Remember Are You Afraid Of The Dark? from Nickelodeon in the 90s? Remember how cheesy and hokey those stories were? They were made for kids though, so it was fun and goofy. Now, imagine those stories, except aimed at adults with a bunch of overt and really fake-looking blood, guts and gore, but even more hokey and poorly-made. This "movie" was total garbage!! Everything about it was rushed, cheap and cliché to hell. "The October Society" should be ashamed for putting this waste of an hour-and-a-half together. I feel sorry for Barry Bostwick and Lynn Shaye for having to be involved with this trash. I hated Trick 'r Treat, and it honestly looks good in comparison.
Reviews
60 Reviews
Prom Night
(I) (2008)
It's not a remake - but tried to capitalize on being one!
12 April 2008
Wow. That's all I can say. This movie is definitely NOT a remake of the 1980 original, even though every review and ad I read in the papers claimed it was. It's really nothing other than a badly clichéd 'horror' knock-off. I like the original. Yes, Jamie Lee Curtis is in it, but she's not even the main focus of that movie which many seem to have forgotten. Anyway, I digress...
This very typical, ordinary, plain and so-bad-and-cliché-you-can-say-what's-going-to-happen-before-it-does 'film' should have been direct-to-DVD, if even that. It's like a cable special that somehow made it to the screen. All of the actors are too old and not very likable/relatable. When they're offed, you could care less. It's crap masquerading under the Prom Night title.
This very typical, ordinary, plain and so-bad-and-cliché-you-can-say-what's-going-to-happen-before-it-does 'film' should have been direct-to-DVD, if even that. It's like a cable special that somehow made it to the screen. All of the actors are too old and not very likable/relatable. When they're offed, you could care less. It's crap masquerading under the Prom Night title.
Halloween
(2007)
Try to open your mind and shut your mouth!
4 September 2007
When Rob was originally contacted, he was asked to make another sequel. He said he wasn't interested in making yet another sequel, especially after the last several have been so bad. He came up with a re-imagining (which is exactly what it is) of the original story, but before he did anything he contacted John Carpenter and asked for permission. Carpenter himself gave him the go-ahead!! Therefor, if anyone's p***ed at Rob's version, just remember: he got permission from the original creator to do it.
I, as an avid fan of the original Halloween, was totally against a remake. However, after I heard Rob was at the helm and that he'd gotten permission from John Carpenter, I decided to give this film a shot. I actually wound up liking it, as I didn't go in with any preconceived notions that it would suck. There are so many close-minded people who went in not wanting to give this movie a chance and therefor immediately saw flaws everywhere. I went in with an open mind not expecting a direct remake (which I usually hate) and went in with the mindset of, "this is going to be something different; someone else's take on the subject matter" and I was therefor pleasantly surprised.
This was not only a re-imagining, but also an update for today's audience's (which are, frankly, attention deficit). So far I've seen this film twice (once in LA, once in Vegas), and both times there were children in the audience, most of whom had sneaked in, some of whom had come with parents. The ones that came with parents were almost twice as ill-behaved because the parents kept talking throughout the movie with the kids chiming in! It's totally disrespectful to talk through a movie (unless of course you're at The Rocky Horror Picture Show). I feel that that also ruins the movie-going experience, leading many to conclude that it was a "bad film" because they missed so much of it due to the distractions of others. This is also an unfair was to analyze or criticize a film.
To sum up, what I'm saying here is: 1) respect the work on the screen for what it is (NOT a direct remake), 2) realize that the director/writer got the go-ahead from the original director/writer, 3) form your own opinions and do not let others' opinions or voices during the film influence you. Have an open mind about it and you may just find yourself enjoying it.
I, as an avid fan of the original Halloween, was totally against a remake. However, after I heard Rob was at the helm and that he'd gotten permission from John Carpenter, I decided to give this film a shot. I actually wound up liking it, as I didn't go in with any preconceived notions that it would suck. There are so many close-minded people who went in not wanting to give this movie a chance and therefor immediately saw flaws everywhere. I went in with an open mind not expecting a direct remake (which I usually hate) and went in with the mindset of, "this is going to be something different; someone else's take on the subject matter" and I was therefor pleasantly surprised.
This was not only a re-imagining, but also an update for today's audience's (which are, frankly, attention deficit). So far I've seen this film twice (once in LA, once in Vegas), and both times there were children in the audience, most of whom had sneaked in, some of whom had come with parents. The ones that came with parents were almost twice as ill-behaved because the parents kept talking throughout the movie with the kids chiming in! It's totally disrespectful to talk through a movie (unless of course you're at The Rocky Horror Picture Show). I feel that that also ruins the movie-going experience, leading many to conclude that it was a "bad film" because they missed so much of it due to the distractions of others. This is also an unfair was to analyze or criticize a film.
To sum up, what I'm saying here is: 1) respect the work on the screen for what it is (NOT a direct remake), 2) realize that the director/writer got the go-ahead from the original director/writer, 3) form your own opinions and do not let others' opinions or voices during the film influence you. Have an open mind about it and you may just find yourself enjoying it.
