Reviews written by registered user
erwan_ticheler

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 18:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
173 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Sick? Yes. Any good? No!, 16 June 2008
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Having noticed this film when it was put on #1 of the sickest films ever made, I had to see it as I was at the time working on an article about infamous cinema. Having seen quite a few sick and bizarre films (like Saló, Men Behind the Sun, Cannibal Holocaust, the cinema of Miike and yes dare I say: Funny Games) I was poised on watching this one. Was I ever to be disappointed! Mordum tells no story, it's more a collage of rapes, murders and mutilations. In that sense it has a porn kind of look, instead of 15 minute sex-scenes you now have 15 minute scenes of the mentioned above. And after the first scene that gets, strangely enough, very boring and not that offensive. Yes, it has some really hardcore stuff like necrophiliac sex with a minor (yes, very sick) and ruthless murder scenes but don't believe the hype: from the word go it looks artificial (even when you are aware of this). The cheap Blair Witch approach doesn't really work because of the horrific over acting. Instead, it looks more a sadomasochistic home movie made by bored low-lives.

Obviously, this is not for the faint-hearted. The effects are actually pretty OK and the constant swearing (which becomes very annoying) and shaky camera is pretty heavy stuff. But the movie doesn't seem to have any further purpose than just to shock, there is no ideology. That is why I dared to mention Funny Games, which is not just a hard to watch film but also an in your face assault on the viewer's lust for violence. And with that in mind a film like Funny Games (but also Saló for that matter) hits the mark much better and heavier.

Mordum is nothing more than a piece of trash hardcore horror. Of course when a film is marked as being the sickest film ever made people are bound to disagree. I won't contest the fact that this is sick stuff, because it is. But it serves no further meaning and is therefore completely forgettable and inferior to true shocking films (I guess I didn't mention Island of Death, another much more interesting and quite shocking film).

Watch this with care, since it is truly sick. But don't expect a good film. Actually, this film as a piece of film sucks big time! 1/10

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
I was drunk and I still didn't get it, 31 March 2008
1/10

What the...? This is one dreadful film. I watched it but there absolutely nothing that made any sense. I saw the MST3K version after watching "Manos" the Hands of Fate a night earlier. That movie is obviously worse than Batwoman but has a fairly straight forward narrative. Batwoman has none. What is the deal with this bunch of garbage? There is this old gal that wears a mask for no good reason and leads a bunch of dancing broads.

After this all is up for grabs. The film goes every direction while making no sense at all, if it was to confuse it's audience at all times. Although the handling isn't as bad as Manos there is no redeeming quality to this picture. The comments on the MST3K version are priceless though, from quoting Doors and Who songs to rants on dreadful scenes, this version is amusing although the movie is a disaster.

And what is the story about vampires that starts the picture? There is reference on vampires what so ever in the continuum of the film. A true travesty, this excuse for a film. I thought it might be a wise decision to see this film being not that sober, but it didn't help that much. It is really beyond help!

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Another lame Halloween sequel, 29 October 2006
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It is so sad to see that the Halloween has bogged down into a never ending story of bad film making.After the highly praised and indeed brilliant first installment by John Carpenter the film have gone from reasonably okay (part 2), to bad and even worse (the next sequels although I must say that I've never seen part 6).No it has never been good news since 1978 when Michael Myers is concerned and that's a pity.The first film that had all the great stuff a good slasher should have (except maybe for the supernatural ending) was never equaled,not even close.Even part 3 that tried to give a new non-Michael tail to the story was pretty disappointing if you ask me.Not to mention the stories with Michael's niece.H20 brought back Laurie but with no good effect although we all thought that Michael was dead by now (hey,his head got chopped off).

In Halloween:Resurrection (lame title) the first thing we hear is that Laurie killed the wrong person cause Michael put his mask on a father of 3,poor Laurie now she is a killer.In the opening she is again stalked by Michael who tries to kill her and seems to succeed when he stabs poor Laurie several times after we see Laurie fall down (but is she really dead,that's something for everybody to discuss about,I'm not really sure).Anyway,in the rest of the movie she won't be bothered again.

The rest of the film is an unmotivated and uninspired follow up of badly shot death and mayhem in Michael's old house in Haddonfield.The attempt by Rick Rosenthal (who actually made the first sequel) to recreate some of the tension and atmosphere of the original fails entirely because of the bad story,bad cinematography and bad acting.The story is full of flaws (why does he go on killing after Laurie's death what he sincerely believes and why can he simply kill people without anyone noticing it on the web cams,it's too accidental),the cinematography is not any better (the small cameras make for a pretty unpleasant viewing experience and the slow motions are very annoying not to mention the full view shots of Michael as he comes storming towards someone,which is totally against the great first person view of the original) and the acting is inert especially by Tyra Banks and Busta Rhymes although the rest of the cast isn't much better.The characters are too standard to give any depth.

