Mr_Frost Reviews

Sucker Punch (2011)

Avoid this movie unless you're a fan of vapid, empty "entertainment"!

[4/10 · 21 July 2011]

Just finished watching "Sucker Punch" after the FOURTH time attempting to finish it! :-\

Aside from being one THE most atrociously, horrendously god-awful messes of a piece-of-poop movie I've ever seen (and trust me, I've seen a LOT of stinkers through the years!)the MAIN thing I could think during the ENTIRE movie was that the main girl character ("Baby Doll") NEEDED to be lobotomized AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE! Why? To PROTECT ALL OF US from her OBVIOUSLY homicidal, paranoid, self-destructive, utterly VIOLENT, and obviously PSYCHOTICALLY DELUSIONAL mind and behavior! :-\ (This judgment was verified as being correct at the end of the movie when Dr. Gorski actually told us what "Baby Doll" had actually done/accomplished in the real world!)

The other thought I CONTINUOUSLY kept having (which is why I had to keep turning it off and coming back to it another day …FOUR TIMES…) was "What the HELL does ANY of this have to do with being in a mental institution????!". I understand that the filmmaker wanted to show that "Baby Doll" had built these alternate universes/realities to wall away the horrendous abuse that she had suffered at the hands of her father, but this movie would have INCREDIBLY GREATLY benefited from showing us some ACTUAL scenes from our objective reality from time to time (her sitting in a cell, going through therapy, ANYTHING)! But we didn't get any of that… All we DID receive was CGI. o.0 All this accomplished was to serve to highlight her INCREDIBLE insanity and TOTALLY disconnect me, as a viewer, from the tissue-paper-thin plot and characterizations!

This movie marks one of THE first times I have EVER found myself ACTIVELY rooting AGAINST the main protagonist! I THINK that the filmmakers WANTED us to (or at least hoped we would) sympathize with or, at minimum, empathize with the main character, but not only was she totally psychotic & delusional, what little of her character that WAS actually shared with us wasn't even particularly Likable! :( Similarly her comrades weren't the most likable characters EITHER!

From the time the previews began airing on TV, I SO wanted to see this movie! And, to be honest, (contrary to how I may sound in this review) I REALLY WANTED to like this movie! However, at the end of the day, I simply could not. I'm not even entirely sure which demographic this movie might even begin to appeal to! (shrug) MAYBE to males who like T&A and lots of action… But, I mean, come on, you can get that in your typical action movie and still get a plot and likable (at least bearable) characters in the process!

Wilhelm Reich in Hell (2005 Video)

A good theatrical production, with some flaws...

[6/10 · 24 September 2007]

First of all, let me be the first to applaud these very brave people for having the courage to PERFORM this VERY CONTROVERSIAL production! Bravo! More people should do what you folks have so bravely done here!

That said, I would like to address the actual production...

Michelle Ingkavet was very good as the Marquis De Sade... I would say it's a little unusual that the director chose to have a female play this role, but it did not truly detract from the character. I just wish her nose would stop changing colors. (smile)

Bridget Brno as Marilyn Monroe was EXCELLENT. Of all the talent in this show, she was the shining star. Her "testimony" while on the stand was extremely well done, and actually made me feel that she believed in what she was saying.

Nathaniel Justiniano as the Ringmaster was also very good. His costuming and makeup were the best in the production. (Aside from Marilyn Monroe's -- I mean this from the clown-makeup sense.) Nathaniel was convincing and just maliciously evil-seeming enough to pull off this role with the proper sense of sardonic humor.

Larry Coven was very good as Cally Eichmann, but he could have poured on the "Slim Pickens" characterization a bit more, or perhaps dipped into the overflowing fount of Southern Baptist Minster some more...

Neil Donahue as Prince Peter Ouspensky was a wise choice on the part of the Director. Here was one of the only slightly older actors in the entire production, and he brought a sense of authenticity to his words and conveyed emotions that some of the younger peoples' renditions lacked. His "testimony" was suitably chilling, as was the intention.

