revcosmo Reviews

30 Days of Night (2007)

idiotic

[2/10 · 23 June 2008]

I'd never read the comics this film was based on, but it struck me as a somewhat intriguing idea... a group of vampires (i.e., monsters who can only hunt at night) discover perfect prey in a Alaskan town that endures a full month of night every year.

Sounds like a kinda clever premise for a horror movie, right? Well, it might have been, if 30 Days of Night had anything more than an remotely interesting premise to go on. The acting, script, set pieces, costumes, and special effects were all laughably bad. I should note that I'm a big fan of some really bad horror movies... but for a bad horror movie to be enjoyable, it has to avoid the cardinal sin of being boring. Not only was 30 Days laughably bad in just about all critical respects in which a movie can be bad, it was also painfully dull to watch. The characters were so poorly drawn there was no reason to care what happened to any of them, not the humans, not the vampires. It's hard to say who were more vapid or annoying, the humans or the vampires.

The humans suffered from stilted and silly dialog and bad acting, the vampires suffered from lousy makeup jobs (one of them looked like Trent Reznor in drag) and a ridiculous "language" (it sounded like they were speaking Klingon). Also, the plot never developed at all beyond "there are baddies coming to get us"... no explanation as to where the vampires came from. Which might have been alright, if there had been any successful development of suspense or fear; but there was not. Just some pretty gory deaths, which in this day and age of ultra-violent horror movies, is just not enough to base a movie around by itself.

There were some funny bits, like the vampires Klingonesque dialect and silly appearance, and some rather enormous plot holes (planes can't fly in the dark, eh?). But unless you're just looking for something to play "Mystery Science Theater" with, stay away from this steaming piece of junk.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

beautiful, but ultimately flawed

[5/10 · 20 January 2007]

El Laberinto del Fauno is one of those films that was on the road to brilliance, but got lost somewhere along the way. The fact that it did not fulfill its potential makes it a frustrating experience, which unfortunately detracts from it's overall beauty. Masterfully shot and directed, it's the story of a young girl caught in the madness of 1940's fascist Spain, who retreats into a colourful fantasy world, which eventually proves to be either her demise or salvation, depending on how you look at it.

There are several scenes of particularly impressive creative vision, however they fail to add up to a cohesive whole. The fantasy world isn't explored in enough depth, but the scenes of it that do exist are breathtaking. The war-based scenes though are often heavy-handed and are not connected well enough to the fantasy scenes. Furthermore, while the characters are all beautifully developed and acted, the plot tends to meander and fails to engage to a satisfying degree.

With some editing or a script rewrite, this could have been a veritable classic. Sadly though, in its present state, it just leaves us wondering what a marvelous film it could have been with a little more effort.

Donnie Darko (2001)

trite, inane garbage

[2/10 · 29 December 2005]

Oh my, I can't believe there are actually people who liked this stinker. I'm having a hard time deciding where to begin, because there was SO much wrong with this movie. The script, the plot, the acting... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?? Donnie Darko is a clichéd mess of a teen angst film that tries to be deep and edgy, but rather ends up being sloppy, dull, and derivative. Jake Gyllenhaal plays your typical outcast teen, a character done better in hundreds of films of the past 30 years or so. He escapes his social torments by doing bad things for an invisible rabbit. The whole rabbit deal can't decide if it's trying to be funny or creepy, and it comes off as neither, just kinda stupid.

The surprise ending just made me wonder why I had to sit through an hour and a half of this drivel, when it all could have been over in 5 minutes.

Bleh. Not often does a movie make me feel like someone has stolen a portion of my life. Donnie Darko accomplished that in spades.

Boxing Helena (1993)

proof that film-making skill is NOT hereditary

[2/10 · 26 December 2005]

In Boxing Helena, Ms. Lynch took a potentially good idea and just flat out massacred it. The basic plot, an obsessive doctor forces the object of his obsessions to be his prisoner by amputating her legs after an accident, could have made for an interesting film experience. But Boxing Helena is lacking in so many important areas, it couldn't have made even the most interesting premise fly.

The acting was sub par all the way through, ranging from the mediocre down to the straight-out-of-a-b-movie area. The dialogue was dull, stilted, and often pointless. The characters were all flat and poorly drawn. Even the soundtrack was appalling, helping to nail in the "made for TV" atmosphere that pervaded much of the film. The sex scenes could've been right out of a soft-core Skinemax-type flick. There were far too many shots that should have been left on the cutting room floor. And the "surprise" ending felt cheap and tacked on.

