Reviews written by registered user

4 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Not so much a movie as a prank, 10 December 2007

My son, who ought to know better, rented this from Netflix and convinced me to watch it with him. Now, I'm not going to complain about the bait-and-switch marketing (the chick on the box cover and on the DVD menu never appears on this disk), which other reviewers describe here, although it is true.

For anyone considering watching this, just remember that it isn't really a movie. It's a 75 minute prank pretending to be a bad, campy zombie movie.

The prank is that it pretends to be clever in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way, when it's actually moronic in a so-bad-it's-painful-to-sit-through kind of way that I believe violates the Geneva Conventions.

Chris Seaver strikes me as a kind of juvenile troll who thinks his low budget antics give homage to Ed Wood's ineptness, but I believe he's so bereft of talent yet has such a swollen ego that he can't distinguish the difference.

When the movie was over, it felt like Chris was having a laugh at my expense because he knows what it a piece of crap it is and he intentionally wasted my time, and it was damned hilarious to him. Good one, Chris. It's on the same level as giving someone a turd as a Christmas gift just to see the look on their face.

I've read the apologists for Chris Seaver and no one is going to convince me this is a good movie. Save your money, folks, and watch YouTube clips instead. You will see the same level of amateurishness, mugging for the camera, fanboy humor, ham-handed acting and directing, and no-budget production values, but YouTube is free.

If I could give this a negative score to counteract the improbable rating this movie has (currently at 3.2, but it should be zero), I would do so.

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
A Rube Goldberg invention on video, 28 July 2003

I've seen this amazing piece perhaps six or seven times in the course of showing it to others, and I'm always amazed every time I see it. It seems to be deceptively simple by the flawless execution of one kinetically or chemically motivated piece of junk affecting another piece of junk, but it happens only because of the hours and hours of thought and patient testing these two whimsical geniuses invested for exactly the effect they want.

It reminds me of the cartoons of Rube Goldberg, or the game of "Mousetrap", where turning a crank starts a series of cascading and improbable events which leads to catching the mouse. Rube Goldberg was well before my time, alas, but his whimsical spirit continues with wonderful works like this.

Porn 'n Chicken (2002) (TV)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Better than it sounds, 28 April 2003

I think this movie is misunderstood, both in its execution and its intent, and most viewers see it through a thick filter of their own biases. Personally, I wouldn't classify it as a comedy, although overall it's very funny. Because it's a Comedy Central production, the fact that it's made for TV tends to lower expectations, but even with that, it deserves to be evaluated on its own terms for what it is rather than what everyone thought it should be.

I found the movie quite by accident. I watch a lot of Comedy Central and turned it on 15 minutes after it started and got hooked by its unconventionality and lack of self-consciousness. Many of the particular criticisms people have pointed out are true, and its faults are numerous: it's somewhat formulaic, it strays greatly from its source, some of the characters are gratuitously two-dimensional. But there's some gold glittering in the pan. The dialog is clever and the acting is good. I'm not at all familiar with the cast, but the actors all look like they're having a good time. Even though the plot was driven to a `good students versus the evil dean' conclusion, that wasn't at all the point of the story.

I haven't been in college in blah-blah-blah years, and I wasn't part of the dorm scene when I was, but I damn sure wish I'd been a part of the P&C.

Final comment: They say in the movie, porn is fun, and fried chicken is great, so it's gotta be fantastic when you combine them. No argument from me, especially when a robust social-philosophical debate is put in the mix. That's a party for me: Porn, chicken, philosophy, and beer. Mmmm. Now that's good times.

The Ring (2002)
I must have missed something, 17 March 2003

What is it that I'm overlooking? Apparently a pretty significant number of people seem to think this is a very scary, shocking, well crafted movie and well worth one's time. Having viewed it recently on DVD, that certainly wasn't my experience. In fact, watching "The Ring" annoyed me so much that when my long-suffering family (who like the film) eagerly asked my opinion, I railed about it for a good 20 minutes.

I often give movies a few days to settle in my brain after I watch them -- sometimes I realize that the movie I initially thought was a horribly offensive waste of time was actually very well made. I'm open minded enough to allow for considerable revision in my opinion of film. Alas, that did not happen with "The Ring." I've reinforced my opinion that it was one of the stupidest waste of time movies I've seen in a long time.

This is not to say it doesn't have its merits. The cinematography and effects are excellent, the acting is decent, and the mood is creepy (although NOT scary). But the biggest problem I have with it is the moronic script.

Let me repeat that. Moronic. As in idiotic. You see, a good movie starts with a good script, and this wasn't one. Some movies with bad scripts can overcome this deadly flaw if the acting and direction are superb, but there was nothing that could overcome the stupidity embodied in the script. I agree with one poster who classified "The Ring" more of a mystery than a horror movie. Unfortunately, it failed badly regardless of its intentions.

I won't describe what I thought was insultingly stupid, including the ending. Quite a number of people have done that already, so I hope it suffices when I say there are too many unanswered questions, too many red herrings, irrelevancies, and pointless mood scenes. And worst of all, I didn't like any of the people very much, and couldn't care any less if they were going to die.

Now, before you disregard me as a know-nothing crank (a charge I won't refute), let me qualify my opinion by saying I've seen a lot of bizarre, seemingly pointless movies and video. I'm a big fan of the Kipper Kids (who appeared in "Mondo Beyondo"), and I enjoyed Tsukamoto's "Tetsuo", "Prospero's Books", "Beyond the Realm of the Senses", "Salo", "Eraserhead", and everything John Waters did before 1990, especially "Pink Flamingos", so I'm not a stranger to strangeness, surrealism, or bizarre imagery. I've seen a bloody LOT of movies, so I don't apologize for saying I thought "The Ring" was over-hyped crap.

As for the high rating on IMDb, it's pretty obvious Hollywood flacks have pumped up the rating, because it certainly doesn't reflect the actual sentiment of people who have seen the film.

Overall: 2 / 10