mwidunn-95-631875 Reviews

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

2 stars for effort . . .

[2/10 · 19 September 2021]

A fantasy/sci-fi/psychological thriller.

It was made in Canada; and, the director and cinematographer seem to have been heavily influenced by fellow Canuck filmmaker, David Cronenberg. So, there are: unusual camera angles, long silences, weird or distinctive wardrobe or mannerisms, etc. You get the picture (no pun intended.)

Unlike Cronenberg, though, they forgot to bring along a storyline. The movie plods from one visually-interesting moment to another. Of course, nothing is explained. That would be cheating . . . Or, at least, showing a modicum of respect to the viewer. So, there's really nothing to think about. You (in the manner of Dr. Nyle): just sit . . . And watch . . . And, wait. For something . . . To happen.

Another hour and a half of my life I won't get back . . .

Don't waste your time!

Space Mutiny (1988)

Absolutely terrible (You'll love it!)

[7/10 · 15 August 2021]

I give this high marks, because it is just so enjoyably awful.

A suggestion, though: Watch it on its own. Mystery Science Theater 3000 is enormously overrated, in my humble opinion; and, nine times out of ten, I don't find their jokes strained and not that funny. Instead, this silly, incomprehensible, and just plain stupid masterpiece must be appreciated on its own demerits.

Jake Speed (1986)

Lies Somewhere between "So-Bad-It's-Good" and "Just Bad" . . .

[1/10 · 31 May 2020]

An attempt to emulate "Romancing the Stone" with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner -- but, without the storyline, direction, chemistry, or acting chops to pull it off. Surprisingly, there are some estimable acting names amongst the credits. But, Wayne Crawford is not one of them. Crawford, who also co-wrote the script, made the horrible mistake of casting himself as the lead, thinking that he could carry the role of a hunky, affable rogue, who spends his time acting out adventures for -- well -- nobody in particular just so he can pump out another book chronicling his escapades. He couldn't. The script, which Crawford also had a hand in, is also terrible. Every scene seems like it is in search of an idea. Since none is ever forthcoming from the writers, they just give up and jump to the next scene. Like, whatever . . . You can see how mixed up this movie is just by looking at its promotional poster. First, I had to really look hard to finally understand that the character is being depicted as stepping out of a Jake Speed pulp fiction novel. Second, there is the hookline: "More than a myth. Less than a legend. And a bit too big for his boots". So, I guess, Jake Speed is somewhere in the middle when it comes to heroism: something more than mythical, but not legendary . . . and, not really up to the task. Uh, yeah -- no. I cannot decide about this movie: Is it so bad it is good? Or, is it just terrible? I guess, it comes down to whether I would want to sit through it again, which is "no". If you want to see a movie about a hunky, affable rogue, set in Africa, with shooting and explosions, then I would recommend Matthew McConnaughey's "Sahara". It also had its flaws -- and, it bombed miserably at the box office -- but, you will not feel like you want a part of your life back.

Patient Zero (I) (2018)

Stanley Tucci -- only reason to watch.

[4/10 · 4 March 2020]

Yeah, the reviews here are basically correct: The movie's terrible. The only reason I decided to watch it was for the scenes with Stanley Tucci. Unfortunately, those scenes also usually included Matt Smith . . . who's not awful, mind you -- but, not great, either.

The movie is stupid. Stupid, for example, in its beginning where they give you all the background for the movie's premise in the opening credits and, then, have Matt Smith's character, Morgan, explain the premise all over again just right after as the actual movie opens. There's also some dumb conceit about using a certain famous singer's music and, then, assigning that singer's name to each "zombie". So, for example, Zombie A is going to be "Joe Cocker"; Zombie B is going to be Pete Townshend. Then, they place a vinyl record on the victrola to play. Supposedly, playing such music "bothers" the zombie-types. And, with that I agree: Has NO ONE ever heard of Eddie Van Halen?