Dark Ride
(2006)
By-The-Numbers Rip Off, Nothing Scary Or Groundbreaking Here
21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Aside from being a total rip-off of the Halloween series (escaped mental patient returns home; a sibling is attached in the plot line; the killer wears a mask and coveralls, doesn't talk, appears and disappears, gets purposely rammed by a car, etc), the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the whole crazy hitchhiker part; the main character escapes by jumping out a window), House of 1,000 Corpses (the neon lighting and the whole "horror ride" setting, the hitchhiker looking like Baby and wearing a cowboy hat and having an annoying laugh), the movie itself was cliché to hell! I was able to say lines before the characters because it was so obvious where the story was going (i.e. "they were my cousins"). I was also able to say, "insert tedious cheap scare... now" and it would always happen. The script was awful! The characters were saying the cheapest one-liners and moronic high-school dialogue that I had to wonder how it got greenlighted. Someone else wrote that it reminded them of an episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark - and it really did! The reason why for me was because it seemed like little more than a cheap Canadian kids sit-com slightly vamped up with some gore and a few breast shots. Did it seem a little strange to anyone that the whole ride was connected to a few wires? I mean, flip one switch and you have endless fog, strobe lights, music, etc? The ending was obvious too. Did the same people make this that made that Gawd-awful Canadian TV version of Carrie? I'm disappointed Christopher Young's name and music were attached to this. Looks like that girl from the Sopranos and the kid from The Sandlot have nothing to look forward to in the way of acting careers, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was a sequel, what with the way it was all set up. Hey Lion's Gate, I want my money back, and how about paying royalties to John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper and Rob Zombie while you're at it?
The Wicker Man
(2006)
Insipid, pointless - I want my money back!!!
2 September 2006
I have been an avid fan of the original for years. I was one of the people who petitioned Anchor Bay to release it on DVD. That being said, Nicholas Cage has single-handedly done the biggest blasphemy to any film I've ever witnessed.
SPOILERS I walked out of this "remake" last night so utterly appalled that I nearly demanded my money back. Everything about it was terrible. Cage's acting couldn't have been worse. Here's my rant about the story and characters: The original: Willow McGregor is the Landlord's Daughter (the man who runs the Green Man Inn) who is seen as a goddess (portrayed by Britt Eckland). The remake: Willow Woodward (I'm assuming the last name is an homage to Edward Woodward who portrayed Neil Howie, the police officer in the original) is somehow the ex-love of Cage's police officer character who now has a daughter who is missing that he must find. The original character is somehow taken over by a less-than-enthusiastic Leelee Sobiesky. The original: Rowan Morrison is the girl who is missing, she is the daughter of May Morrison who runs the local sweet shop/post office. The remake: it's the bees/honey crop that fails. The original: it's the apple crop that fails. The remake: set on an island off Pugit Sound called Summersisle (they added an "s), a neo-pagan "sisterhood" of women rules. Sister Summersisle is played by Ellen Burstyn. The original: set on a small Scottish island of Summerisle, a neo-pagan community rules. Lord Summerisle is played by Christopher Lee. The remake: the maypole outside the school is shown but not used, and the teacher is a complete b****. The original: the maypole has a whole song and dance dedicated to it and the teacher offers a lot of information on their society. The remake: Ellen Burstyn is a whispy ruler who is almost too nice at times and lives in a weird bee mansion. The original: Chrisopher Lee is pleasant but rules with an iron fist and lives in a classic Scottish/British mansion. The remake: Nicholas Cage turns in a horrid performance as an out-of-luck police officer who tries to find his daughter and ends up in a trap in which he becomes the sacrifice. The original: Edward Woodward turns in a tour-de-force performance as a Christian officer dealing with Pagans and genuinely interested in helping the girl who has supposedly been kidnapped. He suffers the same fate, burned alive in the Wicker Man. The remake: the whole community is in on the plot, but they are more into creeping Cage out than offering him any real insight into their culture. The original: the whole community is in on the plot, but they're doing it as a classic festival in celebration of the Celtic god of the orchard and goddess of the field. The original ends with the Wicker Man crumbling and the villagers singing the folk song "Summer Is A-Cumin' In." The remake ends after the Wicker Man tumbles and then Leelee Sobiesky and Willow end up recruiting more men for their little plot. There are many more, but I don't feel like going on an even bigger tirade.
This is a testament of why movies should NOT be remade. Nicholas Cage should be ashamed of himself.
SPOILERS I walked out of this "remake" last night so utterly appalled that I nearly demanded my money back. Everything about it was terrible. Cage's acting couldn't have been worse. Here's my rant about the story and characters: The original: Willow McGregor is the Landlord's Daughter (the man who runs the Green Man Inn) who is seen as a goddess (portrayed by Britt Eckland). The remake: Willow Woodward (I'm assuming the last name is an homage to Edward Woodward who portrayed Neil Howie, the police officer in the original) is somehow the ex-love of Cage's police officer character who now has a daughter who is missing that he must find. The original character is somehow taken over by a less-than-enthusiastic Leelee Sobiesky. The original: Rowan Morrison is the girl who is missing, she is the daughter of May Morrison who runs the local sweet shop/post office. The remake: it's the bees/honey crop that fails. The original: it's the apple crop that fails. The remake: set on an island off Pugit Sound called Summersisle (they added an "s), a neo-pagan "sisterhood" of women rules. Sister Summersisle is played by Ellen Burstyn. The original: set on a small Scottish island of Summerisle, a neo-pagan community rules. Lord Summerisle is played by Christopher Lee. The remake: the maypole outside the school is shown but not used, and the teacher is a complete b****. The original: the maypole has a whole song and dance dedicated to it and the teacher offers a lot of information on their society. The remake: Ellen Burstyn is a whispy ruler who is almost too nice at times and lives in a weird bee mansion. The original: Chrisopher Lee is pleasant but rules with an iron fist and lives in a classic Scottish/British mansion. The remake: Nicholas Cage turns in a horrid performance as an out-of-luck police officer who tries to find his daughter and ends up in a trap in which he becomes the sacrifice. The original: Edward Woodward turns in a tour-de-force performance as a Christian officer dealing with Pagans and genuinely interested in helping the girl who has supposedly been kidnapped. He suffers the same fate, burned alive in the Wicker Man. The remake: the whole community is in on the plot, but they are more into creeping Cage out than offering him any real insight into their culture. The original: the whole community is in on the plot, but they're doing it as a classic festival in celebration of the Celtic god of the orchard and goddess of the field. The original ends with the Wicker Man crumbling and the villagers singing the folk song "Summer Is A-Cumin' In." The remake ends after the Wicker Man tumbles and then Leelee Sobiesky and Willow end up recruiting more men for their little plot. There are many more, but I don't feel like going on an even bigger tirade.
