone: The Movie, and Trick R' Treat, All Hallows' Eve has three main stories plus a wraparound story that ties them together. Director Damien Leone chose this format to showcase his pre-existing short films ("The 9th Circle" and "Terrifier"), so only the second story and the wraparound are totally new. The film opens with a woman babysitting two children on Halloween night and the discovery that someone has sneaked a VHS tape into one of the children's trick-or-treat bags. Reluctantly the babysitter plays the tape and the first of three stories begins.

With regard to reputation, there seem to be three primary complaints about the movie: 1) The director used previously created material, 2) The film is excessively gory, and 3) The acting is bad. Each of these is easily negated. First, most people have not seen the two short films, so the director seized his chance to have them viewed by a large audience. Completely understandable. Second, yes the film is graphic, but certainly no more than a hundred others released in the past decade, many of which were very popular. Third, the acting is actually pretty good. It's definitely strong enough to let the audience suspend their disbelief, which is after all the name of the game.

If there's one thing I've learned from reading reviews and posts on IMDb and elsewhere, it's that people will complain about anything. The truth is that All Hallows' Eve is a tense, entertaining horror film alive with creativity, realistic effects, and inspired direction. Its rating on IMDb (as of this writing) is unfortunate and unfair. If you want a polished horror film that's long on plot and every shot perfectly framed, see something else. If you want to have a good time and be scared, see this.

Scream 4 (2011)

In Defense of Scream 4

[7/10 · 22 April 2011]

There have been over a dozen horror remakes, reboots and reimaginings in the past decade and most of them were pretty bad. Sitting in the theater on opening night, I had mixed emotions about Scream 4. I hoped it would bring the series back to the level of the original, but feared it would only stray further. As I left, I found myself pleasantly surprised. It was a lot of fun and had a knockout ending. The next day I found it had a solid 7.7 on IMDb. Since then, I've read post after post in which fans have not only bashed the movie (which is fine) but spoiled the ending (which isn't). In my opinion, Scream 4 deserves better.

Scream 4 is a genuine sequel. The original cast reprise their roles and do a great job. Since it is eleven years later, everyone is at a different point in their lives. Sydney is a writer, Dewey is Woodsboro's sheriff and Gale is married to Dewey trying to write her first novel. The characters are older, stronger and smarter. Then there's the new cast. While most slasher sequels offer little more than another batch of doomed sex-crazed teenagers, the Scream teens have always been pretty intelligent with significant time taken to develop their characters. For the most part, this continues in Scream 4. Best of all, original screenwriter Kevin Williamson rejoins director Wes Craven to create a story that's equally fresh and familiar. Yes, Scream 4 not only packs plenty of surprises; it turns the original trilogy on its head!

The Scream series openings have always prided themselves on being shocking and clever and this one is no different. From there the film proceeds to reintroduce the three stars as well as the newbies. Most of the new characters have pivotal roles, some of whom are deliberate reincarnations of past characters. This might make some nostalgic for the days of Tatum and Randy, but I think most will find the new characters interesting enough on their own. The passing of time is captured through the use of technology including Facebook and Twitter, webcams, and smart phones. Like its predecessors, Scream 4 makes several references to other horror films including Saw IV, Shaun of the Dead, and that hilariously long list of remakes used in the trailer. Finally there are the Stab movies, the series within a series that began in Scream 2. In Scream 3, Stab 3 is in production, and by Scream 4, they are up to Stab 7.

While I won't reveal anything about the ending, I will say that it's awesome. In fact, Scream 4 in general is a lot of fun. You'll notice a few scenes that are obvious counterparts to the original, much like what Wes Craven did in New Nightmare. Scream 4 is brutal, funny, clever and scary. If you liked the first three Screams, you'll probably like this one too. If you accept that times and "rules" have changed you're sure to have a blast. I think the main reason some fans have a problem with Scream 4 is that it does not follow the original rules. Others have complained about ridiculous or illogical moments. All I can say to that is...Dude, it's a Scream movie! They all had those moments! Though the films have always been smart, they all came with a side of cheese. Perhaps the best thing about the Screams is that they make fun of horror films while being horror films. So relax, have some Jiffy Pop, and don't take it all so seriously. After all, it's just a movie.

South Park (1997– )

The South Park Legacy

[10/10 · 29 November 2010]

Dear Friends,

I have been a dedicated South Park fan since the third season when my area finally got Comedy Central. Until then, I had only heard about the show and seen T-shirts in stores around town. Eleven years later I can honestly say that this show has changed my life and opened my eyes more than any other in television history. It is easily the most intelligent, daring, and out-right hilarious show of all time. It has been imitated and parodied and referenced millions of times since its inception and has amassed one of the most devoted followings of any pop culture creation ever. The plots are brilliant, the characters well-developed, the writing and direction outstanding. Sure, not every single episode is perfect, but most come pretty close. The amount of time, thought and ingenuity that goes into each twenty-two minute spectacle is mind-blowing. After fourteen years, including over 200 episodes and one fantastic movie, South Park remains consistently fresh and original.

In my experience, most people who watch South Park, even those who love it, fail to truly understand by what the show is. While at first glance it appears to be nothing more than a show about some potty-mouthed children, it is far more. South Park makes bold, unapologetic statements on ideas and events using accurate information and turns the inherent contradictions or absurdity of those ideas and events into powerful jokes. That is the genius of the show. There has been dispute among fans and critics about there being obvious political agendas at the core of many episodes and that this interferes with the entertainment value. In my opinion, this is simply an example of the show's depth and enhances its entertainment value. Indeed there are plenty of messages the writers hope will be received by the viewers, but that is precisely what elevates the show above mediocrity. South Park does not pander to popular opinion, nor does it set its sights on refuting popular opinion. It is neither conformist nor anti-conformist. It is truly non-conformist, meaning that sometimes it agrees with the masses and sometimes it does not. That is what a true rebel does. Rebels do not vilify or vandalize, they think. They come to their own conclusions regardless of what is accepted as correct. The creators of South Park are genuine rebels, and this is why they and by extension their show deserve the highest respect. South Park makes fun of everything and everyone. It doesn't play favorites and no person, country, culture, company, religion, trend, tragedy, or technology is immune. I think that is beautiful.

