Reviews written by registered user

9 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

10 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
WHAT A GYP, 30 December 1999

I purchased this out of excitement that I would finally learn the truth to the controversy around the series' validity. Man, what a disappointment! They only divulge about three scenes, and pack the rest with filler, such as stock footage from the other films, and stupid commentary by horrible actors (notably Dr. Louis Flellis). Don't bother to waste your money like I did. You're better off reading the various online critiques on the films' falsity. You'll get much more info that way.

Fear (1996)
0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Completely Rips Off The Finale of "Straw Dogs"(Capsule Review), 19 September 1999

I don't have much time to waste dabbling about the details of this movie. I'm not going to waste valuable IMDb space. All I have to say is that, along with ripping off every other idea in the genre, the finale of this movie completely copies the superb finale of Sam Peckinpah's 1972 classic "Straw Dogs". There, you have it. The rest is simply routine, with NO new twists laid out before us. Not the worst, but yet again, not the best either, and just plain artificial at times.

** outta **** for mere entertainment alone.

Undeniably Disturbing, If Not Always Convincing(**SPOILERS**), 1 September 1999

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Last House on the Left" is just one of those films that is strictly an acquired taste. 95% of people who view this film downright hate it. Well, those people are entitled, but you have to realize that 90% of the people who hate it still think it is sick, disturbing, and brutal. Some people even find it upsetting. And bearing in mind that it is STILL banned in many countries today, and STILL has the effect to disturb people that much, it must be a powerful picture. But don't take my word for it.

So I'm sure you've heard all kinds of messed up rumors about this movie. I'm sure you've been warned by a lot of people to stay away from it. I'm sure you've probably even had the desire and curiosity to at least view this film, but couldn't find it anywhere. Well, you're not in the minority. The truth is that this film has such a bad reputation that it is inclined to be dumped on immediately, over and over again. "I Spit on Your Grave" is another prime example of an underrated flick with a horrible rep, yet it is still highly watchable. I don't agree with reviews from people who immediately jump to biased conclusions, or bite off of other people's reviews (an example: the phrase "technically inept", which was originally stated by Leonard Maltin, is repeated on numerous occasions by other reviewers on the Net). When you read a review like that, your best bet would be to ignore it.

So my feelings on this film are mixed in the extreme. I'm not saying this is a great movie, I'm not saying you will enjoy this movie, I'm simply saying that this is one hell of a disturbing picture. The first time is the most effective time to watch it. It loses much of it's power with repeat viewings. I must also warn you that some of the aspects of this film are extremely hokey. The dialogue is horrible, the acting styles are none too admirable, and the character of Sadie is just plain ludicrous. She was referred to as "animal-like", but the only animal that comes to mind is a kitty cat. She's not the least bit threatening and she is the epitome of bad acting. Ignore the flaws of her character and you'll roll with it just fine.

The story basically begins with the birthday of our main character Mari Collingwood, a pretty, innocent little teenager who is just turning seventeen. Her parents are setting everything up for her party and everybody's all excited. Mari decides that she is going to a Bloodlust concert with her pal Phyllis Stone, another pretty teenager who is unknown to the Collingwood family. After the parents meet Phyllis, she and Mari leave briskly for the concert, having girl to girl chats along the way. This is Craven's way of making us feel for these two girls. Mari talks of changing and her breasts filling out, so later on when the two are meeting their fates, this has a great effect on the audience, who is being bludgeoned with emotions.

The two decide to try and score some pot from a guy on the street. At first, he declines, but then it comes to him that his chance has arrived, so he invites the two into his corridor where his three colleagues are waiting in vain. Now we know: These are the vicious prison escapees we heard about earlier over the radio. The guy "with the pot" is the meekly Junior, son of the other guy, the barbaric Krug, who got Junior hooked on heroine to control him. The lady with the messed up hair is Sadie and the mean-looking fellow is Weasel, a mild-mannered lunatic. The girls now realize that they are trapped. Several of them put their hold on Phyllis, ripping her shirt off to expose her breasts, ready to "have some fun" with her. Krug decides to punch her in the gut, causing her to fall to the floor where she is brutally gang raped off camera. Mari has a (artificial) look of fright on her face as she watches in the corner.