This is a testament of why movies should NOT be remade. Nicholas Cage should be ashamed of himself.
Strangers with Candy
(2005)
Mas Terrible!!!!
14 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I like the series, I think it's hilarious. This movie takes the plot of a 1/2 hour TV show and stretches it to 90 minutes, making it VERY bland. They could have done a lot better with the whole thing. While it has a few laughs, it does not compare to the series as a whole. The jokes are so few and far between that the audience is itching for them when they come. It's really sad, this had a lot of potential. Even Stephen Colbert didn't seem to want to do a very good job with it. His character wasn't as biting or sarcastic as usual. I guess this could be considered as a prequel to the series because it tells the story maybe a week before the series starts, but it's nothing that couldn't have been picked up just watching the show. Totally unnecessary, not worth the drive all the way across town to the one theater that was showing it. The best thing about this stinker was seeing the trailer for John Cameron Mitchell's new movie!
Soul of the Demon
(1991 Video)
Pretty awful, but of significance to Las Vegas, NV locals
12 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, I'm shocked someone else has actually seen this! The only reason I know about it because the producer (who also plays the old man in it) is my aunt's brother-in-law! I can remember watching it back when it came out and not really getting it. I just re-watched it again recently, and damn does it parallel Night of the Demons. I'm not going to lie - it's a bad movie, but for some reason it's fun to watch. The teens in it are all painfully early 90s. The special effects are surprisingly good for being so low budget. Having been born in and growing up in Vegas, it's funny to watch this and know exactly where certain scenes were shot. Even the news report at the beginning mentions real streets. It's almost a period piece of early 90s Vegas that locals can watch and go, "I remember when things were like that." The only thing I don't specifically remember is the hair - EVERYONE in this movie has bad hair, especially the brother metal head. The stoner with the mullet dies (thank God), but at least he brought the pizza.
Scary Movie 4
(2006)
Painful!
17 April 2006
Aside from the president in the classroom bit that so accurately depicted exactly how Bush handled the news of 9/11, this was an inept waste of celluloid! Anna Farris (sp?) can be funny, but she doesn't need to try very hard in this - there's not much for her to work with. It was interesting to see Dr. Phil willingly take self-deprecating humor, and Debra Wilson is a comedy goddess (I miss her on MadTV), but other than that the laughs ran so thin that sometimes it was hard to tell if they were making fun of other movies or just getting some more use out of left-over sets. I want my $9.50 back! This isn't even a popcorn "I can just sit back and laugh" movie. It is a total waste with "in jokes" casually mentioning myspace and "lovely lady lumps" but without any substance or even the faintest hint of a plot.
Rocky Horror 25: Anniversary Special
(2000 TV Special)
I was there
11 April 2006
Okay, I'm only writing this because I'm bored. I was there, I'd been doing Rocky for about 2 years at that point. To the ignorant person who said that the crowd was full of "teenage heathens who know little-to-nothing about Rocky Horror" that is the most insipid comment I've ever read. The crowd was full of people who'd been doing Rocky for most of their lives, including people who started the cult back in the 70s! The show itself was lack-luster and few of the celebrities actually knew what they were doing. Erick McCormack and Jesse L. Martin, however, gave stellar performances. Wallace Langham was an embarrassment to all Eddies. Seeing Pat, Richard and Nell perform Time Warp live at the end was spectacular though.
Hillside Cannibals
(2006 Video)
Oy Vey
6 April 2006
Alright, I was in Blockbuster today on my lunch break and spotted to preview sleeves for this (both copies were actually rented out). It claimed to be the tale that inspired the Hills Have Eyes. Um, WHAT?! That is the most bogus claim I've ever read! Hey director/script writer: watch the documentary on the original Hills Have Eyes (1977) 2-disk by Anchor Bay. In it, Wes Craven states that the inspiration for the Hills Have Eyes was a cave-dwelling medieval (sp?) family in the British Isles (the Seaney-Beane family I believe). Wes Craven should sue the hell out of the "production company" of this "film" for libel! I am insulted that anyone would try to cash in on film-renters' ignorance of a subject by just plain lying. I came across another video box for "When A Killer Calls" which claims to be more like the urban legend (the babysitter and the man upstairs) than the original When A Stranger Calls. RUBBISH! I CALL SHINANIGANS!!
