Change Your Image
greboca
Reviews
Simon Says (2006)
Don't bother -- it's crap
I'm a devout Crispin Glover fan, and will always give a watch to anything he's in. From classics to genre oddities to mainstream pap, he's had a career that touches many points.... while the productions he's in might not all be winners, at least he can be counted-on for an entertaining (and often unique) performance.
Not so with SIMON SAYS. This movie is just dismal. Obviously shot on DV and starring a cast of poorly-played stereotypes, SIMON SAYS feels like a student-film... it tries hard at times, but just keeps failing. Story - non-existent Characters - generic and stiff Dialogue - embarrassing SFX - way wayyyy too much (unconvincing) CGI
I wanted to just stop the flick early and end my pain, but ultimately I was drawn to know what on earth Crispin Glover saw in this project. I mean, maybe he did it strictly for the money (and if this production *DID* ever have a budget, certainly most of it MUST have gone to his salary). I have to presume that's the only reason he signed-onto this pile of crap.
Avoid this one. It isn't fun, it isn't "so-bad-it's-good"... it's just a p!ss-poor piece of crap.
Halloween (2007)
Truly a piece of crap.
Ultimately, this remake fails on all levels for me.
Here's a short-list of SPOILER-FREE points, items in this movie that just flat-out don't work whatsoever:
* Michael Meyer's background - I personally felt this didn't work. The overdone home-situation (by-the-book psycho-making circumstances, it seems), the constant cursing, the laughable song-choice in one scene - you'll know it when you hear it! Zombie tries to make Michael more "human" (although he's invincible later-on?), but ends-up painting a caricature of white-trash dysfunctionality that does little but inspire laughter.
* The language (cursing) - come on. Enough. Does every scene have to be crammed to the hilt with four-letter words? We get it, you like cussing! Well done! Try some original, realistic dialogue for a change.
* The dialogue (non-cursing) - do teenage girls really talk like that? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I know a fair number of ladies in their early-20's, and they don't all talk like prison-inmates. Did whoever wrote the dialogue actually check to see if kids TALK like that these-days? I'm pretty skeptical, personally. Most of the non-teen dialogue is pretty much dispersible and half-baked. No memorable lines in this movie. And one of the lines that was ported-over from Carpenter's original, "Was that the boogeyman?", got a HUGE LAUGH in the theatre I saw it in. Not a good sign when the audience is laughing at the dialogue.
* The violence - OK, I knew it would be more violent than Carpenter's original, but the truth is this is an UGLY MOVIE. I'm not saying that I wanted a pretty, inoffensive picture, but the ugliness (and duration) of the killings -- and there's A LOT of them -- just doesn't fit this movie for me. I swear Zombie was just trying to take-up extra screen-time by letting the actresses overact every single death-scene. And this is related to my next point
* The characters - why should I care if Michael kills them? We NEVER get to know a single one. There's barely a moment of character-development before the knife flashes. So we don't get to know the characters, therefore the killings don't resonate whatsoever with the audience, yet those killings drag on and on and on. It's pointless. In the original, we got to KNOW Laurie, we spent some time with her, and we related to her (feelings of not belonging, inadequacy, etc etc). In Zombie's Halloween, she's just a girl who runs and screams. Actually, they all are. They're notable only for the nudity. I have porn. I don't need this movie. Pointless.
* The plot-holes - too many to list. A few include: Knowing how to drive? Knowing where Laurie is babysitting? Knowing where Laurie's parents live? Finding the right sized jumpsuit for a seven-foot-tall man? Being invincible (since the supernatural element is removed from Zombie's version)? And for the love of all that's scary, WHAT YEAR DOES THIS MOVIE EVEN TAKE-PLACE IN? Cell-phones share screen-time with 70's haircuts and 80's Koss-style headphones (in a scene outside of Laurie's school)....? The movie is riddled with errors and head-slapping "WTF?!" moments.