No,this Halloween installment again fails to compete with the original or with any good or even decent horror movie for that matter.Myers becomes more and more some kind of immortal godlike (or Satan) creature who refuses to die as we also see in the ending of this movie sadly enough.Another sequel seems to come although thanks goodness none has arrived yet,maybe Hollywood has come to senses and Michael laid to rest.Poor Michael (or poor Laurie) does not deserve another hellish Halloween sequel.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Good idea, badly executed, 12 August 2006
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This third installment in the Halloween saga is a strange one since it has nothing to do with Michael Myers (or Laurie Strode for that matter).The film is centered around a strange plot concerning brainwashing millions of American kids on Halloween night by Irish blooded freaks.The idea is pretty intriguing and it is okay to create a new niche in the Halloween story but the execution is very poor.

Carpenter (who strangely enough produces the film) traits are obvious, but the Myers tale has vanished. Still there are some shots that resemble "Halloween" like shots over the shoulder of a unknown man and shock effects made heavier by synthesizer tunes.But even then,it sucks. The acting is terrible,Tom Atkins is a complete miscast as the hero Dan and his love interest is even worse.The romantic story between the two is never explained although the hero seems to be married and has kids yet he sleeps with the girl without questions,very strange. By the way,Dan's wife is played by Nancy Kyes who also starred in parts I and II of Halloween.

The tail in the climax is pretty funny although it very much resembles endings like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". "Halloween III" is a bad excuse for a movie and the only reason I saw it was because I want to see every Halloween flick (I've seen 6 of them now) and every time I see a new one, the original gets better.Thank goodness that in part 4 Myers returns although the movie isn't much better. Still, the Halloween story should be centered around Myers and not some kind of conspiracy concerning mass child murder.

Oh yes, be advised that there are some pretty gory scenes that are not for the faint hearted although it doesn't make the movie any better. 3/10

Godzilla (1954)
The first and probably the best, 12 August 2006
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Gojira" is a very entertaining although rather dated action sci-fi flick with some nice action sequences and pretty good acting from Akihito Hirata and character actor Takashi Shimura (who features in a lot of Kurosawa films like "Ikiru"). This first Godzilla film would set the standard for the follow ups but to me those never reached the level of this one.

The American remake "Godzilla, King of the Monsters" is a stripped down version of the original with lame synchronization and the Emmerich version is good looking, but inert story wise. To me the real competition comes from "Destroy all Monsters" and "Godzilla: Final Wars" which both feature a lot of monsters and tons of action.

This film is to me such a cherished movie because of its dated yet well worked out frenzy when Godzilla crushes the city of Tokyo several times. The ending is not bad and the final thoughts of Dr. Kyohei resemble the American sci-fi movies concerning weapons of mass destruction. If you want to be entertained,this is a good movie to watch although the romantic scenes are a bit slow and don't do the movie much justice,still this is a matter of taste.Great fun. 7/10

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Surely the best of the new trilogy..., 4 December 2005
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Revenge of the Sith is a very good closing part of the Star Wars saga.After seeing it for the fourth time I can really appreciate the film in every way.It has all the elements of a good sci-fi movie and then some.Starting of with a complex and exciting first shot the story then takes off in a great first half hour,just like the great openings in The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi.After that the movie seems to go all wrong (although we can see a glimpse of the Millennium Falcon at the arrival on Coruscant) with a pretty dull and horrendous acting part that is luckily saved by a brilliant Ian McDiarmid.Hayden Christensen shows once again that he's a bad actor and good actors like Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman and Samuel L. Jackson get no chance to show their talents.But let us not forget that Star Wars is a serial based on it's effects and wondrous worlds.And with that RotS succeeds.State of the art SFX and great planets and creatures are made standard in this flick.

To me,probably just as any other SW fan,this movie couldn't have any surprises.The question was whether Lucas would succeed in melding the different assets of the story together.And again it succeeds,the final battle between Anakin and Obi Wan is very well made,although totally ridiculous(two guys standing 1 meter above boiling lava?)and the final pieces of the puzzle are put together perfectly.The mysteries around Obi Wan's ability to communicate beyond the grave,the exile of Yoda,the successful disappearance of the remaining Jedi knights and the fate of the two droids,all is explained with great ease and success.