Brad Henson as Masoch was rather over-the-top, but of course this is an over-the-top character… I would say, all in all, he was adequate for the role and up to the task.

The casting of Ray Paolantonio as Dr. Wilhelm Reich is where the production faltered… Much, MUCH too young for the role, he was overly manic and his voice was shrill to the point where you began to dislike the character he was portraying instead of sympathizing as the author, Robert Anton Wilson, had intended. One must think that had they cast a more experienced and significantly older actor in this role, it would have given the overall production a much higher sense of quality and would have brought a ring of truth and authenticity to this role that it lacked.

The other, more peripheral, characters all were adequate in their roles, with no one pulling any special focus away from the main actors…

The set, however, was awful, truly. (cringes) I really hate to say that, but it's true. Much, much more effort and care SHOULD have gone into this set. Having read the original text that these actors were performing, I know that this set could EASILY have been very Kafkaesque or Surreal (especially considering that the overall tone of the play is dealing with and taking place in the Bardos from the Tibetan Book of the Dead). The lighting was adequate inasmuch as it could be given the overall confines and, apparently, EXTREMELY limited space of this poorly-conceived and executed set design.

The music was simply too loud. All too often it COMPLETELY drowned out the actors' lines. (sighs & shrugs) Much greater care should have been taken to make sure there was an adequate balance between ambient sound and music. (One must wonder if the production and cast wouldn't have greatly benefited from individual radio microphones.) The orchestrations and arrangements conducted by Kristen Toedtman were actually very well conceived, just entirely TOO LOUD. (smile)

The Camera work was truly, truly awful also. (shrug) Again, I say sorry, but there were times where I almost felt dizzy because the cameramen couldn't decide who they wanted to have on camera at any given time. There should have been FAR greater cohesion and FAR GREATER PLANNING in this department. Again, having read the play myself, I know that there was probably a LOT of action we simply did not get to see (but was probably happening on-stage, just off-camera, unfortunately) that would have benefited from more long-shots.

Having read the source material by Robert Anton Wilson (may he rest in peace) many times over the years, I must wonder why the director chose to skew the text in favor of the modern "War on Terror" in the US, instead of having left it as it was. There were other things also missing from this production that I find mildly baffling, such as the atrocity picture of the soldier kneeling while another gets ready to blow his head off which is used as a counterpoint to the picture of garish nudity of Marilyn Monroe on the opposite side of the stage.

Criticisms aside: Everyone should see this. It is an important work by one of my favorite authors.

The first 20 minutes or so of this production are really very difficult to get through, but the show picks up definitively after that point, and becomes much easier to watch.

I would definitely, definitely recommend this production to anyone who is a fan of Robert Anton Wilson's writing, or of Dr. Wilhelm Reich's. Or to anyone who wants to understand "The Horror of the Situation" as these two men so very clearly did in their lifetimes

Kali Ma (2007)

Dark Humor at its best...

[10/10 · 19 August 2007]

You keep sitting there just WONDERING what this crazy, hysterical Hindu lady is gonna do...heh.

The thought LITERALLY running through your mind is, "Uh-oh! Crazy Hindu Lady! Look out!" through the whole short film. lol

The straight boy just keeps PUSHING her (literally and metaphorically) and she just keeps LOSING it and smacking the crud out of him! (laugh)

And he DESERVES IT!

You aren't sure if the little voice in your head chanting, "Yeah! Kill the animal!" is you or an echo of the Crazy Hindu Lady.... (smirk)

And then that wonderful moment where mom just settles down in the poolside lounger and simply closes her eyes... Will she let the straight boy, animal that he is, DROWN? Will she REALLY??? LOL

Wonderfully done, very superb short film. :)

The Innocents (1961)

An amazing movie profiling ambiguity at its finest... What was YOUR set of decisions?

[10/10 · 7 December 2006]

Apparently, in the novel by James, it is sincerely implied that the ghosts ARE real...