When a Stranger Calls
(2006)
Again, the original stands out
6 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a COMPLETE waste of money and time. The original is, always has been, and always will be a classic. Carol Kane has proved to be the best Jill Johnson. This is just another testament to why the classics should be LEFT ALONE. I'm glad I got to see a free screening of this. Whoever actually invests money to go and see this, I pity you. This "movie" makes a mockery of the original and the urban legend it's based upon. Even the few nods to the original (the characters' names, Jill eating the ice cream, the situation with the best friend trying to steal the boyfriend) do not help this schlock. Studios should pay people to sit through this!
The Hills Have Eyes
(2006)
The original will always be the best
13 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I definitely prefer the original, not to say that this one isn't alright. I felt, however, it was intentionally OVERTLY gory. I've seen many horror films and handled quite a bit of on-screen violence, but this left me dazed and feeling a bit sick. The original implied a lot, which made it atmospheric - this one outright showed it. The opening credits are jarring, with clips of deformed bodies in jars. That was one thing I didn't like: the way that this movie over-did the nuclear testing aspect. In the original, it was implied that the fall-out from the test range affected the family (Papa Jupiter is the son of the gas station attendant who buried a crowbar into his face and left him in the desert when he killed his mother; Jupiter in turn found a hooker and started a family on the Nellis Airforce Test Range in the Mojave desert in Nevada). In the original, Doug does say that he found abandoned houses in a crater, but they actually show it in this film. There are more "mutants" in this one (there's a guy with a severely swollen head in a wheelchair, children, an obese woman in a house, etc) that are unexplained and were not in the original. I do not like what was done with Ruby, because she actually has a character in the original, she speaks and proves that she is not savage like her family (thank you Janus Blythe!). Giving Doug the same hair and mustache was an interesting touch, and overall the Carter family had the same sort of "feel" and general look as the original. I don't like how Bobby was turned into a kid as opposed to a wise teenager. There was no need to change the character of Mars to "Lizard." Pluto looked like a rehash of Sloth from The Goonies (Michael Berryman will ALWAYS be Pluto). I would suggest anyone who liked this seek out the original and see how it was meant to be.
Hellraiser: Deader
(2005 Video)
A Decent Entry
7 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, my major complaints first: Pinhead's costume keeps changing slightly. It no longer looks as atmospheric and detailed as it did in the first two, plus the designs have changed. Pinhead's makeup looks gravelly - where did the weathered face come from? People are raving about the cover art - why? It's the picture off of the back cover of Inferno, you've seen it before! You know a series has gone downhill when the company changes the title logo. Dimension's all about money, they don't care about the integrity of a film. Rick Bota should seriously go back and re-watch the first two films (obviously the best in the series) if he's going to continue making entries. I'm getting tired of these films looking so washed out (as is the style in almost every horror movie anymore, especially those from Dimension). The puzzle box animation looks totally fake and inconsistent - one minute it's computer animated, the next it's obviously a guy under the table working it. There is cover art for Hellraiser: Hellworld on an ad in the slipcover of the DVD; looks just as cheesy.
Onto the story: A flaky shock journalist who should be writing for tabloids is sent to Romania (let's waste money to shoot on location!) to investigate a story on "Deaders" - people who kill themselves and then are brought back to life by a guy who is apparently related to LeMerchant, the maker of the Lament Configuration (the puzzle-box) who expects the resurrected to follow him blindly. Pinhead's presence in this film is totally unnecessary. He's supposedly PO'd that Winter (the resurrector) is dabbling into the other side of death, which is rightfully Pinhead's domain. Director Rick Bota openly admits that the original script was just "Deader," and not written as a Hellraiser entry. Yay for commercialism and milking a franchise for all it's worth! Doug Bradley, as always (except part 3 probably, that was ridiculous), delivers a likable Pinhead performance, and the finale is a definite throwback to the earlier films (probably the best part). This movie was meant to be about an underground resurrection cult and Pinhead was thrown in to tag on the Hellraiser name. Thank God Kirsty wasn't included because her story's been beaten to death and she already settled things with Pinhead in Hellseeker. Please no more "this is what YOUR Hell is like" stories! It's worth a watch or two if you're bored. You want real horror with an actual plot, watch the first two.
Onto the story: A flaky shock journalist who should be writing for tabloids is sent to Romania (let's waste money to shoot on location!) to investigate a story on "Deaders" - people who kill themselves and then are brought back to life by a guy who is apparently related to LeMerchant, the maker of the Lament Configuration (the puzzle-box) who expects the resurrected to follow him blindly. Pinhead's presence in this film is totally unnecessary. He's supposedly PO'd that Winter (the resurrector) is dabbling into the other side of death, which is rightfully Pinhead's domain. Director Rick Bota openly admits that the original script was just "Deader," and not written as a Hellraiser entry. Yay for commercialism and milking a franchise for all it's worth! Doug Bradley, as always (except part 3 probably, that was ridiculous), delivers a likable Pinhead performance, and the finale is a definite throwback to the earlier films (probably the best part). This movie was meant to be about an underground resurrection cult and Pinhead was thrown in to tag on the Hellraiser name. Thank God Kirsty wasn't included because her story's been beaten to death and she already settled things with Pinhead in Hellseeker. Please no more "this is what YOUR Hell is like" stories! It's worth a watch or two if you're bored. You want real horror with an actual plot, watch the first two.