The movie is "by-the-numbers" boring. All the cliches done to death -- and, better -- in other sci-fi and horror movies are re-hashed here: the man who's infected, yet seemingly immune; the intelligent zombie who's aware; the infected people as the next and (and, perhaps, better) step in mankind's evolution; the nexus between the military and scientific experts working for a cure in some base somewhere; the infected family member; the stupid, wisecracking character who ends up getting infected and having to get euthanized (though, I didn't quite mind that one); the invading zombies who have to be avoided by: running, sneaking, crawling through things, etc. Yeah, it's all been done before . . . and, better.

So, I say: Watch the few scenes with Stanley Tucci. Then, take the DVD and return it to the library.

The Fifth Element (1997)

Neither "cult" nor "camp" -- just plain lousy!

[3/10 · 11 May 2018]

I watched this in the theaters when it came out. I did not think, it was a good picture then. All it did do was add to my impression that the European temperament does not lend itself to doing either sci-fi or blockbusters or sci-fi blockbusters.

Recently, I decided to watch it again, thinking that I (perhaps) judged it too harshly. When I got to the ridiculous scene of Zorg choking on a cherry, I turned it off. No, I was not going to waste another two hours of my life on this awful, awful film.

The film is immensely boring: Over and over again, the same over-the-top, silly scenarios are constructed. Everything, every character has to have some kind of oddity, from the opera-singing alien who suddenly riffs into some kind of weird "pop jazz" to the various oddball hats, cranial implants, and just-plain-silly hairstyles that are given out to people. None of it shocks or surprises; rather, all it does is bore. You think: "I wonder which wacko, nutty thing Besson is going to have happen or what ridiculous outfit will Gaultier have them wear?" And, predictably . . .

Does Chris Tucker deserve the "Jar Jar Binx Award" for singlehandedly ruining this film? Perhaps, not: The film is already awful. His performance just takes it to a lower level of awfulness.

The visuals are, well, the 90's: a lot of mustard yellows, greens, and bright pink. None of it works well together.

The costumes are, well, Jean-Paul Gaultier: not designed in any way, shape, or form to be worn by anybody. Imagine a real police officer trying to lumber around in the outfit he designed! The military uniforms are something out of a cartoon. Maybe, that is what Gaultier wanted, namely, to play with different gestalts. But, whereas it might work for a fashion or art show, it does not work here where there has to be some semblance of a reality with people really living with these outfits and clothes. Having gadgets jump out at one from every side or come out of every orifice does not make for an interesting scene. Gaultier seems to ascribe to the philosophy: "More is more". It ain't; it just adds clutter.

Instead, this movie falls all over itself with trying to remind the viewer at every instant: "This is a sci-fi film you are watching!" So overly self-conscious . . .

The musical score is intrusive and overbearing.

Although I am glad that I refreshed my memory as to why I thought this film was so bad, it is a half hour that I will not get back.

Equilibrium (2002)

Stinkeroo!

[3/10 · 24 April 2018]

A stupid sci-fi ripoff of "The Matrix" (as the long black coats amply give away). It deserves its lousy 38% rating on RottenTomatoes and, perhaps, deserves less.

Just how stupid is this movie? Well . . . :

* Consider that the Clerics in the film cannot seem to remember what their title is: Are they "Tetragrammaton Clerics" or "Grammaton Clerics." Bale's character calls himself both. (Is there some difference?)

* The whole premise of the film is that having emotions has become illegal and is punishable by death. Hence, everyone must take a drug, Proseum?/Prozium?, in order to stifle any emotions. Yet, EVERYBODY seems to be emoting. People smile, cry, get angry, get excited, show admiration, show surprise, and so forth. None of this apparently counts. Yet, get caught with a bottle of perfume and you are summarily whisked off to "processing"!

* In the opening scene, the Clerics arrive to purge an underground cell of emoters. After killing everybody, they discover, hidden under the floor, various paintings, books, and so forth. On top of everything is the Mona Lisa. No, I am not kidding. The. Mona. Lisa. It is real, too (doncha know), because one of the techies checks it out with some fancy device. Question: Does it even matter? Everything is burned, of course. (Too bad it was not a Jackson Pollock!)