However, I'm going to HAVE to stand with the crew that believes that Miss Giddens was INSANE, TERRIBLY sexually repressed/oppressed (called "hysteria" at the time), and that one or possibly both children had been "abused" (in this case, I do mean it literally) by Quint and/or Ms. Jessel and/or watching an apparently abusive sexual relationship occurring to 2 adults that they thought of as parental figures (thus my usage of the word abuse, also)...

I believe that Miss Giddens was the only "possessed" (not literally) person here, however... I believe that these 2 children who have LOST their natural parents due to unknown means (never explained in the movie at least), are then further traumatized (possibly severely) by Quint and Jessel's relationship, and then are AGAIN traumatized by a woman they came to trust in the person of Miss Giddens.

One person insinuated that it was actually more likely that Quint had abused the boy and Miss Jessel had ALLOWED him to in order to shield Flora... (Something that was known to happen in that time frame where people didn't discuss sex whatsoever... I Have heard many a tale of a man abusing the HELL out of a little boy all so the mother could protect the daughter of the family... It sickens me, really...) Once both of these antagonists are dead, in the scheme of the story, Miles then begins to traumatize Flora by telling her what had transpired... It is also what gets him thrown out of school...having told the other kids at school either what happened TO him at the hands of Quint or that he witnessed (or was made to witness?) vicariously having seen the 2 abusive adults having violent sex...

I further believe that Miss Giddens projects her own sexual frustration/repression/etc onto the boy who (imo) has obviously been sexualized (re: the kiss he lays on her at bedtime) and then falls in love with him (rather, becomes obsessed with the idea of loving him by proxy in lieu of either the Uncle, who she is obviously interested in, or, more significantly, in the person of Quint... The ultimately lascivious and lewd, forbidden (especially at this point in history) kind of love...) and then arranges to be alone with the boy...

Theories abound as to HOW the boy dies at the end... (Much to my shock, horror, and tears...) Whether he was scared to death by an apparition of Quint... Whether he was traumatized and exhausted by Miss Giddens' unwarranted attack... Whether Miss Giddens HERSELF either directly or indirectly or accidentally kills him HERSELF... (In one movie adaptation she smothers him by accident in her eager attempt to comfort him... In another she accidentally snaps his neck in the same circumstance...) I believe that she indeed did push him to his limit... And that he died from heart failure brought on by stress, painful memories, and repeated psychological trauma... I also agree with some people who have said about this that it was typical of Victorian novels to have people just seemingly inexplicably just DIE for no apparent reason... "A broken heart", "Died from the shock..." and so on...

In my view, though, I think Miss Giddens drives a boy who is (for better or worse) sexually precocious into just, basically, self-destructing... Are children sexual? Yes, by definition and by nature... Any adult who says otherwise is living in Victorian times still, themselves...

Are sexually precocious children necessarily victims of past sexual abuse (directly, indirectly, or vicariously)? No... I don't think so...

Was Miles in "The Innocents" sexually precocious because of what happened to him? Yes & no. Yes if you believe my thoughts on that he at MINIMUM had witnessed full-on sexual intercourse between 2 adults, possibly on numerous occasions... (I do not believe the evidence exists to suggest, like many would claim, that he was sexually molested in any classical sense...) Did he attempt to project that on an apparently receptive adult, Miss Giddens? Yes... Of course.... It only follows, I think... I read in a psychological study once of "normal" childhood sexuality that "children try out their 'technique' on the adults in their lives as is only normal, logical and natural"...

Did Miss Giddens encourage this attempt by the boy? Well, she sure as hell didn't chastise him for it! And that kiss at the end of the movie when she has come to the horrifying realization that the boy is dead...one has to question just who, exactly, was that for the benefit? It could only be for her own gratification... When one discovers a child that is dead, one does not kiss them like a dead lover...

And I now understand why Kate Bush wrote the song "The Infant Kiss" after watching this movie... And what it MEANS in that context...

