doctorgonzo64 Reviews

Friday the 13th (2009)

Friday the 13th VS My Bloody Valentine

[7/10 · 14 February 2009]

I had just seen the My Bloody Valentine remake a week before I went to see Friday the 13th, and I think that it's good to compare the films, since they have so many obvious similarities. If you've seen, or are planning on seeing, both, then you may find this review helpful.

The Gore: when it comes to a successful slasher film, good gore is almost always a necessity. In MBV, the gore is almost laughable. Why use CGI blood? I have no f*cking idea. All the killings in MBV are loaded with CGI. When it comes to blood, it just looks too cartoony to take seriously. I was very surprised to see "real" fake blood in F13th. The gore in F13th is pretty damn good. It's realistic, scary, and brutally violent. MBV: 2 F13th: 9

The Nudity: another necessity to a good slasher film. Okay, not always--but in most cases, some skin in the mix can make quite a difference in a slasher movie. There's nudity in both films. In MBV, we have one scene of nudity--but it's almost ten solid minutes of full frontal female nudity. We also get a second of male rear nudity. This scene is the best in MBV. It's what the entire film could have been: over-the-top and in-your-face. Just like any good slasher film. In F13th, we have breast nudity from almost every woman in the cast. No male nudity that I recall. When it comes to nudity, F13th stays true to its roots, and MBV goes all out. At least for ten minutes. MBV: 7 F13th: 7

The Style: for slashers, gore and skin are usually important. There have been a few exceptions. Sleepaway Camp (which I think is the greatest slasher film of all time) has a pretty general lack of both. So we can lump the rest of the qualities of these two films (which aren't generally outstanding slashers) under Style. The acting in MBV is another laughably bad trait of the film. I don't think the main character is as tough as the director would have us believe. In fact, if it wasn't for his frat-boy-on-horse-steroids voice, there wouldn't be one person in the audience who wouldn't believe that every other dude in this movie could pop that pussy's head off like a grape. MBV takes place in an alternate universe where miners and police officers live in $500,000 homes and everyone looks like underwear models. The story in MBV is pretty terrible too. MBV is pretty much a soap opera with blood and tits. The film is as slick as anything else coming out of Hollywood nowadays, but the 3D technology here was actually a little disappointing. This is the worst RealD film I've seen, technology-wise. Journey to the Center of the Earth was, of course, worse on every other level. F13th is also slick. It's actually slicker. This is as expensive and heavily produced a slasher film as possible. But the Hollywood approach still works in F13th. The film is pretty dark, visually, which is also true to its roots. The acting is a little sub-par, and the cast is made up of Beautiful People. The cinematography in both films is pretty straightforward, though in F13th the lighting and occasional filtering does much to add to the atmosphere. MBV: 1 F13th: 7

Friday the 13th is the best slasher film you are going to see come out of this generation. A classic it is not. My Bloody Valentine is boring, ugly, and annoying. It is an insult to the original film, which was original in more than one sense of the word.

Finally: My Bloody Valentine: 3.5 Friday the 13th: 7.5

Blood Diner (1987)

The Problem of Horror-Comedy

[5/10 · 26 January 2009]

Horror-comedy is something very difficult to do. So many films tried this blend of genres in the 1980s and failed miserably: Ghoulies 3, TerrorVision, pretty much anything Troma ever did. And only a few truly brilliant filmmakers were able to really succeed at this: Frank Henenlotter, Peter Jackson, Dan O'Bannon. This film is rare in that it falls generally between these two extremes. It's often very funny, and occasionally creative, but its obvious self-awareness can sometimes be trying.

Two brothers operate a vegetarian restaurant and secretly serve human flesh to their customers. They have an uncle (or what remains of him) who helps them to prepare for the feast of Sheetar by compiling a perfect woman out of assorted body parts. The bones of the plot are borrowed lovingly from H.G. Lewis's Blood Feast, but the majority of the film is pretty unique.

Unfortunately, because of their similarities, Blood Diner will always be compared to Blood Feast, and Blood Diner is just not that caliber of a film. Blood Feast brought on the sickening and sometimes too-real gore; Blood Diner's gore is cartoonish and cheap-looking. Blood Feast was technically flawed, but had enthusiastic performances and unmindfully creative camera work; Blood Diner is slick (as far as 80s horror-comedies go) and very self-conscious, but ultimately soulless in its execution.