* Oh, by the way: As Bale and Sean Bean, his Cleric partner are driving away, they talk about leaving -- or, in Bean's case: not leaving -- things for the "evidentiary team". Yet, they burn up anything and everything they find! So, what is the "evidentiary team" supposed to catalogue? Ashes? It makes aboslutely no sense whatsoever.

* Of course, being the Future, they have all of these high-tech, futuristic devices. When it came to checking the authenticity of the Mona Lisa above, some guy just pulled out a little device, scanned the painting, and within half a second could tell Cleric Bale that it was real. It is another scenario, however, when Bale wants to check up on whether Cleric Bean has actually checked a book into evidence as he was supposed to. In that case, Bale has to look at a mammoth-sized book in which people have had to scrawl their names in pen and ink.

And, then there is:

* Bale's acting, which is awful.

* Emily Watson, whose right lip keeps twitching upwards when she talks, so that you would think that you were watching Elvis in a wig.

* Taye Digges is clearly about five inches shorter than Bale. When he and Bale first meet, he is hunkered down in the driver's seat of their car. He looks like he could barely see over the steering wheel. And, the smiling! I wonder why he was never arrested for a "sense offense" (ugh)?

* Whenever the matter of some of the negative consequences of emotion and feeling is brought up (for example, war, murder, rape, hate, racism, etc.), the argument from the "pro-feeling" crowd goes something like: "Well, there are trade-offs." Really?! Even the leader of the Underground admits to Bale's character that there are some who have to sublimate their emotions in order to control and give guidance to those who experience them. In other words, he admits that the anti-emotion crowd has a point, namely, that emotions are dangerous and must be controlled. So, . . . how is he any different from "Father"?

And so on and so on . . .

There is some compelling camerawork. The fight scenes can be interestingly done, albeit sometimes pretentiously and with unnecessary showiness. The C. G. I. is substandard when compared to something like "The Matrix" which came before.

Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

Actually, not so bad . . .

[7/10 · 7 March 2017]

When I first heard of this film, I thought, "Oh, yeah. That'll tank." Just based on its title, people won't know whether it's a misprint or not. And, if they know that it's correct, then they probably won't be able to pronounce it in order to buy a ticket for it. Me? I just thought it was a bad choice for a title. Fastforward twenty years and I have finally gotten around to watching this film and . . . actually . . . it's NOT that bad. Of course, it's completely wrong about what the future world will look like. (It's set in 2021.) Yet, its view of the future is lushly told. Someone clearly went to a lot of trouble to make this dystopic world look real. Unfortunately, the storytelling is the problem. There's clearly so much more that could have been told in addition to the requisite running around, fighting, and shooting at people. While you can tell there's a "story" here, Robert Longo, the director, just doesn't tell it. This is too bad, because this movie actually tantalizes with details of relationships and other encounters that could have made it a classic sci-fi film in the vein of "Blade Runner." Oh, well. Possibilities. Would I watch it again? Probably not. Still, it wasn't a waste of time.

Ghosts of Mars (2001)

Bad on every level . . .

[1/10 · 16 February 2017]

Where to begin on this one: Natasha Henstridge's hair? Ice Cube's flabby belly (which is kept hidden) or short stature (which can't be)? Statham's deplorable acting? The explosions that keep coming out of nowhere and for no reason? The Leader of the pack of possessed miners who can only howl, "Roh-roh-rah," . . . and, everyone seems to understand him? The (apparent) use of stand-in's in a fight scene with no make-up or costuming? The appearance hundreds of possessed miners on cue, when needed, when maybe only fifty were possessed in the first place (and, had already killed all of the -- more numerous -- inhabitants of the outpost)?

The fact that the whole film's premise revolves around Henstridge's character, in full uniform, getting de-briefed in meticulous detail by some committee of Officers about the events at the outpost, while we know that she clearly needs medical attention to a deep laceration in one of her legs.

A dumb, stupid, and moronic film. Maybe, so bad, it's good???

Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

Not scary or interesting -- but, better than other follow-up's

[4/10 · 13 January 2017]

Picking up a few years after the previous film, we find that Charlie has been undergoing psychotherapy. His therapist has convinced him that his neighbor was really a serial killer, rather than a vampire. So, he goes and throws out all of his crucifixes and holy water and stakes. He's cured, right? Well, . . . no. No sooner does Charlie do all of this than he's back to seeing people carrying coffins into buildings and women sucking the blood from his friend's wrist.