Fahrenheit 9/11
(2004)
The TRUTH Is FINALLY Told!!!
6 October 2004
While there will be some people who misconstrue fact with fiction, as the entire Bush administration has done and continues to try to do to the American people, we finally have someone not afraid to do the research and tell it like it is. Michael Moore should be commended for this work, and anyone who thinks otherwise is the true Anti-American; ready to believe a presidency based on lies and deceit. Most of the people against this movie haven't even bothered to watch it, but instead formed their own opinion based on simply the controversy surrounding it, which is hypocritical and bias unto itself. 10 out of 10 - a masterpiece that will hopefully contribute to the downfall of an idealistic president who puts the lives of American people in danger for personal interest.
TERRIBLE
6 October 2004
Lacks everything the first one had. The music has gone from atmostpheric to too Native American (with Asian tea flutes??), although Daniel Licht's music is probably the best part of this lack-luster, by-the-numbers, "let's ruin the original" sequel. The children are too early 90s. The leader, Micah, lacks the depth of Isaac and Malachai (Mortechai is a cheesy rip-off semi-character). The children use technology, which was forbidden originally. The children's' presence is laughable and hardly ominous. Now they're practicing voodoo - it's ridiculous. The only good thing about this film is that it led to part 3, which was a VAST improvement!!! 1/2 out of 5 stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Village
(2004)
Ties with Catwoman as WORST film of the summer
2 August 2004
Okay, the first 3/4 of this film were semi-tolerable, then it seems like Shyamalan lost interest and wrote a cop-out ending due to the fact that he never seems to be able to end anything as well as he started. Of course he wrote himself in for a less-than-memorable cameo, maybe that's the reason he ended it so poorly. The film's advertising WAS misleading, and it wasn't a horror film in the slightest. It wasn't even a psychological thriller, drama, or anything even remotely interesting - it was a story without an ending, and not even a good one at that. There was an extreme waste of talent in this film as well. The painful script was brought to life by some of the best actors of our time: Sigourney Weaver, William Hunt and Michael Pitt (yes, he's a good actor - watch Hedwig and the Angry Inch). These people should fire their agents! It takes a 'Village' to make something THIS BAD! 1/2 out of 4 stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Independent
(2000)
DVD or Video? Hello???
29 May 2003
I actually had the opportunity to see this film in a theatre, and I laughed my ass off from the very beginning. Normally I can't stand Jerry Stiller (or Ben for that matter), but this movie was great. It's spoof on Roger Corman's early works is brilliant. My only question is: When are we going to get a home release of this film??? So far I've only been able to tape if off Comedy Central, and it's pan & scan and loses a lot from being blurred and edited. I want The Independent on DVD!!! It has big names, it just wasn't given a fare shake at all. I don't get it. 10 out of 10...
Guilty Pleasure, Pales Compared To Original
29 May 2003
This is a bad movie, but for some reason it's fun to watch. Seeing Corey Feldman with long hair doing a bad Michael Jackson impression is hilarious. The songs are actually pretty decent. If there was a soundtrack released to this film, I'd definitely like to get it, just as a guilty pleasure. I LOVE the original film, and this one in no way even holds a candle to it. There is a slight nod to the original in Jesse Davis's (Corey Feldman) room - there's a Ramones poster on the wall. This movie basically personifies the early 90s - that odd transition from the 80s where we didn't know quite where the new decade would take us. This film is directly from that odd period. There's even foreshadowing of things to come: Stella's look developed into "goth;" Namrock revived the Asian action genre; Madison served as an inspiration to the reincarnation of the Beasty Boys - okay, not really. Clint Howard is the ONLY person that should ever play Eaglebaur. Mojo Nixon's scene was unnecessary and INCREDIBLY corny. The stuff that happens to the preppies is funny, because they kind of get what they deserve. Let's face it, this movie is a decent waste of an hour and a half and is remotely entertaining if you have the time to kill. You might find yourself laughing although you'd never admit to it amongst friends. Even Mary Woronov coming back should count for something. Oh yeah, Nichole, I want my copy back you backstabbing (explative deleted)!!
Jubilee
(1978)
It's finally on DVD!!!
27 May 2003
For anyone who has based their opinion on solely on what they saw on video, here's a chance for you to form a new one. Derek Jarman's Jubilee has FINALLY been issued on Criterion Collection DVD! There is a crapload of extra features and the film itself has been digitally remastered in a beautiful widescreen transfer that will blow the mind of anyone familiar with the the old video releases! Derek Jarman's vision truly shines through as the masterwork it is. The abundance of extra features on this 25th Anniversary Edition are astounding as well. There's rare footage, interviews, pictures, stuff from Jarman's personal collection, etc. It's worth every cent charged for and astounding Criterion disc. All the skeptics who judge this film harshly should try watching the documentary included, which explains the true story of what's going on in the film and what went on behind-the-scenes. 10 stars out of 10. Rule Britannia, dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
House of 1000 Corpses
(2003)
Upon a second viewing...
14 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, I decided to watch this movie a second time to see if I could try and make some more sense of it. All I got was even more movies being homaged and even less of a story. I definitely noticed some major elements of Motel Hell and even The Wicker Man (the scene when the family is dragging the friends out to the field is very reminiscent of the classic march to the Wicker Man).