This movie was full of deliberate ambiguity... Derived from an ambiguous story by Henry James... Adapted for the screen by Truman Capote who is KNOWN for psycho-sexual thrillers... And you have the formula for this movie...

The photography was done by the same man who did the principle photography for Dune... So it stands to reason that the cinematography is stunning...

The movie opens on a black screen of a child sweetly singing (off-puttingly nonetheless) a song that gives rise to chills... And conjures strong images from the get-go of the movie... And ends on a black screen... Leaving you to wonder just what was real and what was not?

And what are the implications of that decision...?

Birth (2004)

Beautiful and Concise Examination of Life After Death and Reincarnation

[8/10 · 22 October 2005]

Once again, people and professional critics alike have WOEFULLY misunderstood this movie. Where people are saying "Art House & Croissants" or "Ambiguous", I say Clear Cut, Concise, Well-Presented, not overly belabored.

I see a WHOLE lot of understated subtlety at the end of this movie. (I think that really is the hallmark of the movie overall: understatement and HUGE subtlety) I think, in some ways, that the director was a little TOO subtle, to be honest, from having read the other users "reviews". TO ME, however, the ending was simply that, yes, in the end, Young Sean WAS, in fact, the deceased Adult Sean reincarnated.

I think that, yes, his memories of his widow, Anna, are brought to the fore once again by reading the unopened letters which Clara hides in the park. I agree with those who have said that his reaction to Clara in saying "Don't tell Anna" is the director's concession to the affair that the deceased Sean had carried on with her. However, there is quite a bit of double entendre in that scene. Clara's line, "See how dirty my hands are?" can both be taken to mean that she has dirt on them, literally, AND it can also mean that she is acknowledging that her "hands are dirty" because of the affair which she had with the deceased Sean (not to mention the fact that she was firmly resolved and completely prepared to utterly devastate and destroy Anna by giving her the letters as a "gift"). (An aside: It amuses me how many people have pointed out the relationship between Anna & Young Sean as being pedophilic, but no one has mentioned the SERIOUSLY creepy line that Clara says in re: to had Young Sean come to her first, "And that's something I would have explored...".)

Why, then, does Sean say that he is a liar when he is in Anna's tub once again at the end of the movie? I would say for number of reasons, actually. 1> He has realized that he was NOT a particularly nice guy in his former incarnation. 2> He possibly has come to realize and understand that there can BE no relationship between him and Anna. 3> He is, himself, terribly confused by this whole ordeal and the memories that it has brought about that "aren't his" (in this current lifetime). This is exemplified by his comment of how he knew where the Adult Sean had died, "Do you know what Deja Vu is?". Everyone has experienced it. It is an uncomfortable, at best, feeling...especially when it becomes a continual state. So, all in all, Young Sean has decided, for any number of reasons that it is in his best interest (for his own sanity, for his potential future...) to disassociate himself with his former incarnation's self.

Something that very few people have touched upon here is the fact that this so-called "New Husband", Joseph is really, truly a poor choice for a marriage partner. (He's a poor choice to be allowed to breathe my oxygen, but that's another story...) He flagrantly abuses a child (which everyone, including the people in the movie, tend to gloss over) and then sets himself up as some kind of pseudo-patriarchal, authoritative figure when Anna decides to attempt to return to him. I was reminded EXTREMELY strongly of how Catholics tend to approach high-ranking members of their Church -- down to Anna's kissing of his ring hand as is customary within the Catholic Hierarchy as a sign or token of respect. This man is unsympathetic to Anna's loss... He is macho and posturing and aggressive... "He kicked my chair!" He comes off sounding like a peevish, ill-mannered 2 year old. (Which, I think, was entirely the point... but it still troubles me that not even Anna said anything about his outright and totally unacceptable abusiveness toward Young Sean.)

So, then, why does Anna crumple during her wedding photography shoot? Why do we next see her standing in the waves on the seashore in her wilted and fouled and ruined wedding dress? The answer is quite simple: Anna saw that she had given up the true love in favor of the safe love. Additionally, which we come to understand from Young Sean's voice-over during this portion, she realizes (very extremely painfully) that Young Sean IS, in fact, the Older deceased Sean reincarnated, and that Young Sean will pay (dearly) for this fact (for remembering that past life and, more importantly, for acting on the residual feelings and associations) by being subjected to the "Experts" of the Mental Health Associations. Additionally, as others have pointed out, Anna realizes that she has not and CAN NOT let her deceased husband go -- now or, possibly, for quite some time to come. She has also finally allowed herself to REALIZE that she, quite painfully, once again, DOES NOT love Joseph, and that in this, at least, Young Sean was right: She should not marry him. All of this is quite adequately conveyed by Anna's reaction to Joseph's attempt to hug/comfort her: Her entire body stiffens, almost statuesque, and she attempts to pull away, only conceding when it becomes clear that he isn't going to go away.

I truly believe that this movie dealt with QUITE A FEW EXTREMELY hard, delicate, and vital situations with great aplomb, ultimate sympathy, and quiet understanding. Themes such as "What happens to us once we die?", or "What is acceptable love?", or grief and the realization that we never TRULY stop grieving for lost loved ones, are oftentimes dealt with, at best, extremely ham-handedly by directors. This movie, however, treated these very controversial subjects and taboos with the delicacy they deserved.

Crazy as Hell (2002)

I felt that I needed to comment on this film

[8/10 · 15 June 2005]

I felt that I needed to comment on this film for a couple of reasons. (smiles) Raysond mentioned "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Shock Corridor", and "Girl, Interrupted", but neglected to add in what, I feel, is a worthy addition to said list of movies that actually portray mental illness and the institutions to which we relegate the unfortunate souls who suffer from these illnesses of the mind. The movie I felt was left off that list was "Gothika", and I thought, often, of that particular film while watching this one...

What happens when the border between the Psychiatrist and the Patient is crossed, or breached, or, in the case of the movie from which I take my name, "Mister Frost", violated outright? Psychiatry and Psychology is the Religion for the "New Millennium". These Doctors with their PhD's are the new Priesthood. As was said several times in this movie (Crazy As Hell) and was mentioned in a couple of the other movies, these Doctors -- quite a lot of the time, I should think -- do not really view their patients as people. They are, at best, "cases" to be solved. Or, at worst, as the Psychiatrist in this movie was accused of, "...another notch in the win column": Another successful wager won…

In the movie "Mister Frost", the Devil (Portrayed Amazingly well by Jeff Goldblum) says, "Because I'm chaos, it is my destiny to destroy." At the end of the day that is what this movie (as well as "Gothika") is truly about: Our fear of the destruction of our sanity by chaos. We all know that we walk a truly fine line between the sane and the insane, one that is made all the more precarious by the ever-changing opinions of society and the medical profession as to what constitutes "sanity". How many of us have feared that we might wind up locked away in one of these wards, against our wills and without recourse? Trapped there among the terribly wrong and delusional inmates, who would believe that we were sane? And, of course, this begs the question, "Are any of us TRULY sane?" As one character in "Gothika" points out, "You can't trust someone who thinks you're crazy."

"Crazy As Hell" I would rank right up there with the best, easily, of the purely psychological thrillers. It portrays its contrasts using tricks of light and shadow…a blurring of what is real and what is not…from sharp focus to a soft blur… Director Eriq La Salle has us hook, line and sinker from start to finish… It was very refreshing to see an ending on a movie FOR ONCE that I just hadn't seen coming whatsoever. I didn't even pick up on the Hades/Sedah connection until after the movie was over.

I felt that the way the production designer MUST have worked with the set designers and property masters was particularly effective. As the main character's world slowly crumbles over the course of the movie his environment and the objects contained in it begin to reflect this slow shifting of sanity into insanity. For example, the pictures and certificates on the walls of his office become progressively askew as the movie progresses, as do the Rorschach Ink Blots on the walls in the corridor leading to the ward the main character is put in charge of for the purposes of the documentary which is being filmed.