And, that, My Dear Reader (as Peter Vincent would say), is the whole problem with this sequel: The story is both rushed and convoluted. Nothing is allowed to develop. Charlie starts out absolutely sure, that there are no vampires. No, wait! Now, he's sure there are. Nope -- back to being sure there aren't. And -- poor Peter Vincent -- he's caught in the middle, with Charlie telling him to go away . . . no, come here and help . . . no, just seeing things, go away . . . If there were filler material to show development and build tension, then the back-and- forth might have been much less annoying to me than it was.

Except for one scene with a vamp roller-skating down a hallway, I did not find anything to creep, shock, or scare. It's just such a boring redux.

The vampire this time is "Regine," the previous vampire's sister. She intends to get revenge for her brother's death by making Charlie into a vampire. Then, she can torture him forever (which really doesn't make any sense to me: How does she intend to torture him?). She makes vague threats towards Peter Vincent, without seeming to have any urgency about carrying through on them. Her major coup is to get Vincent fired in order to take over his T. V. show. Why? Was drawing an unemployment check the kind of torture about which she was speaking? (The lines at government offices can be long, you know. And, that paperwork. Oh! the paperwork.) It makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it's completely lame.

On the positive side, however, FRIGHT NIGHT II is immensely better than the turd excreted by Colin Farrell or the insipid "sequel to nothing," FRIGHT NIGHT II: NEW BLOOD.

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)

Alright, albeit formulaic

[5/10 · 13 January 2017]

THE GOOD:

* The acting; * The first 15-20 minutes; * The 80's Heavy Metal-inspired soundtrack.

THE BAD:

* The story; * The special effects (even for a 90's film); * the "scare factor."

During the commentary, Carpenter describes this movie as part of his "Apocalyptic Trilogy" (along with: THE THING and PRINCE OF DARKNESS). Now, THE THING is considered a classic re-make; PRINCE OF DARKNESS definitely -- at least, for me -- stands as a cult classic. This movie, however, is neither.

The conceit, namely, an author's work becomes reality as he writes, is not a very original idea. Maybe, it was a novel (no pun intended) idea when H. P. Lovecraft was writing (to whom the film tips its hat) -- but, no longer. Moreover, the other conceit, namely, that a person realizes that he or she is actually a character in the author's work, is another mold-covered idea.

The film is generally described as a "psychological" horror film. In other words, it ain't scary! What you will get is a lot of weird characters (e. g., an old lady with her husband handcuffed to her ankle), weird situations (e. g., not being able to find the mysterious town, Hobb's End), and weird dialogue (e. g., random people coming up and saying, "He sees you"). Remember, this movie was made just a few years after the success of T. V.'s TWIN PEAKS.

If one were to never have watched this movie, I could not say that he or she had missed anything. A John Carpenter-enthusiast would definitely want to give it a viewing, except that that would probably be enough: a viewing -- just to say he'd watched it.

As a _movie_, IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is not bad. As a _horror movie_, though, it is not good. Carpenter seems to forget in this instance how to bring tension and scares to the audience. In the commentary, he pats himself on the back for having a dark figure -- an "extra" -- walk quickly infront of the camera as Sam Neill walks down a corridor the other way. "A cheap scare," he preens. "But, I like cheap scares." Noooo, John . . . NOT scary at all! And, that really is the whole problem with this film.

I say: Watch it; enjoy it as the fluff that it is; and, forget it. There's better out there. If you were to purchase it, then I recommend buying it as part of Carpenter's trilogy mentioned above. It's certainly not worth the full price of a DVD.

The Abandoned (2015)

Slow and boring . . .