The real key to a successful horror-comedy is that little dash of sincerity. You can have your jokes and fun, but a little sincere strangeness (or just plain scares) makes the film all the more real. If you like horror-comedy, and you've already seen Basket Case, Frankenhooker, Return of the Living Dead, Dead Alive, Re-Animator, and Brain Damage, you may want to give this a shot. It's sure as hell better than Troll 2.

The Unborn (2009)

decent teenage horror

[4/10 · 14 January 2009]

This is your average PG-13 horror film aimed at a teenage audience. Nothing more, nor less. If you're into that sort of thing, check this movie out.

The scares here aren't bad--there's a couple scenes with a dog that are arguably pretty creepy. There's no gore. There's even an almost total lack of blood. The closest you'll get to nudity is Odette Yustman in her underwear, and that's been plastered on every poster and shown in every trailer for this movie. That chick needs to gain a few pounds.

I kept thinking, "Damn, is that Gary Oldman?" Turns out it was. He's the only actor here with any talent, and he's still pretty bad. But most horror movies have bad acting, right? David S. Goyer isn't Robert Altman, and he's not trying to be. This was made to make a few bucks and scare some kids, and there's nothing wrong with that--horror filmmakers have been doing it for years.

Like I said: basic PG-13 teenager horror film. And a decent one at that. But if you like your horror with some gore, or nudity, or even some naughty language, you should stay away from this one.

Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II (1987)

late 80s horror gold

[8/10 · 13 January 2009]

While the original Prom Night was a straight slasher film, this time we get a possession/supernatural story. It has little in common with the original film other than the teens and prom thing. But this sequel is actually better than the original.

The first half of this movie, I thought I was going to be disappointed. Almost like a 2000s PG-13 horror film. The only thing saving it was Michael Ironside. But it's well worth the wait. The last 45 minutes of this film are pure 80s horror gold. Plenty of full frontal nudity, lots of blood and violence--even a blowjob. There's also a brilliantly creepy rocking-horse.

Films like this demonstrate that horror of the late 1980s could offer just as much as the films of the slasher generation. This film in particular shows the stylistic differences of the new generation when compared to the original Prom Night. I think the teen horror subgenre in particular found its best expression in the late 80s with films like this and Nightmare on Elm Street 3, which were both released in 1987. And both films are very representative of their time.

If you like late 80s/early 90s teen horror that offers plenty of gore and nudity then you're gonna love this.

Shakes the Clown (1991)

Sincere, dark, and hilarious

[8/10 · 2 January 2009]

Shakes the Clown, Bobcat Goldthwait's masterpiece, is about an alcoholic clown framed for murder by his coke-addicted nemesis. It's a dark comedy--and probably one of the best ever made.

The performances here are the best thing this movie's got going for it: Goldthwait is funny, incredibly sad, and at times brilliantly subtle. Shakes's battle with alcoholism is sometimes irreverently hilarious, but more often sincerely dark and depressing. The comedy here actually makes this movie all the more serious, because it reins in the sentimental and the shame-on-you finger-shaking most portrayals of alcoholism lean toward. Goldthwait's portrayal of an alcoholic clown may look and sound absurd because it is--and that makes it all the more amazing when you find yourself convinced that this person can, and probably does, exist.

Tom Kenny is actually the comedic heart of this movie, even though he plays a homicidal, coke-addicted maniac clown. His delivery is perfect, and later came to good use on Mr. Show. He's constantly on fire here, and brings more laughs than any other character.

There's a lot of strong comedic talent in this film: Goldthwait, Kenny, Robin Williams, Kathy Griffin, and a young Adam Sandler. Florence Henderson and Paul Dooley are also here, and even Sydney Lassick (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) turns in a great performance as an angry, foul-mouthed, recently-fired host of a children's television show. And Julie Brown is a good match as Shakes's fed-up, ditsy blond girlfriend.

Even though its subject matter is very dark, there a plenty of laughs too. There's a running joke about party clowns hating mimes, and even a funny and brutal fight scene. Shakes later has to go undercover at a mime school where Robin Williams plays his frighteningly intimidating instructor. The party clowns are in turn harassed by rodeo clowns, two of which deal cocaine to party clowns on the side. There's plenty of foul-mouthed cringe humor throughout the film.