So, here's what I have to say: if you're going to see this movie, you should probably see the entire following list of films in order to understand what Zombie did here: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (parts 1-3, especially part one which this movie is essentially a remake of), Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, Children of the Corn, Halloween, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Motel Hell, The Wicker Man, The Living Dead Girl (yes, it's a movie), Night of the Living Dead, Carnival of Souls, It and maybe even Bride of Chucky. Yes, this film honestly has elements of all of these films, maybe even more. Zombie also offers a few throwbacks to his own songs: Dragula (there's a drag race scene on the TV from the Munsters - their car was the Dragula) and also a joke about greasepaint.
SPOILER - Anyone notice that when we actually see "Dr. Satan," he's wearing a gas mask sort of thing just like the dad did that tried to burn down the house? Are they insinuating that Dr. Satan is "Mr. Firefly"? Hell if I know. The whole Dr. Satan myth is never really explained, neither is Spaulding's involvement with the family. Whatever. This movie's a decent watch, but don't expect to get much out of it unless you know what you're getting yourself into (i.e. - go in with a good knowledge of REAL horror films - and I'm not talking the Scream crap we have nowadays)
So, here's what I have to say: if you're going to see this movie, you should probably see the entire following list of films in order to understand what Zombie did here: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (parts 1-3, especially part one which this movie is essentially a remake of), Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, Children of the Corn, Halloween, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Motel Hell, The Wicker Man, The Living Dead Girl (yes, it's a movie), Night of the Living Dead, Carnival of Souls, It and maybe even Bride of Chucky. Yes, this film honestly has elements of all of these films, maybe even more. Zombie also offers a few throwbacks to his own songs: Dragula (there's a drag race scene on the TV from the Munsters - their car was the Dragula) and also a joke about greasepaint.
SPOILER - Anyone notice that when we actually see "Dr. Satan," he's wearing a gas mask sort of thing just like the dad did that tried to burn down the house? Are they insinuating that Dr. Satan is "Mr. Firefly"? Hell if I know. The whole Dr. Satan myth is never really explained, neither is Spaulding's involvement with the family. Whatever. This movie's a decent watch, but don't expect to get much out of it unless you know what you're getting yourself into (i.e. - go in with a good knowledge of REAL horror films - and I'm not talking the Scream crap we have nowadays)
House of 1000 Corpses
(2003)
Homages Abound (Not necessarily a bad thing)
12 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Contains Spoilers This film was interesting to see, although my biggest problem with it is that it seemed like Zombie was trying too hard to do homages to too many things and the story was put on the back burner. While I enjoyed the tip offs to some of my favorites, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (probably too much is devoted to this), Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, and even Children of the Corn (suprise ending...) with a few elements of Alice In Woderland, it just seemed like there was nothing to really make it all flow together. Was there gore? Yes, a little. Was there sex? Not much. Was there a story? Yes - three different ones going on simultaneously that didn't really tie to each other.
First we have the whole Captiain Spaulding freskshow clown horror-ride/gas station/chicken place. Okay, it's interesting to see - very neon and odd. What relevance does it have to the story? Not much other than its inclusion of the "Dr. Satan" myth. When four strangers (definitely old enough to know better - we're talking late 20s early 30s here) show up and become interested in the Dr. Satan legend, Spaulding warns them not go near the tree where Satan was supposedly hanged, but of course they go in search of it anyway (and we never do see the tree, except in a dream). We are never told how Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig of Spider Baby fame) or his henchman, Emanual Ravelli (Irwin Keyes) relates to the family the friends are about to meet
They pick up a beatiful stranger (a living dead girl you might say?) and agree to take her home. The girl's brother shoots out their tire and they're forced to stay the night with the odd family (very Texas Chainsaw meets Hills Have Eyes with a dash of Last House and TCM 2, even a little RHPS thrown in). We have Otis B. Driftwood (Bill Mosely of TCM 2 - ChopTop), who is best described as Chop Top + Leatherface times Riff Raff. Then there's Baby (Sheri Moon - the real life Ms. Zombie) who's kind of a cross between Tiffany (Bride of Chucky), Betty Boop and a snakecharmer (also one of those annoying baby dolls with the laugh that makes you want to drop kick it). Mother Firefly (Karen Black in all her lazy-eyed glory) is just plain odd. She's a whore, definitely, but also cares about her kids and has an odd greenish-gray glow to her...?
"Grampa" (Dennis Fimple) is a useless character who basically epitomizes the horny, perverted old man. He does nothing interesting and has no real role. Rufus (Robert Mukes) is the hulking older brother. He's basically and a handyman, but doesn't do much for the story either. Tiny (Matther McGrory) is kind of a Leatherface-type character (in the "feel bad for me because I'm confused and defored" sense, not the "I'm going to chop the crap out of you" way). He was burned in a fire and horribly disfigured. He doesn't do much except offer some comic relief.
It's awfully convenient the strangers show up on Halloween eve - the next nite, of course, being THE night (there's a title homage to John Carpenter's Halloween at this point "October 31" merges into "Halloween"). Anyway, this is when we're supposedly exposed to Dr. Satan, who is really nothing more than an overblown version of Bane from Batman and Robin (sad, very, very sad), who is supposedly still alive and living in an underground chamber lined with corpses in the middle of a field which doubles as a cemetery. How Dr. Satan ties into the Firefly family, we're never told.