RotS is not the best Star Wars film,as some people say it is.It still lacks something that made the original trilogy untouchable,especially parts IV and the greatest one,part V.But it exceeds my expectations after being slightly disappointed by part I and II although those two were still very good movies.RotS is great because of it's darkness and it's dark characters.Ian McDiarmid rules in every scene he plays in and the SFX do the rest.RotS is a worthy finale of an unforgettable saga that will always remain one of my favorite movie experiences.

Now it is time for me to start thinking about a great marathon.Watching all parts after one another is my next goal which will keep me on my couch for about 13 hours.It might by a tough start but after let say 4 and a half hours the real fun can begin.The original trilogy is still high above the rest,but RotS is very close to it's masters.In that way it doesn't really fit in the new trilogy or as Darth Vader himself would put it:The Force is strong with this one. 9/10

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Strange and full of holes, not Craven's best work, 6 October 2005
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Last House on the Left is a very strange and brutal film that exploits the dark side of human beings. There are several gruesome scenes in the film (for instance when one of the girls is forced to wet her pants. It is said that this film is in the style of Texas Chain Saw Massacre, a very weird argument since this film was made 2 years prior to Tobe Hooper's classic horror masterpiece. Sure,it has the same rural terror but to call it a TCM kind of film is not right.

Last House reminded me very much to Straw Dogs made,in 1971.That film has the same idea since it is also about so called civilized people who are forced to act like animals when they are under severe threat.The booby traps set in Last House are almost a copy of the traps set in Straw Dogs and the whole fight is triggered by a rape (and a murder), also alike.

But where Straw Dogs had great acting and a good story,Last House falls down.The acting is very bad and cheap and the story is full of holes and continuity faults. At one point it is midnight but it is still bright outside.There are several strange jumps in time which make it pretty hard to follow.

Still,despite all its shortcomings it remains of interest.It is a film that they don't make anymore and it set off the career of Craven who would make his best film 5 years later with the incredibly scary The Hills Have Eyes,a classic in the genre of horror. Best to watch that movie.

BTW: Not for the squeamish this film is...

Corporate Ghost (2004) (V)
13 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Almost perfect, 8 August 2005
8/10

Since this is a compilation of songs starting at the Goo album,I won't be too harsh on the fact that Sonic Youth made a lot of great albums before that(EVOL and Daydream Nation rank amongst the greatest albums ever made)which aren't present on this DVD.

This DVD is a great add-on for any fan of the band as I am myself.The videos might be cheezy at times,but it's obviously all about the music which is brilliant.Highlights on this DVD are Mote which has a great video and Hoarfrost.It is a shame that some of the songs are edited like Sugar Kane,Sunday and most of all The Diamond Sea.Sugar Kane and Sunday are slightly shorter than their album originals which is directly noticed by any fan but the short version of the epic song Diamond Sea is a mayor let down.Where the songs clocks at 20 minutes on the album Washing Machine,on the DVD it only clocks at about 5 minutes which means that the entire noise explosion at the end of the song is taken away from us.

Despite that obvious negative point it still is a great disc which can be put on at any party as background or foreground music.And when you reach Diamond Sea just put on Washing Machine and play the original classic.

A definite must have for any SY fan!

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Watchable for just one evident reason, 2 August 2005
1/10

The fact that this ridiculous movie is to be seen is the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger plays in it,even more so,it's his screen debut. And what a laugh!The man is totally failing in every aspect of acting and his speech is so bad that it becomes absolutely funny.That's where the charm of this movie lies cause in every other way it is a bad 90 minutes of celluloid.The story sucks,the acting is worse and the camera-work is terrible.

Nevertheless,a must see for everyone who wants to know something about cinema and it's rather strange history.We had to wait another 10 years before Arnie came back in a big way with Conan the Barbarian.

Cinema history,for sure,although it will never be written down in any book about the subject.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Woody's best achievement since Husbands and Wives, 31 July 2005
8/10

The last decade has been very up and down in terms of Woody Allen films.Some very good(Deconstructing Harry),some were mediocre(Curse of the Jade Scorpion).Melinda and Melinda is a very nice film to sit back on and enjoy.It has a good script,some great camera-work and the usual strong dialogs.The master himself is absent on screen,but he put his soul in the character of Hobie(Will Ferrell).

The acting is great all round,it's amazing how Allen always seems to get the best out of his actors.The style of the movie is also great,some nice long takes make it enjoyable to watch.

It is by far not his best film(Annie Hall,Manhattan,Bananas and Husbands and Wives are way better),but it is very good and high above the average that's coming out these days.Still,it is imperative that you like Woody Allen films,cause this is as typical as it gets.


Page 1 of 18:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]