[4/10 · 6 August 2016]

Girl starts new job doing security at huge, dimly-lit, and spooky building. . . . Girl meets cantankerous, wheelchair-bound cripple who is her supervisor (Jason Patric -- who's great). . . . Girl does just about everything that her Supervisor tells her not to -- like letting in homeless man and his dog and opening creepy door in basement. . . . Girl discovers part of building was used to house deformed and mentally-challenged kids, who were (of course) abused and whose ghosts are (of course) angry and whose angry spirits (of course) have now been released by the Girl's opening of "the door". . . . Girl runs around in dark corridors with -- well -- really not much happening. . . . Girl is shown in hospital bed where she -- deformed and in a coma -- sheds a tear and dies. . . . Girl's Father, the Supervisor, and Grandfather, the Bum, sit around her hospital room. . . . apparently, we were in the Girl's own head all the time. NOT poorly acted; NOT poorly directed, but: POORLY written and POORLY conceived. Not awful, just one big Y- AAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW-N.

The Pact (II) (2012)

A good watch . . . if you don't think too much.

[5/10 · 8 April 2016]

The movie is simple: A mother and her two daughters have been living in a house for 16 years. Both daughters hated the -- apparently -- "ueber-religious" mother. After the mother's death, the daughters set about taking care of the house, except that: one daughter disappears; and the sister who comes after seems to be experiencing spooky, ghostlike encounters. It turns out: The mother had been harboring her serial killer brother, Somebody Barlow (A. K. A. the "Judas Killer"), within a secret bedroom of the house. The ghost of one of Barlow's victims starts making contact with one of the daughters to reveal his hiding place and bring him to . . . justice?

Overall, the movie just doesn't make any sense, although I enjoyed watching it.

Good points:

* Well-acted and well-filmed * Some good "shock" moments. (yes, the moments are a little overdone by now in the genre, but the effect was good, i. e. it made even ME jump a little: a long-time, grizzled Horror Movie buff! * Not too overwrought about being what it is

Bad points (unfortunately several and serious): * The main character, Nicole, had a real bitchy side that wore on me sometimes * During the denouement, the main character gets the usual case of the "stupids" as, instead of using each and every opportunity to escape from the killer, she instead wastes time trying to get a gun off a murdered cop's corpse and, then, makes every effort to alert the killer to her presence by trying to load said dead cop's gun -- wrongly: dropping the cartridge, of course ;-) -- and, then, slowly click-click-click loads the cartridge while the killer looks for her in the room. Dumb, stupid, imbecilic . . . * A cop (viz., Caspar Van Dien) brings a digital camera to the house to see if he can see anything spooky or "ghosty" in the camera's screen. He puts it down somewhere. Then, you see the killer walk across the camera's screen, except . . . the killer's form is NOWHERE in the background. So, are we talking about a ghost killer? No, we can't be, since the woman Nicole SHOOTS HIM square in the head later on! So, um, like, Director . . . what the heck's up with that? * Then, there's the whole problem of how this woman Nicole and her sister (who disappears early on in the film) have lived for 16 years in this small house without noticing that, . . . hmm, . . . there seems to be a whole lot of "extra house" on the house. That "extra house" is the 3rd bedroom wherein Barlow has been living secretly: with the bedroom door dry-walled over and only a small cut-out in a connecting closet for him to crawl out of whenever he wants to . . . y'know. Apparently, these two dumbo girls sleeping right next to this hidden room never heard anything, like (perhaps) Barlow dragging in the corpses of his victims or coming out to get something to eat in the kitchen or just the usual snoring. * For some reason, Barlow no longer actually uses the bedroom, rather preferring to live in the crawl space UNDER the room. Whuh? Does this make any sense to anybody . . . other, than to explain why nobody's in the room when discovered by Nicole and Officer Creek A. K. A. Van Dien? I guess, it had to look like nobody had been living there -- but, they still needed Barlow actually living in the room for the storyline to make sense. * Nicole does this whole "seance thing" in Barlow's bedroom to contact Jennifier Glick, one of his victims who is the ghost which has been spooking her. "What do you want me to know?" Nicole asks over and over. She also screams when the ghost actually responds to her questioning (stupid in and of itself -- she got what she was expecting, for pete's sake!). All of this talking and screaming is done just above the crawl space in which our dear Killer has secreted himself. He doesn't hear any of this? No -- he just crawls out of the (aptly named) crawl space to, y'know, get some rotten food from the fridge . . . cry in his dead sister's room . . . etc. . . . as if he couldn't just hear the commotion RIGHT FRIGGIN ABOVE HIM IN THE ROOM! * Oh, yeah . . . the song for the closing credits was completely inappropriate for this type of movie.