The ending is probably disappointing to a lot of mainstream audiences who don't get Rob Zombie's way of thinking (he's rooting FOR the bad guys here). However, when I saw it, there was a round of applause from the audience (probably because the majority of them never saw Children of the Corn). I guess the applause was deserved, because this was definitely Zombie at his peak, but I just feel the entire story needed some work. There's a robbery scene at the beginning of the film inside Spaulding's place that doesn't tie into anything (and has some of the worst acting to ever disgrace celluloid). There is also another story going on with the father of one of the missing girls and two policemen investingating what happens (the policeman are a nod to Last House).
This story leads to an almost never-ending scene where the audience is just cheering, "freakin' do it already!!!"
Overall, the chintzy glow-in the dark, blood-splattered creep house Halloween feel of the whole film worked. The homages were fun, but way too overdone. It's almost like the audience should have been expected to have seen the films in question before coming to see this one (which I kind of like. Today's audiences are not entirely educated in the ways of good 70s horror). Better acting from outsiders would have given the whole thing a better feel, but so it goes.
I wish we didn't have to wait so long to finally see this film. I guess it really was better left to an exclusively independent film company (Lion's Gate) than Universal (which, incidently, DID give us a teaser trailer a few years back that I distincly recall seeing in a theatre). I hope the uncut DVD version will explain more, because the R-rated version really did leave a lot of questions to be answered.....
First we have the whole Captiain Spaulding freskshow clown horror-ride/gas station/chicken place. Okay, it's interesting to see - very neon and odd. What relevance does it have to the story? Not much other than its inclusion of the "Dr. Satan" myth. When four strangers (definitely old enough to know better - we're talking late 20s early 30s here) show up and become interested in the Dr. Satan legend, Spaulding warns them not go near the tree where Satan was supposedly hanged, but of course they go in search of it anyway (and we never do see the tree, except in a dream). We are never told how Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig of Spider Baby fame) or his henchman, Emanual Ravelli (Irwin Keyes) relates to the family the friends are about to meet
They pick up a beatiful stranger (a living dead girl you might say?) and agree to take her home. The girl's brother shoots out their tire and they're forced to stay the night with the odd family (very Texas Chainsaw meets Hills Have Eyes with a dash of Last House and TCM 2, even a little RHPS thrown in). We have Otis B. Driftwood (Bill Mosely of TCM 2 - ChopTop), who is best described as Chop Top + Leatherface times Riff Raff. Then there's Baby (Sheri Moon - the real life Ms. Zombie) who's kind of a cross between Tiffany (Bride of Chucky), Betty Boop and a snakecharmer (also one of those annoying baby dolls with the laugh that makes you want to drop kick it). Mother Firefly (Karen Black in all her lazy-eyed glory) is just plain odd. She's a whore, definitely, but also cares about her kids and has an odd greenish-gray glow to her...?
"Grampa" (Dennis Fimple) is a useless character who basically epitomizes the horny, perverted old man. He does nothing interesting and has no real role. Rufus (Robert Mukes) is the hulking older brother. He's basically and a handyman, but doesn't do much for the story either. Tiny (Matther McGrory) is kind of a Leatherface-type character (in the "feel bad for me because I'm confused and defored" sense, not the "I'm going to chop the crap out of you" way). He was burned in a fire and horribly disfigured. He doesn't do much except offer some comic relief.
It's awfully convenient the strangers show up on Halloween eve - the next nite, of course, being THE night (there's a title homage to John Carpenter's Halloween at this point "October 31" merges into "Halloween"). Anyway, this is when we're supposedly exposed to Dr. Satan, who is really nothing more than an overblown version of Bane from Batman and Robin (sad, very, very sad), who is supposedly still alive and living in an underground chamber lined with corpses in the middle of a field which doubles as a cemetery. How Dr. Satan ties into the Firefly family, we're never told.
The ending is probably disappointing to a lot of mainstream audiences who don't get Rob Zombie's way of thinking (he's rooting FOR the bad guys here). However, when I saw it, there was a round of applause from the audience (probably because the majority of them never saw Children of the Corn). I guess the applause was deserved, because this was definitely Zombie at his peak, but I just feel the entire story needed some work. There's a robbery scene at the beginning of the film inside Spaulding's place that doesn't tie into anything (and has some of the worst acting to ever disgrace celluloid). There is also another story going on with the father of one of the missing girls and two policemen investingating what happens (the policeman are a nod to Last House).
This story leads to an almost never-ending scene where the audience is just cheering, "freakin' do it already!!!"
Overall, the chintzy glow-in the dark, blood-splattered creep house Halloween feel of the whole film worked. The homages were fun, but way too overdone. It's almost like the audience should have been expected to have seen the films in question before coming to see this one (which I kind of like. Today's audiences are not entirely educated in the ways of good 70s horror). Better acting from outsiders would have given the whole thing a better feel, but so it goes.
I wish we didn't have to wait so long to finally see this film. I guess it really was better left to an exclusively independent film company (Lion's Gate) than Universal (which, incidently, DID give us a teaser trailer a few years back that I distincly recall seeing in a theatre). I hope the uncut DVD version will explain more, because the R-rated version really did leave a lot of questions to be answered.....
Willard
(2003)
Bad, Bad, Bad - Did I mention THIS IS BAD!!!