So the next day the girls are placed in the killers' car trunk and driven away. Once the car breaks down, the murderers decide to take them into the woods and "have some fun". Mari quickly notices that these are the woods right outside her house.

The killers quickly immerse themselves into self-gratification, asking Phyllis to urinate in her jeans or they'll cut Mari with a switchblade. At first, she refuses, but once Krug cuts Mari, Phyllis calmly answers the order, making a point to call them "sick mothers". Krug then orders her to remove her pants. Laughing their asses off, the killers grow more sadistic. Krug gets the two together and orders Phyllis to punch Mari as hard as she can in the stomach. They start to plead and Krug gets angry, but Junior steps in to save the day, stating that they should just "make it with each other" instead. So the two are stripped down totally nude and forced to embarrass themselves in front of twisted psychopaths. After that, Krug goes to the car to "get something to cut firewood with" and Phyllis nicely asks Weasel, smothered in ecstacy that he's now in charge, if she can put her clothes back on. He says yes, she does and then bends down to whisper her escape plan to Mari. Mari is crying heavily because Sadie is orally raping her (off camera).

That's all I have room to explain, since only 1000 words are permitted. I wrote a complete review that will be posted on my incomplete web site (SEARCH: .44 Magnum Productions). My advice is to quickly pick up a copy of this film and view it to make your own judgment. Chances are that you'll hate it, but still be disturbed by it.

*** outta ****

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
We have another "Godzilla"!, 27 July 1999

Now, whoever thinks this hokey rubbish was "scary" musta been watching a different movie. You kidding me? Junk, junk, and more junk. Not an ounce of scare, but tons of laughs (including one that's HIGHLY unintentional). This film, in my view, is the worst of '99. I don't even have to see the other ones, cause it was SO BAD that I'm already thoroughly convinced. And what's with this script? Quite possibly the worst big budget Hollywood script ever produced. The characters are complete and utter morons. "What? Is the house really haunted?" Couldn't they have figured that out fifteen minutes into the movie? What morons. They just seem to keep ruling out the "strange events", which are stupid at best. And the only character this script even focuses on is that of Lili Taylor. The others are just a sideshow, who play no important role in moving the story along. Hell, one gets taken out of the picture in the first five minutes! What was that all about? What purpose was there for even having her there? And why the hell is Catherine Zeta-Jones's character bisexual? Totally pointless cause it holds no meaning and is just a paper-thin stereotype, which seems to be merely tacked on. And this story, boy this story, just bites the dust big time. First of all, what the hell WAS the freaking story? I don't even know cause I was too busy sleeping. Some crap about a father killing a bunch of kids or something. But that's beside the point in a "Hollywood horror film" of this caliber. You don't need plot to make moolah. Just throw in a bunch of stupid gags laid out to allegedly "scare" the audience and you got yourself a cash cow. What a horrible mess! About at the mid point, everything goes down the tubes and the script becomes uneven tripe, making no sense, managing to be extremely annoying and boring in the process. There literally IS NO POINT TO THIS STUPID MOVIE and never will be. It just wants to find an excuse to dabble in the computer animation field.

And that's another thing. What the hell's so scary about computer animation? I dunno. Maybe I'll go to sleep tonight and have a nightmare about computer animated cherubs with stupid faces, saying stupid stuff that makes no sense. Yeah. Or maybe I'll have a nightmare of what Hollywood will sink to in ten years. Can it get any lower? I mean, it's already taken a moronic script and turned it into a stupid mega-budget movie that's allegedly "scary" and "entertaining", but in fact has no value whatsoever, in any field or category. I mean, come on folks! Who really talks to themselves? This Lili Taylor chick made a point to babble everything she was reading in an "eerie" way, which made me cringe, because I hate to see dialogue go to waste. Ditch it! We can freaking read already!

So when you watch this, IF you watch this, make a point to laugh at Owen Wilson's "tragic" fate, and to fall asleep during the senseless dragging on of the climax, and to wonder what the hell has happen to the other three characters, and to figure out why they even bothered to attempt at a plot (the "Matrix" syndrome), and to figure out why they even made us think there was steam between two of the characters, and to try and not laugh at the computer-generated "scares", and also, the most important part, to figure out why this movie even got made. And why rubbish like this still gets made and makes money on a daily basis. I mean, if a script like this can get produced, ANYTHING can get produced. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

* outta **** on my scale. Pretty high on my All Time Worst Films list. Possibly #1 on my "Listened-To-The-Audience-And-Heard-How-Many-People-Hated-It" scale.