The show is centered around the lives of four young boys who live in a small mountain town in Colorado called South Park, and it is through their eyes which we view the world. Stan is the leader, Kyle is the conscience, Cartman is the villain, and Kenny is the enigma. In the average television show, there are rarely paradigm shifts, changes in perspective or real surprises. This show offers all three on a regular basis. In the typical show, everyone has a role and those roles are to be counted on no matter what the situation. In this respect as well, South Park is unique. Although the main characters do have basic attributes, their actions are not predictable. Sometimes Stan dodges his leadership, sometimes Kyle does the wrong thing, sometimes Cartman does the right thing, and sometimes Kenny seems almost normal. This makes the show more realistic and reflects the fact that children's personalities are plastic, not rigid. And because we see things from their eyes, the show is about much more than just them. It is about their parents, siblings, classmates, teachers, and various others who live and work in the town. The show's regulars are anything but stereotypes and the stereotypes we do encounter are absolutely deliberate and stretched to the limit. They are all interesting characters, from sexually-confused 4th grade teacher Mr. Garrison to dumber-than-dirt policeman Officer Barbrady. Another level of characterization can be seen by the arbitrary inclusion of both imaginary and historic characters. Christian icons Jesus Christ and Satan have appeared on the show, as have impossible characters like Mr. Hankey the Christmas poo and Towelie the drug-addicted genetically engineered towel.

There is very little intelligent programming today. Maybe there never really was. Most shows of all kinds come and go without leaving any lasting impression. Their structure or storyline gets stale and before you know it the show is canceled. No surprise and no big loss. They are not remembered because they have made no difference in the world. South Park is different. It will be remembered long after its series finale because it has changed the world. It has pushed the boundaries of what is allowed on television more times and in more ways than any other show in history. It is filled with sharp dialogue and clever catch phrases that are recited by millions of fans all over the world. It is not afraid to confront any issue, poke fun at any celebrity, or parody any movie or book. Do not listen to those who complain about the show being immature, poorly drawn, or just plain stupid. It is smarter, gustier, and more original than any two shows of this generation or any. South Park is the best, pure and simple. The conclusion of this past season only proves that the creators are just as ingenious and imaginative as ever. Trust me, South Park will live on.

Sincerely, A Fan

The Brave One (2007)

The Underrated One

[9/10 · 24 December 2009]

So many negative reviews about The Brave One make it necessary for those of us who understand it and see the purpose beneath its gritty exterior to share in the hopes that others will come to understand and truly see it too.

When Erica Bain walks the city, she takes the time to observe what most don't. She sees where she is and what it all means, all meshed together with crime and business and love and affection and affliction and power and fun and beauty. She can see. Well. Or can she? After the event that lays the story's foundation, Erica has a frightening epiphany. Despite her private belief of strength and superiority compared to others, she finds that she is no safer than anyone else. But then rather than join a support group, take to the bottle, cry herself to sleep or barricade herself inside her apartment, she decides to do what few others do. She decides to fight back.

Yes, the police do excellent work, solve countless crimes and remove thousands of bad seeds from the streets. It is not enough. Americans have the right to bear arms to defend themselves. Not just against the forces of tyranny and oppression, but from the evil of the individual who threatens you from right down the street. Why wait for the bad people to make the right mistakes that would lead to their prosecution? Why not protect the sheep -driving their cars, riding the subway, walking the streets, sitting in bars and offices- before they're sheered by the wolves? Why not intervene...instead of cower and then call 911 after the damage has been done? People say that the events of The Brave One are too "coincidental" to be realistic, but that misses the intentions of the lead. Erica seeks out bad people by frequenting bad parts of town, especially at night. She knows the city and for the first time she is deliberately going to the places she has always known to avoid. In a very real sense, and minus the cape and ridiculous logo emblazoned on a rubber suit, she is a superhero. Like the operatives who protect our citizens by keeping their identities a secret, so does Erica Bain. Remember: real superheroes are the ones you don't see.

Comparisons to Death Wish, Taxi Driver and others are expected, but this film has something distinctly real and different to offer the thinking movie-goer. She is not a villain, she has no ego about her agenda, she is not cold or malicious, and she is not a sadist. She is a regular person (not an ex-cop or ex-con or ex-military) who has had enough of the vile sociopathic minority whose only aim is to terrorize, rape, rob, and murder the majority who just want to make their way peacefully in the world. Some argue that this is impossible, but that is just an echo of the fear machine propagated by the media and by the politicians whose votes are cast out of fear.

Erica sublimates her fears to carry out a mission of justice for the people of the city she loves. As well for the greater good and for humanity. Indeed, standing around in any crowded room, you would find among them the sad one, the lonely one, the frightened one, the angry one, the tired one, the sickly one, and the apathetic one. ERICA is the brave one. If you can't accept this, then ask yourself why is it that millions cheer on the antics of Batman or Spiderman? Isn't it a good thing when Jason Voorhees is chopped to pieces? How about that personal vendetta of The Bride? Sure, you may think that the killing of masses of "bad guys" is fine for a movie as long as that movie's setting is a far cry from reality. But when reality takes center stage, why are minds and stances so easily and radically changed? I'm asking YOU! Are you one of the timid masses or are you one of the sturdy few?