19 March 2003
I've read through the comments already posted, and I must say there's a TON of incorrect information relayed. First of all: Willard is a REMAKE of the 1971 cult classic (titled WILLARD). The ORIGINAL film was based on a novel titled Ratman's Notebooks. This film is a remake of the original film, but has nothing to do with the book. This remake also adds an element from the ORIGINAL FILM'S SEQUEL, BEN. Ben was about a boy with heart problems befriending the surviving lead rat from from the original (there were two, Socrates and Ben, Socrates was killed by Willard's boss). The boy writes a song to Ben entitled "Ben's Song," which is later reprised at the end credis of the movie as sung by Michael Jackson (not the Jackson 5, and Michael Jackson did NOT write the song - the lyrics were written by a man named Don Black and the msuci was by Walter Scharf). For some odd reason, the writer of the remake decided to add Ben's Song into the film (the original version) when a cat is being ripped apart by the rats. The song is then reprised at the end of the film, except with Crispin Glover singing it (?). The original Willard was a about an slighly introverted man who doesn't have many friends other than those of his mother whom he takes care of. His mother is ill, but doesn't look like death herself (the actress is Elsa Lanchaster, and she does a great job). In the remake, Willard now lives in a somewhat gothic mansion with his mother who looks like a corpse and Willard himself looks like hell. He's made to be shaky, easily walked on and just a wimp in general. He could easily pass as a Goth club kid with the right clothes. This is just the first in series of dissapointments throughout this horrible film calling itself a "remake." The acting is utterly terrible. Unlike Bruce Davison, Crispin Glover turns in an amateurish, squeeky performance. He's shaking the whole time and is totally unconvincing. The guy playing the boss is NOTHING compared to Ernest Borgnine's original mean-spirited portrayal of Mr. Al Martin. The rats themselves are way too CGI to be taken seriously. Okay, there were a few real ones: Socrates and Ben. Ben was turned into a huge dog-like creature (the original was a normal sized rat) with a sadistic mind of its own. They really made Ben a monster, and Socrates all cute and lovable (because he's white and the rest are gray). It's sickening. The whole thing is made to be very dark and stylized, which is no surprise because that's how all movies are nowadays anyway. It's sad that this even got made. It's a poor excuse for a film, and if anything I hope it will generate a renewed interest in the original and perhaps its sequel. I give this movie 2 out of 10 stars. It IS to be missed - skip it and see the original if you have any taste at all
Willard
(2003)
Please post my response
19 March 2003
This is for the people at IMDB: Can you please post my original response
to this movie. It did not show up and I can't understand why. I didn't
use profanity, just stated my opinion (i.e. - this is a bad movie and
the original was good). If you can, please post my original response.
Thank you..........
to this movie. It did not show up and I can't understand why. I didn't
use profanity, just stated my opinion (i.e. - this is a bad movie and
the original was good). If you can, please post my original response.
Thank you..........
Willard
(1971)
See this -NOT the remake!!
12 March 2003
Having seen the remake at a pre-screening, just let me say: the original is the best! The remake seriously sucks. It doesn't have any of the depth of character the original has. However, don't be expecting a remake of Ben - after that ending, there's no possibility. Seek out the original Willard and you shall be rewarded!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My Big Fat Greek Life
(2003)
Big Fat belongs on the Big Screen
24 February 2003
Okay, the show isn't horrible, but it's nothing compared to the movie.
First off, changing the names of the main characters was a big mistake. Secondly, the characters themselves just aren't the same. The dad, Costa, is too animated and lively and takes things way too personally. Aunt Voula isn't as serious (which is what made her funny in the first place), plus her hair's different. The actress who played Nikki in the film has plumped up a big (nothing wrong with that necessarily), but he character isn't as snide and is now too peppy. Nick, the brother, is WAY too watchful of his sister. And then there's the husband (originally "Ian") Thomas, who just is nothing compared to the character in the movie. The sets were bad also: the parents' house looked funky and the outside didn't have any statues or anything. The restaurant was passable, I guess, but it didn't have the white and blue tiles. The apartment the couple lives in is ratty (something neither one would have put up with in the movie). I'm wondering what he house they move into will look like. The flashback sequences weren't even remotely as authentic or funny as the ones in the movie. The whole thing just seemed too dumbed down for TV. It should have been a lot funnier. We'll see how long this lasts, but for now I'd rather just watch my DVD.
First off, changing the names of the main characters was a big mistake. Secondly, the characters themselves just aren't the same. The dad, Costa, is too animated and lively and takes things way too personally. Aunt Voula isn't as serious (which is what made her funny in the first place), plus her hair's different. The actress who played Nikki in the film has plumped up a big (nothing wrong with that necessarily), but he character isn't as snide and is now too peppy. Nick, the brother, is WAY too watchful of his sister. And then there's the husband (originally "Ian") Thomas, who just is nothing compared to the character in the movie. The sets were bad also: the parents' house looked funky and the outside didn't have any statues or anything. The restaurant was passable, I guess, but it didn't have the white and blue tiles. The apartment the couple lives in is ratty (something neither one would have put up with in the movie). I'm wondering what he house they move into will look like. The flashback sequences weren't even remotely as authentic or funny as the ones in the movie. The whole thing just seemed too dumbed down for TV. It should have been a lot funnier. We'll see how long this lasts, but for now I'd rather just watch my DVD.
Tell Your Friends