All in all, this was just a bad movie. Not bad in a entertaining, campy sort of way; just sloppy and tedious. Don't be suckered in by the fact that this was David Lynch's daughter, or because you think the plot sounds interesting. It's really not worth the time.

The Boys & Girl from County Clare (2003)

if it wasn't Irish, i woulda shut it off...

[4/10 · 24 December 2005]

The fact that this movie was about Irish people was about the only thing it had going for it. As the son of an Irish woman, I like watching Irish movies; I guess because they remind of my grandparents and things like that. But as a movie, without regard to its setting or its characters' nationality, it was quite dull. The acting wasn't bad, but the script was. All the plot points were very predictable and almost straight out of a soap opera. There were a few funny quips here and there, but most of the dialogue was rather uninspired and well, dull. The writer certainly didn't have any touch of the blarney in him.

Anyhow, if you just want to sit and listen to some pretty Irish accents for an hour and a half, then by all means, see this movie. But if you're looking for something interesting and well written, look elsewhere. Even my mum thought it was boring and pointless....

Split Second (1992)

enjoyable fluff

[6/10 · 19 December 2005]

If you don't like B-movies, then you should stop reading this review right now, and drop any interest in Split Second.

If you do DO like B-movies, check this one out, because it is a quintessential cult flick. Great hammy acting by Rutger Hauer and some of the supporting cast. (Note that great hammy acting is considerably different than great acting). The director actually did pretty well, establishing the post-apocalyptic mood with reasonable skill. The effects are godawful, but neat, just as it should be in this kind of movie. Lots of great one liners, especially from Hauer.

All in all, if you enjoy those good-because-they're-bad sci-fi flicks, this is a mighty enjoyable one. If you're looking for meaningful cinema... ummm.. well what are you doing looking up a movie about an alien serial killer?

Waking Life (2001)

pretentious, dull, and vapid

[1/10 · 18 December 2005]

This movie is essentially "Philosophy for Dummies", except that the "for Dummies" series of books generally have had a better sense of style and provide more insightful information. There really is very little appealing about Waking Life. The animation style is unique, but unless you're whacked out on goofballs, it gets tedious after the first few scenes. The script is atrocious; it seems as though someone who had just taken a philosophy 101 course wanted to show off that they knew something about philosophy. There were no insightful points in it, just a poorly executed rehash of a bunch of clichés desperately begging to be thought of as "deep". But don't buy into the BS, there was nothing deep here. If you're looking for a mystical or thought-provoking experience, you're more likely to get one from eating a bunch of fiber and taking a good dump.

Crash (1996)

wasted cronenberg...

[7/10 · 24 November 2005]

I should start off by saying that I'm an enormous Cronenberg fan. In fact, Crash is the only Cronenberg film I've seen that has really disappointed me. One of Cronenberg's greatest gifts is the creation of characters who, despite having an assortment of extremely unusual characteristics and enduring most surreal situations (turning into a fly, being fed hallucinations over a TV signal, etc), are nonetheless deeply human, evoking compassion and often pity and even sympathy. This, or rather the lack of this, is the primary flaw in Crash. The characters are wooden; they do not seem attached to their motives or to have any sort of life or personality outside being a vehicle for their motives. After the first 20 or 30 minutes, I just didn't really care what happened to any of them.

I also tend to agree with the other reviewers who felt that this movie wasn't the shocker it's often portrayed as. Cronernberg has given us some mighty visceral imagery over the years, but fails to serve up anything really gut-wrenching in Crash. That isn't to say Crash doesn't have its share of sex, violence, and violent sex; it certainly does. But such scenes don't have the impact they should; like the characters, they come off as wooden and fail to engage the viewer's emotions. In a sense, you could say that Crash has many of the standard elements of Cronenberg's film making, except the spirit.

Fortunately, Cronenberg has more than made up for it since; Spider (2002) and A History of Violence (2005) rank among his best works. Even the brightest of geniuses must be allowed a slump every now and then, and Crash is such a slump in an otherwise brilliant body of work.

Breakfast of Champions (1999)

excellent adaptation of (i think) vonnegut's best work

[9/10 · 6 November 2005]

Alan Rudolph did a fine job of bringing my favourite Kurt Vonnegut novel to the screen. The casting selection was excellent, everyone gets their characters down very well. Albert Finney was probably the highlight, his characterisation of Kilgore Trout was just perfect. Bruce Willis, Barbara Hershey, Nick Nolte, Lukas Hass, Omar Epps, and Glenne Headly were also all fabulous in their roles. The tone of the film was a near perfect reflection of the tone of the book; a mix of whimsy, paranoia, confusion, and alienation.

