Reviews written by registered user
|21 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is even more ridiculous than I expected from an Italian horror movie. The gore is somewhere between gut-wrenching and hilarious... and I get the message that Fulci hates eyeballs. The plot... it's a beauty. The movie simply cannot make sense and it's hard to even convince yourself it ever can, particularly once it switches from bad attempt at haunted demonic horror to bad zombie movie. You'll scratch your head at why the zombies from Hell die from bullets to the head... and where they go after being killed if Hell is open... and why the hero cannot figure out after several encounters that only head shots work. The ending is a true gem... You should only see it once, but see it.
This movie has everything a bad movie should have. Incoherent plot? Check. Ridiculous dialogue? Check. Funny special effects? Check. And it gets in some of the bonuses to go with a good bad movie also... It fits in a lot of pointless nudity, somehow making it integral to the plot... It's entertaining to watch more than once because the plot is so elusive and bizarre that you never quite get it. People who try to make stupid movies today lack what made this movie great. The movie isn't plot less... It's just the plot makes no sense and twists around whenever it starts to. And to state the plot in a single sentence, you'll sound like a lunatic talking about a dream. Contrary to popular belief the movie could survive without the nudity... which is another reason why it beats all modern day attempts to make stupid movies. Of course it's a good bonus to the movie... and there's more to it than that. The eyes of the actress playing "space vampire girl" are a bizarre mix of seductive and CRAZY... just as it should be (even if unintended).
I remember hearing a lot of praise about this movie. The video store
clerk acted as though it was one of the best movies ever made. It
wasn't. Not by a long shot. Now perhaps I would have liked it better if
I hadn't had expectations... I definitely would have had it not been
for the annoying quasi-folk music and retro-seventies fashion and all
the "art-film" pretense tossed in to every nook and cranny of the film.
Hell, if it was just a comedy rather than a bad attempt at an art film
it might have been much better... (the "it started with a chair" thing
was pure pretentious pointlessness).
That said, it was a good story. And some of the lines were funny (usually the stepmother's). Of course most of the lines and the dialogue tossed in to give us "feeling" were nothing new. It's standard "indy film" stuff.
Oh how I long for the days when people can make a decent comedy without getting all "artsy."
I want to like this movie more as it is connected to Bruce Dickinson.
I liked the concept and the basic story structure enough to make up for the massive flaws in this movie. I thought at times the movie was more gratuitous than it needed to be for no good reason... and I hate to say it, but the music was done poorly. That's not to say I don't like it, but that there were points in the movie where dialogue was impossible to understand because the music was louder. I also got confused at the end, but to be fair it's probably because the copy I watched was scratched during about three minutes- right at the climax of the movie.
I thought it was interesting though. The plot was well thought-out even if it was a bit scrunched. I liked all the references to occultism and quantum physics. If Bruce Dickinson writes another movie, I'll watch it... but I'll hope for better next time.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I didn't like the first one much. Why did I rent this? I hated this
movie and it, in fact, led me to question why I bother renting any of
these new b-movies (aside from the fact that the video store lacks the
old ones I haven't seen).
This movie epitomizes everything I hate or am just sick of about modern b-flicks: 1. self-consciously "satirical" (if you consider fart jokes to fit within the definition of satire) 2. pretentiously anti-cliché (to the point of being cliché... ie if you see a baby, it's dying) 3. nihilistic tone 4. no plot (why can't these modern b-movie makers figure out that no-plot is not the same as a nonsensical plot. Good b-movies have nonsensical plots that are convoluted or too weird to understand) 5. too much of that "hip" BS... like the stupid character descriptions in the first one (the dating-ad things in this one were even more annoying... they might as well add "House of the Dead" style video game scenes and Matrix fighting) 6. pointlessly disgusting (not like disturbing... instead it's the equivalent of toilet jokes... retarded. When did obscenity replace disturbance as the measure for vulgar imagery in horror?) 7. Anti-climatic non-ending (When did this become cool?)
And then there are the things I hate specifically about this movie, even compared to its predecessor: 1. the monsters are slower and we see too much of them (they look stupid really) 2. The "plot" (for lack of better term) moves slower and goes nowhere
I will learn from my mistake this time and not watch 3.
No matter how many times you watch it, it won't make sense. My guess is
that, like Phantasm and other bizarre films from the
seventies/eighties, it was intended to play like a nightmare (or a
series of nightmares). The gore is cheap special effects. The nudity is
pointless. But the best part of all for me (aside from the crazy plots)
is the stop-motion claymation monster and gore effects. And not since
"The Dungeonmaster" have we seen Bull from Night Court try so hard to
be evil. Always a treat.
And for the record, I side with Satan on the fate of that wretched band.
I haven't seen any other Lovecraft adaptation that stayed true and was
done well. Reanimator was a good b-flick... but not really all that
Now one thing aside... This reminds me more of "Shadows Over Innsmouth" than "Dagon." And Dagon was a fish-thing, not a squid (that was Cthulhu)... But these are petty concerns.
The movie builds on the same kind of Gothic horror and anomie that Lovecraft used to terrify people... without coming off in that desensitized nihilistic manner that most films using anomie to scare would. It crushes your soul with overwhelming force of powers beyond human comprehension... and you feel it. That's how Lovecraft should be done.
This is exactly what is missing in modern (particularly post-80s)horror
films. Take note, young Sam Raimi wannabes... Gore and pointless nudity
are not enough to make a true cult classic. This movie is a prime
example as it contains no real gore and only a little nudity- and it's
done for horror value more than cheap arousal.
This movie epitomizes the weird plotting and over-the-top social commentary of the old B-flicks. I still can't say I fully understand what exactly the metaphysical reality is that was being portrayed... but I do know what it was in rebellion against- and that's what counts. The weirdness of the plot will keep you hooked in, much in the way of a Lovecraft story (the kind of horror story that usually doesn't do well on film). And you'll be asking questions at the end.
This movie is just so weird... That's really the only way to describe
it. The brutal violence and disgusting corpse gore create a perfect
It amazes me just how brutal Argento's opening scenes are. Just like Susperia, it opens with a girl... the kind you'd just describe as "cute" not sexy. That just makes what happens to her all the more disturbing... the sheer overkill.
The story is absolutely ridiculous, and gets progressively more so... The psychic-bug thing is not the weirdest part of this movie.
And the film's score includes an Iron Maiden song.
It's kind of like someone saw Wishmaster and said "Gee... I'd like to
take a whack at that." I understand the movie was meant to be "funny"
but the humor was so low-brow and juvenile that it made most zombie
flicks seem like art films.
The twists on the wishes were not creative... the wishes themselves were worded in such a way that you can see what's coming. The drunk French cop schtick is annoying. And worst of all... the breaking into "episodes". What kind of youtube crap is that?
I kind of wish celluloid was still the medium so that amateurs like this could be priced out. Not every film student is a Sam Raimi... and some aren't should not be allowed near a camera.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |