seandman Reviews

El hombre y el monstruo (1959)

Greatest use of a cat as a prop, EVER!

[9 March 2001]

A friend of mine found this DVD at a flea market, and thought the cover looked pretty cool. He popped it in while I was there, and we prepared for a gorefest. What we didn't prepare for was a 50's mexican horror about someone selling their soul. Not bad, actually, except the dubbing sounds silly sometimes, and the monster is more laughable than frightening.

However, this film gets props as having the funniest methods of having a cat jump out of a womens arms. Three times throughout the movie, a woman is holding a cat, and instead of just letting it down, the filmmakers decided to tie some fishing line to the thing, and yank it out of her arms. The funniest thing had to be the noises that came from the cat. That alone made this movie more than worth it. If you can ever find it cheap, it's worth a good laugh.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

An explanation for those who didn't get it

[17 February 2001]

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is based not only on Chinese Mythology, but of Zen as well. Zen is a philosophy that professes that in truth everything is substance, but substance is nothingness, therefore everything is nothingness, and nothingness is everything (This is EXTREMELY basic, but that's the main idea). As such, our goals in this life should be centering the spirit and discovering our nature within the universe. Once we have done this, thus are we enlightened, and we discover how everything before that moment was empty and nothing, and can now move on to purifying the spirit and working towards the next stage of enlightenment.

It's a deep and dense philosophy that takes many people a lifetime to understand and master, and I guarantee a bunch of people who read this will think it's stupid because they weren't raised to think beyond themselves. However, if you do understand it, go back to Crouching Tiger, and try watching it one more time. It might make more sense.

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000 Video)

If you watch Hellraiser movies purely for Pinhead, then you missed the point.

[16 January 2001]

One thing that really bugs the hell out of me is people believe Hellraiser is about the Cenobites(especially Pinhead). If you've ever seen the first two, you'd know it was really always about the people and the way the box affected them. The third and fourth were just made so we could see how cool it was that Pinhead could kill people. That's called making something good into something Hollywood, and it seemed to have killed the worth of the series as a thinking man's horror. Inferno brought it back to it's roots.

I have to say that the directing in this film is atrocious. I've seen Sheffer and Remar act before, but the director just didn't know how to guide them. Unfortunately, this drew away from the script. Several good lines just wound up bland because the cast wasn't told how to approach them properly.

Speaking of the script, I liked most of it, but the sex scene was gratuitous, and what was with the casino(Seriously, I'd like to know. if you understood why they used it specifically, email me)? Those were the only two scenes I really had problems with. The rest seemed to work well.

Those complaints aside, this is the second best of the sequels (without those problems, it would have been a dead tie with Hellbound).

By the way, did anybody ever realize that the cenobites were in the first Hellraiser film for a total of about 10 minutes? Just a thought.

Concept: 9/10 Directing: 1/10 Script: 7/10 Overall effort: 6.5/10 Overall outcome 7.5/10

So Weird (1999–2001)

I would have loved to hear the pitch for this thing.

[7 December 2000]

"Hey, lets make a show with a weak pop band that always discovers paranormal stuff."

"Yeah, that's a good idea, but it's a kid's show, so lets make sure the supernatural stuff isn't scary or realistic."

"And on a side note, we can't afford to lose a lot of money, so lets hire the cheapest writers we can find, and actors who'll work for peanuts."

"Won't that cut down on quality?"

"Well, yeah, but it'll be cheap."

"Brilliant!!!"

I absolutely despise this show. It tries to be X-files, but for kids(So they turn the detectives into this pop band). I've seen six or seven episodes, and I wouldn't let my childrens brains rot by watching this tripe. If they're in the age range this is trying to appeal to, show them Sesame Street. This show really is THAT bad.

Unbreakable (2000)

Isn't anyone patient anymore?

[26 November 2000]

This movie was really good. It moved slowly as to develop the characters, and the ending was out of nowhere. It was, however, a thinking mans surprise. Each actor understood where their character was going. Jackson was the man who was broken both in spirit and body. Willis was the character who's path had always been unclear to him; who's pain was always unnamed until Jackson showed him the way.

In ways, it felt like the first part of a larger story, and I've heard there are talks of sequels. If and when they do come out with those, I think this film will be reviewed much better in hindsight.

Overall, a 9 out of 10. I really liked it.

The Tom Green Show (1999– )

Tom Green is NOT Andy Kaufman

[9 November 2000]

The comment that has most irked me is how unique and ahead of his time Tom Green is. Tom Green does 3rd grader jokes. He annoys other people, and that's all.

Andy Kaufman was a genius because he didn't try to push peoples buttons, he just tried to be entertaining and nobody at the time got it. Watch a special on him, or read his bio. He did things that were incredibly sophisticated (i.e. the Mighty Mouse record on SNL, or the talk show where his desk was four feet higher than the guest). He didn't just run around screaming "Poopie!" and getting a cheap laugh, or cause some guy to go into a frenzy by walking up to him and kicking him.

Tom Green is an immature little punk who gets paid to annoy people. Don't fool yourselves into thinking him a social engineer to justify laughing at toilet humor. And for the love of Kaufman, please stop comparing them.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

Too many people missed the point.

[29 October 2000]

The first frame says it all. 'this is a dramatic re-enactment of actual events.' The whole point was it was supposed to have those Hollywood stereotypes. The plotline was a real mindbender, and it ends on kind of an esoteric note. Throughout, I continually had my perceptions twisted around.

As for those complaints about the witch moving outside of the woods, what in the first film said she wouldn't? As for striking every 60 years, who's to say she only strikes once?

Overall, a great ride. I recommend it, unless you don't have a mind or you do have ADD ( a friend of mine actually told me that nothing happens. I have no idea what she was watching, but it certainly wasn't this thing).

Alien 3 (1992)

Most suspenseful of the series.

[22 October 2000]

The first one was the horror flick. The second was the action flick. This one was the suspense/character piece flick. The fourth one was the Hollywood flick.

Honestly, I don't see what people miss in this one; maybe people just aren't patient anymore. This is closer to the first than the second, and almost as good, except that Alien was pure psychological horror, with startling moments and Alien 3 was pure suspense as you waited to see where the characters were going and how this crew of this isolated, miserable rock would be able to cope with this unstoppable creature. How people like the first and not the third, I'll never know. One receives praise while the other is knocked for the exact same reasons. For example: They were both slow-paced, they both had one alien, they both centered on the characters, rather than just setting up for the next action scene. I loved Aliens, but that's pretty what it was. What befuddles me even more is how many people claim the fourth one is better. I mean, an Alien film with sight gags? COME ON!! At least this had a serious note and competent writing.

Highlander: Endgame (2000)

Where did they dig up this editor?

[24 September 2000]

Granted, Working from an eight year old series, there are going to be some details that slip through the cracks, But couldn't they have at least tried?

A: Conner has appeared in the series(only 8 years old), but he's been gone for 10, apparently. B: In the series, Duncan never had or could be married. C: We never actually see Methos die(and he appears near the end of the movie)

My biggest complaint, however, was not the above-mentioned inconsistencies, but the editing. This film started out medium paced, then sped up, then slowed down, then sped up, then got faster, then slowed down, in the midst of which, it went through about 7 separate flashbacks(I'm not exaggerating here). I followed the series and movies(even the dreaded first sequel, The Quickening) and this confused me at points. Were these supposed to be the last immortals and the gathering, or was it just the end of Conner and this Kell guy? Why would none of the main characters ever of heard of this guy, or tried to stop him? There were just too many inconsistencies and loose ends. If they weren't going to wrap it up, they should of cut it out in the first place.

The Cell (2000)

Dialogue sacrificed for imagery.

[5 September 2000]

The first time I saw this film, I was absolutely blown away. The images is this thing are intense, and the closest I've ever seen to what a schizophrenic's demons are really like. Being a psychiatric student, I was sincerely impressed.

The second time I watched this, I actually paid attention to the dialogue, and I realized it was actually scripted very weakly. The gripping dialogue of Silence of the Lambs and Seven isn't really present. I also noticed that though the demons were painted very well, they weren't as powerful as the real demons encountered at that level of Schizophrenia(however, that would have definitely called for an NC-17).

The end result? A movie that makes an attempt at really trying to show schizophrenia, but forgetting that there really has to be dialogue for movies such as this to work well. The acting is good, as are the visuals, but the script leaves much to be desired. ***1/2 out of *****

Crash (1996)

Cronenberg's worst work to date

[24 July 2000]

<p>Okay, let me get this straight, David; You want to make a movie symbolic of the distance growing between people by showing how they have sex(but can't make love), after they crash cars? Yeah, right.

<p>I don't know how Cronenberg got the rights to make this piece of garbage, but it needs to be destroyed. Of course, all the pseudo-intellectuals will think it's a masterpiece, just like The Piano, and The Blue Lagoon. Why do people equate sexual freedom to idealism and individuality? He did an absolutely beautiful description of man turning to machine and growing more distant from each other in Videodrome, so I don't know why he felt it necessary to make it again, except pump more sex and less substance into it.

The thing that gets me most, though, is the plethora of actors that have proven in the past they're capable of good acting and getting roles in real movies. Maybe they liked Dave. Maybe they thought it'd be an interesting move for their careers. Maybe they should get new agents. 0 out of 10

The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle (2000)

Really surprised me.

[3 July 2000]

My father raised me watching reruns of the original, so I've been a big fan ever since I was a little kid. When I heard they were making it into a movie, I was really happy about it. But bad reviews came along, and I didn't hear anything from those I knew, so I started to get worried.

I honestly went into this expecting them to somehow screw it up, but I have to say, they did an excellent job for what they were doing. I knew that Alexander and Russo could do Borris and Natasha, but I was blown away by how well Deniro did Fearless Leader. And whoever did Bullwinkles voice really captured the spirit. I give this movie a 7.5, only for the fact that while capturing the spirit of the original, it did break into dramatic pauses that contrasted the complete idea of the original. Other than that, it was great.

The Omega Code (1999)

The single worst directed film I have ever seen

[1/10 · 29 November 1999]

It was once said that you could have the greatest script, the most prominent, talented cast in the world, & the highest production value in history for a movie, but if the director wasn't any good, the rest didn't matter. The director is the one who decides how the actors use their talent & what the producers have to work with. Nowhere has this been more true than in this movie.

I thought the ideas put forth were pretty good, and it really tried to make an effort to be philosophical, but it all got drowned in the direction of Robert Marcarelli. I have seen much better action films from around the same budget(El Mariachi for example). Even if the gore and sexual content got cut out, they would still be good because the directors knew what they were doing. Marcarelli never seemed to understand how people really look and act when they do stuff. The pauses were too long and when the people spoke, they sounded forced.

It was a step in the right direction for people who don't like a lot of blood or sex in their films, but not a very big one. If you want to see a good biblical film, watch Ben-Hur or The Ten Commandments, but skip this one.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

Excellent Movie in all respects

[9/10 · 17 November 1999]

Every few years, a movie comes along that really emotes and reflect the feelings of both the characters and the audience. This is one such film. Scorsese has always had the ability to make film an artform without becoming too pretentious. It felt at moments that if it hadn't been Scorsese behind the camera everything would have wound up cheasy and weak, but he just made it work. Nicholas Cage presents another powerful performance, as only Cage can. If this role wasn't written for him, I couldn't tell. I think the real winner among all of this was the script. Very few times have I ever seen a movie that included comedy, drama, and thriller aspects, and still wound up being as powerful as Bringing out the Dead. My vote for best film of the year.

House on Haunted Hill (1999)

Great movie, bad ending

[8 November 1999]

What is it with Hollywood nowadays? Can't they even come up with some sort of imaginative ending to a movie anymore? If you haven't seen it, do. Up until the end, it's one of the best horror flicks they've come out with in a while. If you have, then you get what I'm saying. Maybe Hollywood thinks everybody will assume it made sense because the rest of the movie was so complex and intense, but that's conjecture. The worst part about it is half the people that went will go again just to see if they get what happened.