However, I can see this as being the sort of film you either love or hate. You either get it, or you don't. If you're not the sort of person who understands that humour and suffering can be the same thing, it's probably not a film you'll enjoy. I think that the key to much of Vonnegut's writing, and Rudolph and his cast do a beautiful job of bringing that to the screen.

House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

bleh...

[3/10 · 29 August 2005]

I had high hopes for this movie... I thought Rob Zombie's style of gonzo horror would translate well to a full length picture.

I was, however, wrong.

Zombie lost something when he moved to the big screen. He lost a sense of fun. There were a lot of good attempts, or at least attempts with potential, at making homages to some of the classic cult horror memes that Zombie has used in his musical acts. But they just sort of collapsed on screen, like a flan in a cupboard. What resulted was a mush of MTV style camera tricks, some colourful characters, and some pretty brutal violence. The problem was that these characteristics never coalesced into any kind of whole, and after the first half hour or so, it got pretty damn boring. The rest of the film seemed to meander with no particular direction, just a string of scenes of sadism, peppered with lame cuts and cheesy camera angles.

You can tell Zombie was trying, somewhere in there was a seed for a great tribute to grindcore horror. But Zombie just didn't seem to have what it takes as a director to pull it together and make it work.

Spider (2002)

excellent portrayal of mental illness

[9/10 · 29 August 2005]

As a mental health professional, movies about mental illnesses often tend to make me cringe. In most such films, the topic is at best sugar-coated and at worst just complete nonsense. There are few films that capture the depth and complexity of mental illness, and Spider is one such film. Cronenberg must have worked with psychiatrists or patients, because his portrayal of schizophrenia is dead on. The nicotine stained fingers, the lack of eye contact, the nonsensical manner of dress (four shirts on top of each other).. such details are essential for creating a thoroughly plausible image of a schizophrenic.

Not only does Spider depict schizophrenia accurately, it does so with a marvelous sense of art and feeling. Make no mistake, this is not a docudrama. Cronenberg uses such techniques as sparse dialogue and long camera angles to create a feeling of alienation and detachment from the world at large, capturing the experience of enduring life with schizophrenia.

Needless to say, Spider is not a "fun" film to watch. But it is a deeply effective, touching, and rewarding film.

Cabin Fever (2002)

instant cult classic

[6/10 · 29 August 2005]

Cabin Fever is a smart, self-aware horror flick that hearkens back to the good ole horror days of yore, learns from it, and creates a whole new beast.

For a while, it seemed as though all the innovation in horror had been exhausted.. nearly everything that came out in the genre in the late 90's seemed to be either a shoddy remake of a horror classic, or a shoddy remake of a quality Asian horror in an attempt at making it "palatable" for American audiences. In either case, the results have been mediocre at best. Horror needed a breath of fresh air, a new approach.. and Cabin Fever fits the bill.

The trick was putting new twists on the old tried, true, and yet tired horror foundations, such as the basic plot (group of randy teens who go off to a remote cabin seeking a little fun only to find the horrors aplenty), and breathing new life into it. Cabin Fever was so well aware of its "traditional" horror foundations that it succeeded round the board in a satire of the genre, while still being a solid scary movie. It's rare to find a film that can successfully mock the genre it's patterned after and yet still be as effective as standard genre fair. This is probably Cabin Fever's greatest strength. It's an entertaining horror film; scary, good effects, etc, and it is also an effective and quite funny send up of the horror genre. The writers definitely did their homework.

That being said, a film like Cabin Fever is destined to primarily appeal to a cult audience. This is a film that was made specifically for horror aficionados, much of the humour is aimed at people who have spent hours and hours watching the old cult horror flicks (Evil Dead, H.G. Lewis's stuff, Peter Jackson's, etc). If you're not someone who delights in (and has spent a great deal of time watching) the old cheesy horror stuff, a lot of the point of the film is lost. But I suspect Cabin Fever, like Evil Dead, 2000 Maniacs, etc, will be playing at midnight movies 20 years from now.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

disappointing

[4/10 · 21 August 2005]

I had a great deal of expectation for this film, and perhaps in a way, that interfered with my enjoyment of it. I had heard loads of positive things about it... the plot sounded intriguing and original, and I had read that it had a Terry Gilliam sort of sensibility.