Masters of Horror: Dance of the Dead (2005) Season 1, Episode 3

Simply awful from beginning to end.

[1/10 · 24 January 2016]

When a Script writer has nothing -- and, I mean, NUH-thing -- to actually write -- and, I mean, NO ideas whatsoever -- he reverts to what he knows best: aggressively foulmouthed dialogue or porn or some combination thereof. Giving moral offense acts as a substitute for writing a story. The Writer opts in the pornographic direction in this one. A couple of guys are stealing people's blood for some reason. (Who cares?) Robert Englund plays some character who runs a club where: . . . men are seen kissing men (oh, my); . . . women are exposing their breasts (uh, huh); . . . and, black leather and deafening electronica are everywhere. Carnies are everywhere. Apparently, it is THEY who inherit the earth after WWIII or whatever. So, we should all start learning how to appreciate fiery baton- twirling. Drug use, "blow jobs," and -- oh, yeah -- some bit of an idea about people getting "zombiefied." Morally offensive. Stupid. A piece of junk. Don't bother.

The Gallows (2015)

One reason this movie stinks . . .

[1/10 · 24 January 2016]

. . . Ryan Shoos.

Basically, a movie in the "found-footage" genre. The only problem is that Shoos is the shooter -- who, of course, has to be everywhere in order to shoot the film -- meaning that he gets to show his (non-)acting chops by ruining just about every scene he's in.

WITHOUT Shoos, I'd give this movie a 4 or 5. WITHOUT Shoos, it's a pretty basic, "by-the-numbers, and spooky little horror film. Of course, there's got to be a twist at the end.

WITH Shoos, the film becomes just interminable.

Pass on this one.

Hollows Grove (2014)

Actually, pretty good . . .

[5/10 · 1 August 2015]

I saw this for free on Hooplah. It's actually an okay "found- footage" film, albeit a bit too short. The acting's good: There's great camaraderie amongst the cast which really helps sell some of the humor. Lance Henriksen makes a relatively brief cameo as the "spooky effects"-guy, and is -- of course -- awesome to watch (whatever someone might think of his film choices). The camera-work is good: neither too jumpy nor too focused like in a real camera shot. The special effects are what they are given that -- I'm assuming -- the film was probably given a paltry budget.

The conceit of the whole movie is that the F. B. I. is using the footage to get help in solving the murders of the crew of a paranormal T. V. show, called S. P. I. T. (the "Spiritual and Paranormal Investigative Team" . . . or, something like that). That part was kind of stupid. Spit?! I mean, . . . c'mon. I failed to see any humor in it, if that were the intent. The F. B. I. connection was also, in my humble opinion, totally unnecessary. It added nothing to the story and even confused it. Why was the Bureau involved at all? We know that the members of the crew were killed . . . but, were they missing, too? And, would their disappearance have even mattered, when the tapes showed their deaths? (I thought, the F. B. I. looked for missing people whom they hoped to be ALIVE.) At the end, the F. B. I. person reveals some screen (?)/box (?)/whatever, that only confused things further. I won't say what it is, because I honestly am still not sure what it was meant to be. Anyways, it felt like a moment of amateurism on the part of the writer, like: "Hey, let's throw in some weird stuff at the end to creep out the audience."

It just so happens that some guy is also following the crew around in order to film them for his documentary. So, having two cameras allows for some more possibilities: In other words, the documentary guy catches things that the "paranormals" don't while they tape their canned script to their own cameraman. But, it also has the effect of making the film feel more like a movie, rather than an authentic "found footage" experience. That might annoy some people.

There's no real blood, guts, or gore, except for a rather explicit throat-cutting. The film relies more on atmosphere, on which it pretty much delivers.