Godzilla (1998/I)
8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
What a bore. What a shame. BURN THE ANSWER PRINT!, 25 July 1999

This is one of the only films bad enough to make wanna leave halfway through. I mean, I was so bored, so disappointed, that I was squirming in my seat. This horrible waste of time, talent (whoops! did I say TALENT?), and money completely convinces me of how bad and commercialized films have gotten in the 90's. Does a film really have to have a multi-million dollar budget, nonstop action, and a no-brainer plot to make money nowadays? I'm just downright sick of it. I usually stick to the lower budget pictures in order to make sure I keep my brain cells, but even those have gone to pot in our cynical society. So just ask yourself one question: how the hell did this film get made?

Easy answer. You see, according to today's Hollywood standards, all you need is a bankable icon, such as a star or a franchise, and people will allegedly pack the theaters in herds. I see it happen again and again. Stupid, dumb, idiotic moron movies like this one are making swarms of cash, while the little-known better pictures are being dubbed as "boring". Well, let me tell ya, THIS IS BORING. And totally stupid to boot. Like the dreaded "Independence Day", another one of my pet peeves, this film has a script more contrived and pathetic than a five year old could write. Where are the brains in these characters? How stupid can one character possibly be? And how stereotyped as well? The writers must have just rushed into the schtick of the Godzilla character and forgot about a story. All these idiots care about is making their shots look "cool" and seeing how much money they can blow on moronic special effects that were, in my opinion, frankly not that good. I could care less about how neat they can make Godzilla look. Who cares? I'm frankly getting sick of stupid computer special effects, because, unless they are used to move the story along, they're worthless and sometimes look ten times worse than just using conventional stock motion animation (look how they ruined "King Kong"). If I had it my way, you wouldn't even see the friggin effect. You'd have to imagine it. Or at least it would be good for camp. This isn't even worthy of that status. I mean, isn't that the only reason to watch the original Godzilla? For camp? To see how cheap and tacky the creature and cities look? Not for some mega budget, computer-generated moron who looks like he doesn't even have a face. Kinda reminds me of the bugs in "Starship Troopers" and how they were so uninteresting and lacked any personality or facial expressions whatsover. At least with stock motion animation you get some sort of emotions.

But stock motion is too outdated, now isn't it. And so is talent. Roland Emmerich and that Dean Devlin character are the two biggest airhead sell-outs in film, and Hollywood whores to boot. Why are they still employed? Simple. Because they had a big hit with "ID4" and now they're cash cows, a perfect necessity to Hollywood. Frankly, I think that if I had that huge budget, I could make fifty little films, each twenty times better than "Godzilla", each more entertaining, and each would probably pay the bills. And I don't need all the sugar-coated Hollywood hype either. Word of mouth spreads fast.

So give me one reason to even waste my time explaining the plot. A big dumb creature stomps on a big dumb city. Whoopie. And he stomps on big dumb people while he's at it, the only redeeming quality to this tripe. Sounds sorta like the catch to "Independence Day", huh. You can either sit back and take in how stupid the plot and characters are, and how horrible the actors are (in a mega movie. hmmmmm.), or you can go to sleep. For some reason I saw this crap in the theatres. Human nature I guess.

Number one on my All Time Worst Movies List.

{zero} outta **** stars on my personal scale (Before this garbage, it never even went to "zero").

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Quite possibly the scariest horror film ever made. And it doesn't need gore, either!, 23 July 1999

When I was little, this film, like many others, intimidated me greatly, aided by all the warnings from my mother. So it took me a while to get my nerve up and rent the damn thing. I mean, I had been watching gory horror flicks since I was six, but this one just stood out. I had heard rumors that a girl gets her head cut off, a bunch of kids get brutally killed, cut up, and hung on hooks, and that other weird atrocities are committed, so I strayed away for awhile. Then, when I was in the sixth grade, my brother rented it against my will and I was forced to face my fears. After I was finished viewing it, I soon realized that there was absolutely NO large amounts of blood in the picture and that all the hype was b.s. I was actually kinda disappointed, but something pulled me in and I soon got the urge to rent it several more times. I then grew older and wiser, until "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" got better with each viewing. It still does till this very day.