Unfortunately, few of these positive traits were actually borne out in the film. It did kind of seem a bit like a Terry Gilliam film, but it felt a lot more like a cheap Gilliam knock-off than any sort of inspired film-making. There was a lot of potential in many of the ideas of the film, but most often they were executed without the finesse of a truly creative director. Instead of seeming original and innovative, most moments in the film just seemed like half-assed attempts at creativity.

Which is a shame, and in a sense made the experience of watching it even more distressing. Because there were definitely inklings of a great film somewhere in there, they just never really made it to the light of day.

Lost Highway (1997)

disappointing

[5/10 · 21 November 2003]

After all the memorable, imaginative films Lynch has made, I was quite excited to see Lost Highway...until I was actually watching it. Maybe it's because I had rather high expectations for Lynch, but this film just left me bored. There was nothing groundbreaking or impressive here, just the feeling that some one was trying execptionally hard to be weird, with no other guiding motives. It's as if someone was trying to emulate a Lynch film, without understanding what made Lynch films exceptional. Yes, Lost Highway had the trademark Lynch quirkiness and non-linearity (if that's a word), but that's all it had. It seemed like just an exercise in trying to be weird and freaky. I'm a big fan of weird and freaky, but Lost Highway had no art, no innovation. It reminded me of a teenager who dresses in all black and fishnets just to scare their parents... no substance, just shock value. (And little shock value at that.)

The City of Lost Children (1995)

one of the most creative films ever made

[10/10 · 21 November 2003]

This film is simply enchanting. It plays much like a dream; the sort of dream you don't want to wake up from because it's just too interesting. And, not coincidentally, the film is about dreams. That is, it is about a mad scientist who lacks the ability to dream. So he kidnaps children, with the aid of his midget wife, a groups of clones, and a brain in a tank, and attempts to extract their dreams. The problem is, he frightens the children so much that they will only produce nightmares. Most of the film is the story of a carnival strong man, whose little brother has been kidnapped by said mad scientist. The strong man sets out to find his lost petit frere, with the help of a streetwise little girl.

The inventiveness of the story alone would be enough to captivate my imagination, but the acting and the directing are perfect, and the cinematography is nothing short of genius. The characters are so creative, and brought to life with such je ne sais quoi, that thinking about it makes me want to go pop it in my vcr right now. It's the sort of magic that only a French mind could produce.

1984 (1984)

one of the best adaptations of a novel ever

[9/10 · 21 November 2003]

...right up there with Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and Cronenberg's Naked Lunch. In my estimation, a novel-made-film oughtn't be judged by its adherence to details, but rather its communication of the original spirit of the book. The film Nineteen Eighty Four flawlessly communicates the despair and hopelessness of the novel. All of the darker sides of human nature are perfectly, and thoroughly disturbingly, captured in this film. John Hurt does a marvelous job of portraying Winston Smith, the ordinary man stuck in a relentlessly dystopic society. Just when Smith is finally able to see some hope of salvation and liberation, in his forbidden love affair with Julia, that hope is smashed to bits by the cruel reality of a world bent on control and dominance.

The dreariness of the set and cinematography further solidifies the paranoia of what might happen (and appears to be happening) to the world if we're not very careful of who we let in charge of it. Granted, the film is a horrible downer, to say the least. But that's the point. There are few films that chill me to the bone as 1984 does.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

good, not great

[6/10 · 9 November 2003]

Ok, to start off, let me say something rather blasphemous... the original TCM was no brilliant movie. It was groundbreaking, yes, but only because it was the first "slasher" film (or the first to make any impact, anyway.) But it was not the masterpiece of horror that some people make it out to be.

That being said, the remake was quite enjoyable. In fact, I'd say it was at least as good as the original by all common standards of film review. However, it lacked the one thing that made the original special; and all that is was making it first.

Neither film is particularly innovative plotwise; a bunch of teens run across some rather sadistic people, one of whom has a penchant for wearing other people's skin. The remake, however, has a few advantages over the original; the acting, cinematography, and direction are superior. Neither film is very frightening, though I will give credit to the first one for being somewhat more disturbing, leaving more up to the imagination.

The only thing I can really fault the remake for is changing Leatherface's motivation. That was a real cop out. Other than that however, for a slasher film, the new TCM was quite well done.