* The music - it's nice that he incorporated a lot of Carpenter's music cues into this, but it's done pretty sloppily (esp. the opening theme). Moreover, the rest of the soundtrack is dismal. They mix in 70's songs with a bland, crappy "score" that fills EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN SPACE in the movie. When will modern horror directors learn to use SILENCE as a tension-builder? There are scenes in this movie that COULD have been effective, but instead of letting the audience slowly realize what's happening, the "score" pushes this generic "BRAAAHHHHGGG!" sound into our faces, as if we can't figure it out for ourselves. For f*ckssake, let the audience WORK for their terror. Don't just slap us in the face and think we'll enjoy it.
* The look - this is an ugly, ugly film. Where Carpenter's original was clean, crisp and - at times - quite colourful, this remake seems to have been shot through a steel-wool pad. It's ugly. The colours (what few there are) are muted. The compositions are, well, barely noticeable. And - as is the norm these days - it seems Zombie couldn't afford a tripod. It's shaky-cam aplenty here. At times, it's impossible to tell what is going-on, the camera is shaking so badly. There's NO STYLE (to match the lack of substance). I ripped on the Texas Chainsaw remake too, but at least there they seemed to possess a tripod. Rob, if you can't afford to rent a tripod, just lean the camera against a 2x4. Seriously. It works.
Overall - it's crap. It isn't scary, it isn't engaging, it isn't entertaining. It's a poor-man's version of a great film. It would never match the original (for me) anyways, but I was hoping to at least be entertained. I wasn't. I had my face pushed into a pile of ugliness that I didn't care about. Bravo, Rob Zombie. Now try making a real movie.
Murder-Set-Pieces (2004)
Garbage, not worth time or money
I've read the hype. I've anticipated checking it out for myself. I was even a little hopeful that the negative feedback about this flick (both here on IMDb and EVERYWHERE ELSE on the web) was just backlash. I guess I should have known.
The fact of the matter is, MURDER SET-PIECES is a giant steaming pile of crap. Unimaginative crap. Boring crap. Poorly acted crap. Unbelievabley BAD crap. An acquaintance of mine had ordered the unrated/original cut off the MSP website, and knowing that the R-rated Lions Gate version was about to drop, I asked to borrow his to check out this so-called "masterpiece of horror". What a joke. I'm so glad I haven't bothered to try and buy a copy myself. Here's a few takes on this gigantic misfire:
THE ACTING - horrid. The lead is a joke, a hulking boring one-dimensional lug who looks like he was dragged out of the gym - unwillingly - to mutter poor dialogue. When he slipped into German, I couldn't help but stifle laughter.
THE DIALOGUE - atrocious. Come on Nick, give us SOMETHING. I'll say this, the dialogue matches the acting-- flat and poorly done.
THE GORE - well you'd think that at least the film's saving grace would be the gore fx, right? WELLLLLL... sorry to say, no. In fact, there is VERY LITTLE GORE in this film. I have to think that the Lion's Gate cut version must have concentrated more on cutting-out nudity than gore. Sure, there's blood. Whoop-dee-doo. Guess what, I can go to a costume shop and get a gallon of fake blood too. So if you're anxious to see splats of blood hitting walls/floors, this movie is for you. If you actually want GORE EFFECTS, look elsewhere. The ToeTag team have done much better work in the A.Underground films (which I wasn't too keen on, but have to admit the FX were stunningly well conceived).
THE NUDITY - yeah, there's a great number of nekkid ladies in this film. If you're under 15 years old and don't have an internet connection, than this movie will really pop your corn. Otherwise... *yawn*. When there's NO CONTEXT, then naked bloody ladies just don't have any affect on the viewer (especially a seasoned horror fan). It's pointless... just like this whole film. Oh, speaking of pointless...
THE 9/11 FOOTAGE - tacky, tasteless and downright unnecessary. Just like this whole film.
It's downright hilarious that the director thinks he's made a masterpiece here. I suggest he start watching the horror-titles he constantly throws-around and take some lessons from REAL film-makers, because he just isn't anywhere CLOSE to their league or level of talent.
The only "disturbing!" thing about this film is the giant waste of money and resources this poor-excuse-for-a-horror-flick represents. Apparently the budget was approx. 2-million, and it was (as the director will quickly point-out) shot on 35mm. Big bloody deal. It still ends-up being a giant wasteful dump of a movie with no characterization, no plot, no FX, and no reason for existing. Some of the best horror-films were shot on a shoestring budget on 16mm. Go figure.
Avoid this at all costs.