Shakes the Clown will forever be Bobcat Goldthwait's greatest achievement. It's a shame he didn't direct another film for 15 years. This movie is dark, disturbing, and strange--but it is also very very funny. If you like dark comedy, cringe humor, or clowns, you should see this.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Brad Pitt ages backward

[3/10 · 27 December 2008]

I don't think you can write a spoiler for this movie, because the entire film can be encapsulated in four words: Brad Pitt ages backward.

Here's a list of things that made this movie so bad:

It was overly sentimental--which is to be expected, considering the screenwriter of Forrest Gump wrote this. You can also see his handiwork in the convenient road signs we have to make sure we all know what year it is. Oh, they're watching The Beatles on Ed Sullivan. See, this is the 60s.

The characters all have one trait--Brad Pitt ages backward. Other than that, he's pretty damn boring. Elizabeth likes to swim. Daisy likes ballet. Queeny is a no-nonsense black woman. In the real world, people like this have NEVER existed ANYWHERE.

This one's just a matter of taste--CGI SUCKS BALLS. Nobody thinks it looks real, okay? Just go back to putting cartoons in if you're too damn lazy to build something with your hands.

Overall, this movie was just very very boring. And it was almost three hours long. It said nothing, and the one slightly interesting thing about it was already exhausted in the trailer: Brad Pitt ages backward.

Howard the Duck (1986)

Believe in Unique Cinema

[10/10 · 21 November 2008]

I honestly think Ed Wood was a brilliant director. I value films with a unique vision of the world. I think Larry Cohen and Ken Russell are some of the greatest directors we've had. I think camp is a good element to any serious film, as David Lynch has later shown to be true. And I'm serious when I say that this is the greatest contribution George Lucas has ever made to celluloid. I've long thought Star Wars, even the original trilogy, to be extremely overrated. Those films aren't terrible, but everything Lucas has done since this film has been astronomically worse, and if you thought the new Indiana Jones movie or Episode I were pretty cool, don't watch this. You won't like it. You know why? Because you have bad taste.

This movie has taken so much abuse by so many critics. If you think a film is bad because Roger Ebert said so, don't watch this. With the critics partly to blame, this film failed and destroyed the careers of Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz. And if you think a movie that does bad at the box office is probably bad, don't watch this. You have bad taste.

Why is it okay for critics to praise William Castle and Russ Meyer now? Because they're dead. Those films are old, and it's now hip to think they're cool. In an ironic way, of course. In twenty years, this film will be seen just like those. But it's not cool to like this one just yet.

Howard the Duck is one of my favorite films. Its vision of the world is unique and sometimes frightening, Lea Thompson is gorgeous, Jeffrey Jones and Tim Robbins are great, and the special effects are so much better than anything made in Hollywood today. If you thought Cloverfield was cool, don't watch this. You have bad taste.

If you value originality, or just plain strangeness, you will like this film. This movie is unlike any other film EVER MADE. Can you say that about Star Wars? You couldn't even say that about Star Wars in 1977. This film is about the ruthlessness of men on Earth, and its message is that to find real meaning in life on Earth, you have to be true to yourself, even if you're a three-foot-tall duck from another planet. The new Indiana Jones film was about how cool that bad ass CGI looks. That's garbage, okay? That's bad cinema. If anything deserves an ironic appreciation, it's the latter day work of George Lucas. If you think Steven Spielberg is brilliant, if you liked Independence Day, or if you thought Spiderman was good, don't watch this. You have bad taste.

Castle Freak (1995 Video)

Not much to see here

[3/10 · 19 October 2008]

This movie was a disappointment. The story is essentially The Shining with a castle (or a very cheap set masquerading as a castle, to be specific) substituting as the hotel and a monster instead of the ghosts. The budget is the same you'd see from a Cinemax softcore porn, as is the photography, sets, lighting, and video it was shot on. The story is a failed attempt at sincerity: there's no easier way to make your audience feel sympathetic for your characters than to show them experiencing emotional trauma. And the trauma in this movie is pretty trite. Want an example? A blind girl listening to a language tape teaching the Italian words for colors begins to cry at what she will never see.

This movie had a few things going for it, however: the monster is actually pretty cool, pretty scary-looking. And there is a pretty decent amount of nudity from Raffaella Offidani, herself a star of Italian "erotic" films. The gore, however, leaves much to be desired, as does the acting, even from the experienced Jeffrey Combs.

Other than this I've only seen two other Stuart Gordon films: Re-Animator and From Beyond, both of which were outstanding. But I won't let this little footnote in his career keep me from watching many more of his movies.