The film has a lot of missed opportunities. I do wish that it had done more -- a lot more -- with all the possibilities. I mean, you've got a place where: children were brutalized and molested . . . multiple suicides had occurred . . . doctors performed excruciatingly painful experiments on the inmates . . . a little seven year-old psychopath would go around slitting people's throats . . . and, a disbelieving film crew from a paranormal T. V. show that thinks it's all a bunch of laughs and "wind-blowing-through-cracks- in-the-walls." I mean: Where do you start?

It's a comfortable, easy film to watch. It's not boring . . . but, just don't expect too much.

Undead (2003)

An Oz-zombie fail . . .

[1/10 · 21 February 2015]

"Mad Max" . . . "Yahoo Serious." Both films demonstrated Australian film-making's love for oddball characters in their movies. With the former, they struck gold; with the latter, they dumped a turd. Guess which category this movie falls down under?

So, . . . there are meteorites that smash into people making them zombies . . . oh, and, then, aliens show up . . . and, there's this country-bumpkin guy who apparently has experienced this before and has been preparing for this event (or, these events) . . . and, the aliens are beaming people up into the clouds and putting them into some kind of stasis . . . and, then, the aliens leave and the whole "zombie-thing" starts all over again. Throw into this mishmash of nonsense a bunch of Aussie "oddball" characters. By now, I would have thought, that the Australians would have realized that this type of humor doesn't translate very well anywhere else -- even in the Anglophone world. There's a fine line between "oddball funny" and "oddball stupid and obnoxious." Alas, Aussie comedy is still trying to figure that out.

Don't waste your time. Really, . . . don't.

Plague Town (2008)

Pointless . . .

[3/10 · 21 February 2015]

The director and producer seem to have thought that explicit gore would carry this movie, rather than any storyline. From the first few minutes, one sees a Priest getting a fire poker lodged in his brain -- explicitly -- with the lodger of said poker then -- again, explicitly -- jostling the poker around in the Priest's head because it's gotten stuck. Simple "gore for gore's sake." Disgusting; unnecessary.

You see, apparently, the women of this small Irish town have started giving birth to deformed, evil (how would they know?) babies. The Priest keeps killing the newborns off, but the wielder of the poker decides that enough is enough. He kills the Priest, saying: "Shorry, Fadder! We've got to live which arr fate [ . . . or, some such]." That statement turns out to be nothing but a part of the general slew of meaningless nonsense that is in this film.

A town plagued with deformed babies? A town plagued with evil babies? A town plagued with both deformed and evil babies? . . . WHO KNOWS? The tag for the movie reads: "It's in the blood." Yet, this is a reference . . . to what, in particular, in the movie? Is blood needed for something? Or, are the evil kids infected?

The story's incomprehensible: Why are the kids deformed? Why do the village's inhabitants act like wackoes? What does the thin, white- skinned girl have to do with anything? What IS the "Plague" (i. e., is it the deformity or the desire to kill)?

And, also: Could someone, please, explain the significance of the masks? Why do the children wear them? Why do they sometimes not wear them?

Who is the white-skinned girl? What's her purpose?

In the interviews in the "Extras," the Director says that the killing is like playing for the children. So, . . . they're just PLAYING? Are you kidding me? That attempt at an explanation reveals to me, that once the filming got started he had absolutely no idea in which direction to lead the film. Hence, the reliance on pointless gory scene after gory scene.

Not worth your time -- even for the gorehound.

The Plague (2006 Video)

Wooden acting; incoherent plot

[3/10 · 20 February 2015]

* Acting is generally weak, meaning: wooden. * There's really no explanation as to: what happened to the children in the first place; what did this to them; why they've become homicidal maniacs; what's controlling them? At the end, it does attempt some kind of "our-kids-are-what-we-make-of-them" gibberish. * There's something from a Minister's journal which is supposed to elucidate -- but, doesn't, really. Something about giving your "fear" to the Children . . . or, yeah, like, whatever . . . * Some blond-haired kid shows up at the end, seemingly a ringleader or something. Who is he? What's his importance? Why does the camera focus on just him? Why is he the one with _The Grapes of Wrath_ book in his pocket? Don't know. * Apparently, if you create happy thoughts, the kids won't kill you.

I've suffered so as to tell you: This movie's not worth your time.