In short, the new TCM is far better than many of the the hack 'em up horror films of the past few decades. But if you're looking for sheer horror genius... well, you're not going to find it in ANY slasher film. Go rent some David Cronenberg or Clive Barker instead.

Naked Lunch (1991)

simply brilliant

[10/10 · 9 November 2003]

The idea of bringing the novel Naked Lunch to the screen is a monumental undertaking. It was a task that could only have been executed well by a truly innovative director like David Cronenberg. Instead of attempting a literal depiction of the book, which would be all but impossible due to its stream of consciousness style, Cronenberg instead paints us a picture of what it might have been like to have been in the head of William Burroughs while he was writing it. The film can be considered a surrealistic biography; elements of Burroughs's life are melded with images and characters from his novels. Peter Weller plays the part of William Lee, Burroughs's alter ego, perfectly; with the right degree of apathy, detachment, and despair. Burroughs himself commended Cronenberg and Wellers on the accuracy of their depiction of his ideas. The supporting cast is also wonderful, giving life to an array of colourful Burroughsian characters.

The plot is essentially as follows... William Lee, having long given up writing as "too dangerous", lives a comfortable if morose life as a pest exterminator. His wife Joan, however, introduces him to the pleasures of his bug powder, as a powerful narcotic. Soon, Bill's world begins to unravel; the narcotic squad is after him, and at the behest of a talking typewriter/cockroach, Bill and Joan play "William Tell", leaving Joan with a gunshot wound to the head. After shooting his wife, Bill escapes to the hallucinatory world of Interzone, where he begins writing reports; again at the request of the talking typewriter/cockroach. The reports he writes end up becoming the novel Naked Lunch.

This film certainly isn't for everyone's taste, but it is a must for any Burroughs fan, and for anyone interested in surrealist existentialism.

Cheech and Chong's Next Movie (1980)

a classic

[7/10 · 9 November 2003]

Ok, needless to say, this film is only going to appeal to a certain audience; namely stoners and like-minded people.

That being said, if you are one of these aformentioned people, this film is a MUST. In fact, I think it should be mandatory for head shops to sell a copy of it to anyone purchasing their first bong. What Monty Python's Holy Grail is to geeks and nerds, so is this movie to potheads. I first saw this film 10 years ago or so, and I still crack up every time I watch it. The jokes perfectly lampoon the pothead lifestyle, far better than latter day knockoffs like Half-Baked attempt to.

There isn't a plot, so to speak; the film is more of a collection of various skits; as the films protagonists wander around Los Angeles in their legendary haze. Despite this, the film has an excellent sense of pace, and doesn't drag at all. Many people cite Up In Smoke as C&C's best work, but I would have to say that Next Movie is superior.

So if you're in the mood for an hour and half of belly laughs, light up, tune in, and let your mind float away =)

Oh, and FREE TOMMY CHONG!

Shock Treatment (1981)

woefully underrated

[7/10 · 31 October 2003]

As people have said, this film got a horribly bad rap, and made very little money. The reason, as people have also said, is that it was expected to be in the same vein as RHPS, which it simply was not. Sure, it had Richard O'Brien's trademark musical style and whimsy, but it wasn't the campy kitsch people were expecting. It was, in fact, an intellectual movie with a serious message, a brilliant satire of life in the late 20th century. O'Brien takes jabs at the hallmarks of the decline of modern Western civilisation; conformity, machismo, brainwashing, and the absurdity of the "American Dream".

The plot can be a little hard to discern on the first viewing, but, as with many great intellectual films, more nuances of what O'Brien is trying to say are picked up with each subsequent viewing. The film is certainly surreal, to say the least; and I would suspect psychedelics were somehow involved in the writing of the script. Denton, the picaresque happy U.S. everytown, is actually just a television studio; and all the residents are characters on television shows or are in the audience. Enter Brad and Janet, who, after experiencing the "horrors" of RHPS, are having marital difficulties. This works perfectly into the plan of a mysterious fast food magnate, who intends to steal Janet away from her husband and use her to promote his business. He conspires to have Brad locked up in the local mental hospital/soap opera, while promoting Janet as a new bombshell sensation, and taking the whole town under his thumb.

In short, if you're looking for more of RHPS, you will be sorely disappointed. But if you want a thought-provoking yet whimsical, tongue-in-cheek attack on all that is mind-numbing and soul crushing in our modern world, definately check this film out. Jonathan Swift would be proud.