I love this movie. I truly do. It is one of the ONLY horror films I've seen that actually provides genuine scares, in the same ballpark as "Carrie" and "The Shining". Most horror is just a bunch of self-conscious and senseless gore and special effects, with no scares, no talent, and little shock value. Personally, I don't think a film has to be gory to be scary. In fact, I think the gore actually removes some of the calaustrophobic elements that truly make a film horrifying. I mean, look at the "Friday the 13th" series and see what I mean. TCM is practically goreless and is ten times scarier.

The plot to this film is a basic one. A group of kids take a trip to the graves of their relatives to make sure they haven't been caught up in the current graverobbings and soon get caught up with a family of sadistic cannibals who proceed to terrorize them and . . . I think you get the message. Truly horrifying. The climax is one that is sure to freak anybody out, even if you think you've seen everything. It is extremely intense and enclosed, making it nightmare worthy. This film is disturbing me right at this very moment just thinking about it! I feel like I should watch it tonight or something.

So make a point to view this picture and ignore all the hype about gore and crap. Everyone THINKS they're seeing blood, which makes this film so effective. The only blood that stood out in my mind was when Franklin got cut on the razor. That's it. But it doesn't mean that this isn't the most hardcore horror picture ever made. It just means that the filmmakers are accomplishing their goals, and that horror has gone straight to hell in the '90s. Just look at the meat hook scene and at its effectiveness. It always stands out in everybody's mind.

#8 on my Top 200 List and GUARANTEED to freak you out. **** out of **** on my personal scale.

Straw Dogs (1971)
138 out of 189 people found the following review useful:
Could they show this in 1971?, 14 July 1999

So you think movies are violent today, huh? Think again. Sam Peckinpah's highly charged, extremely intense, brutally violent 1971 pic is an underrated masterpiece, in my opinion, that redefined cinema violence forever (as if "The Wild Bunch" wasn't enough). It is one of the best directed, most fluidly edited pictures that I've seen in recent years. Today's films don't even come close.

Allegedly banned in the U.K. to this very day, "Straw Dogs" came to me out of nowhere. I had heard good things about it, but never really caught onto it, until one day when I was at a video store browsing around for no apparent reason. I had absolutely no money and wasn't planning to buy anything when all of the sudden, I saw it . . .


I had never even seen the movie and I wanted to buy it! I mean, hey, it WAS the last one left.

So I took a huge risk, got a loan from my mother, used all the two-dollar bills I had been saving to pay her back, and bought it right out. And then, I viewed it later on that night, praying I hadn't wasted my time. AND: I was floored. The film literally knocked me out, kept me peeled to the screen at every instant, left me disturbed for days to come. I mean, let me tell you, go out and rent this, buy this, anything, just see it! Although it is moderately paced, the film remains intense the whole way, and takes an unexpected turn into extreme violence towards the legendary ending, a showdown worthy of multiple viewings (watch "Fear" to see an amateur retread).

So it goes like this: Hoffman plays a wimpy mathematician who flees with his wife George to the peaceful countryside (to get away from violence!), only to be ravaged by the locals who just wanna start trouble. It is the ultimate test of manhood, showing us (in a somewhat biased manner) that it takes aggression to get what you want and keep what you have. You'll be amazed at Hoffman's "transformation" (we all know deep down that EVERYONE'S got it in them somewhere), but it makes you think, especially when Hoffman has to defend his home from several large armed men WITHOUT USING ANY WEAPONS, only his brains and some household appliances.

I'm surprised that this is such a forgotten film. There aren't enough people who can actually claim to have seen this picture or even know what it's about. I find that hard to ingest, being that it was one of the most controversial films of its day. But it IS very brutal, especially the once trimmed rape scene, restored on my copy, a scene that I find to be the most intense. However, today's moviegoers may not agree.

So see "Straw Dogs," the movie that single-handedly turned me into a Peckinpah fan. The editing is Oscar-worthy, the acting is magnificent, the situations are well thought out, and the characters are fleshed to the bone (sometimes literally). I promise you won't leave disappointed.

#5 on my Top 200 List, **** outta **** on my personal scale.