This movie does have some shortcomings, as do all movies, but they are easily glossed over and are not severe enough to mention. Nor will these minor shortcomings (mostly in the realm of technical issues) detract from the basic enjoyment of what is a very enjoyable movie.

Psychosis is an all-pervading mental disorder. Those who suffer from it DO NOT understand the distinction between "consensual reality" and their own particular version. How can any of us truly ever know if we are sitting here, right now, or if we are locked away, forgotten, in a mental ward somewhere hopelessly banging our heads against the wall…?

As Jeff Goldblum's character in "Mister Frost" says, "I'm the Ga Ga Man! Boo!"

Crossworlds (1996)

A good B-Grade SciFi/Action Flick

[7/10 · 11 February 2005]

You know, I've never written one of these before, but I felt compelled to do so. I read the plethora of comments by other reviewers saying how confusing the plot was and whatnot -- one even went so far as to ask questions to which clear answers were provided in the film. I've come to the conclusion that this is endemic of the users who typically post reviews to these sorts of things. So, I'm going to include my review here, if for no other reason, so that the record, at least on this one film, can be set straight.

The plot is reasonably simple, however one felt that some compromising occurred on a corporate level within the writing staff/directorial staff of the movie. Someone started out with a really great idea which was subsequently "dumbed down" to make the movie less technical and more accessible to the average (perceived) viewer. In a nutshell, you have your prototypical/archetypal good vs evil construct. In this case it is multi-dimensional, though I must protest loudly over peoples' comparison with "The Matrix". This movie shares far more in common with "Time Bandits" and "Buckaroo Banzai" than it does with "The Matrix".

As one reviewer pointed out, conceptually it seemed as though this movie was intended as a pilot for a continuing television series. You have your Mentor role played admirably by Rutger Hauer (one of my favorite actors). You have your Hero and his potential love interest. You have the war of good vs evil waged across multiple dimensions. You have the Good Queen and the Evil King. Textbook examples of all the above. Where the plot seems to apparently confuse some people was with the rapid shifting between realities, and some minor inconsistencies in character portrayal and the aforementioned (my perception) compromises which were clearly made by the writing staff.

In the end, however, it's really very simple: You have a staff and a crystal. You put the two things together, and you have a key. You take the key and wack something real good with it and it opens a dimensional portal. You jump through the dimensional portal and voilà, new reality (or inter-reality travel, apparently). The reason Rutger Hauer's workshop wasn't there the first time the kid went back was because he hadn't passed behind the palm tree first -- that much, to me anyhow, was crystal clear. A good example of how this movie's mechanics are working would be to review the extensive gaming material (some available on the web) for a Pen & Paper RPG known as "Planescape". (Also a video game version was made called "Planescape: Torment".) A gateway can be anywhere, and the key can be nearly anything. Sometimes a door is really a door, and sometimes it's a wardrobe (thank you C.S. Lewis). Sometimes a key is the key, and sometimes it is hopping on one foot while holding a piece of rye grass between your teeth.

It would have been nice had this movie been actually developed into a series (or at least a miniseries) as it would have fleshed out a lot of what I feel was INTENDED but not carried through very well. As far as the movie goes, in and of itself, I would recommend it. It is a sweet little jaunt into fluffy science fiction starring the First Man of Scifi, Rutger Hauer. He, alone, makes the movie worthwhile in my opinion. Anyone who can sit through "Eating Pattern" (especially as I did the first time, not understanding the paradigm that is Lexx) would enjoy this as well.

Remember: Not all reviewers you might read on IMDb.com are anywhere near qualified to judge a movie, and I suspect quite a few are incapable of dressing themselves without assistance. :) I hope that anyone who takes the time to read my review will give the movie a chance. It's worth it.