Bad Taste (1987)
Best low budget film I've ever seen, 6 July 1999

The first time I saw this film was around four years ago, and let me tell you, I thought it was going to be a piece of junk. I mean, it looked so cheap and crummy, but I soon realized that there's a difference between a talentless cheap-o (like "Jack Frost"), and a talent-drenched cheap-o like this.

"Bad Taste" is hands-down the best low budget film I've ever seen, just above "Chainsaw Massacre". Peter Jackson is one of my favorite directors because there isn't one of his films that I hate. In fact, "Dead-Alive" (aka "Brain Dead") is even gorier, yet it lacks the fresh pace and cheap feel of this cult masterpiece.

This film begins when a government agency called A.I.D.S. (!), composed of Frank, Ozzie, Barry, and, of course, Derek, stumbles upon a bunch of flesh-eating aliens that have just wiped out an entire town of humans and are preparing to use their flesh as a fast food treat on their home planet. So it's up to "The Boys" to stop them, and soon a full-scale battle ensues.

The best part of "Bad Taste" is not only it's campily overdone special effects (performed by Jackson himself), but mainly its pace. Truthfully, I wasn't bored for a second during this film. Even though it has extremely fragmented direction (maybe cause it was shot on a camcorder!) and almost no budget, you believe everything you're seeing, and you know it's cheesy, and you know the acting's not up to par, but you just don't care; and by the time you reach the final bloody showdown (my favorite part), you find yourself peeled to the screen, up until the sickening climax that I won't even bother revealing. I should also point out that the effects are sort of uneven: a Magnum will shoot off a head at one point, but put a small hole in one the next. But, hey, that's the fun of it!

So go out and see what Peter Jackson poured his heart into. He did everything -- acted in numerous roles, wrote, directed, edited, effects, and more -- and took four years in the process; and it still doesn't look homemade! I promise you wont be disappointed. And even though there's gore at every turn, it's done in such a comic way that it shouldn't shock even a five year old girl, while it still has the power to entertain a group of college students. And see Jackson's other flicks, too, including "Forgotten Silver," cause it's hilarious.

By the way, this one's #3 on my Top 200 List. That tells ya something.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Serious message done in an unserious way, 6 July 1999

I have had so many different reactions to his film over the years. I hated it back when I saw it (I was in the sixth grade by the way), I didn't care for it as the years went by, then, just over a year ago, I rediscovered a masterpiece . . .

Oliver Stone. What can I say. Hands down, he's my favorite filmmaker, because he takes risks and has a firm vision, doing things HIS way for all theses year, WITHIN the cynical studio system. From the beginning of his career, he's had the heat follow him, being unfairly tagged and bludgeoned, creating controversy at every turn. And "NBK" is no exception. In fact, I believe it's one of the most controversial films ever made, because it still has such a major effect on society today. It's being blamed for murder after murder, which completely confirms the film's message, that society is media-obsessed. I mean, how exactly can you SUE a movie for the act of someone that was insane to begin with, and chose to perform the act ON THEIR OWN? The movie doesn't say, "Hey! Go out and murder because you saw me!"

"NBK" is also the most misunderstood film of today. The critics were split, and a certain Leonard Maltin couldn't see it for what it is: sheer brilliance. It's attacked for everything, and the MPAA had their heads in their back sides while rating this, if you know what I mean. And what's with this DIRECTOR'S CUT? It disappointed me in some areas, especially when the Nine Inch Nails song "Burn" was removed from the ending; that was my favorite part. The "Scagnetti-Pinky" scene was HORRIBLY EDITED: Pinky's bra flashes on and off simultaneously, a mistake that seems so obvious. And the deleted "extras",well, they're worthless. But I did like the restored prison sequences, in that they convey a tighter feeling of chaos and mayhem. In short, make up your own mind. I personally was more predisposed to the withstanding form.

So if you are unaware of the film's plot, it's simple: Harrelson and Lewis are murdering lovers on the lam who become major cult objects on their rampage and soon become exploited by Wayne Gale (Downey), only to survive a prison riot being broadcasted on live t.v. Simple message here: being a murderer is like being a movie star nowadays. They actually have fans!

What's funny is that the two actually lose count of their murder spree. I still think it's higher than 52.

So watch the #2 film on my Top 200 List and judge for yourself. It's poetry. . .