Desslok Reviews

Jason X (2001)

Gloriously stupid and some dumb fun

[10/10 · 26 April 2002]

First, let us get this right out of the way. This is not King Lear. This is not Casablanca or Citizen Kane. There is no high drama or good acting expected in any Friday the 13th Movie. Anyone going in expecting anything in this list is going to be disappointed. Hard core.

What we do expect: fine young females showing some titties, having sex and drinking beer. We expect to see some hard core murder performed in unique and interesting ways. We want buckets of blood as Jason fulfills his roll as an unstoppable killing machine. Little details like plot and character development get in the way of what we paid our money to see: Death and lots of it.

Given that - how does Jason X stack up? It's an absolutely bad movie in just about every respect imaginable - and it's perfect.

It's got all kind of interesting death in it - the first one on the spaceship with the liquid nitrogen springs to mind. The problem is that it hits you with probably the best death right off the bat - so there is some pacing issues with the way the murders play out, but it's hardly something to get worked up over.

The movie has the highest body count of any previous Friday the 13th movie - at least 20, with the potential of several thousand if you count the space station that Jason blew up. Those looking for a visceral good time will have everything they want - in spades.

The writing is even clever at times. Case in point, the bait used to distract Jason while the heroes get away (to say more would give away far too much). Suffice it to say that this is a damn funny scene, probably the best moment in the movie. Me and my crew were on the floor laughing so hard I had trouble paying attention to the rest of the movie.

I was afraid that sly and pretentious films like Scream and Scary Movie had destroyed the horror genre forever with their "Nudge, nudge - look how clever WE are" approach to the old school 80's slasher flick. Fear not - this movie trumps those films live never before. I was worried that a series of movies that was over TWENTY years old - teenagers who saw these films on Showtime and HBO in the dark well after they were suppose to have gone to bed who now have teenagers of their own - had nowhere else to go, had no gas left in the franchise.

I couldn't have been more wrong.

In short, if you liked Friday the 13th 1-9, then part 10 will rock your world.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Too long and too over-rated!

[1/10 · 9 March 2002]

First - I've never read the books. I've not seen the animated versions. I'm just about as much as a newbie as you can get. So - how does it stack up?

The good: I was worried about Christopher Lee doing the more physical aspects of his roll in Star Wars. Seeing him swing that big stick of his around beating up Gandolf put my mind at ease. He is going to rock so hard in Attack of the Clones.

I did like the look of the universe. The strangely gothic look of the towers and so on - kudos to the set designer.

The bad: I hated some of the fight scenes - A great majority of them were far too close to the action, making it impossible to see what was going on. Give me a wide shot of the action and let the choreography speak for itself. Learn from the HK directors and don't try and punch up your fight with funky camera work.

Paper thin characters - Not a single one of the characters has any back story at all. There is zero insight to what makes these characters tick - well, aside from the "Ring is Bad!" motivation. Why are any of them on this dangerous quest? Why were those two food obsessed hobbits along? Same thing with Sallah - he really didn't do anything to further the plot. Or Frodo's eavesdropping friend - did he even have any lines in the movie? Or . . . . well, you get the idea. The only one who gets fleshed out was the human guy from the tavern - there's something about a deposed king mentioned, but it's never fully explored.

I'm given to understand that the books round out the characters a whole lot more. Pity none of this made it over to the screen. I wish they could have trimmed some of the encounters and fleshed these folks out (The whole bit with the lady in white who turned into a scary person for a second could have easily been dropped in favor of character development. It didn't seem to move the plot along, simply telling us information that we already knew. "Ring is bad - must destroy it, else evil wins.")

I need a scorecard to tell everything apart - This isn't so much a problem with the way the movie was constructed, but more of a problem I had keeping up. Letssee, with dozens of characters introduced at lightning speed, plus a whole travel-log of locations, I found myself lost at times. There was Arrow Guy, Sallah, the Food Obsessed Comic Relief (or the gay hobbit couple), the Guy from the Tavern, and the Guy That Went Nuts at the End. Oh - and Frodo and Gandolf. Towards the end, Guy That Went Nuts and Guy From The Tavern were hard to keep apart. When he was attacking Frodo, I keep wondering "ok, now which one was he again?"

Strange plot developments - So, you have the Scary Black Horsemen and their initial chase of the hobbits towards the start of the movie. The good guys leap onto a raft and push off from shore. Here they are - not more than eight feet away, and the rider doesn't get them. What - your horse is afraid of water? The guy is under orders to get that ring at all costs and is afraid of getting his shoes wet?

Or the sworn protectors of the MacGuffin and it's owner letting them wander off by themselves to infiltrate the Tower of Evil? Hello - they'll get about three miles before both of them are killed and the MacGuffin falls into the hands of the bad guys. You know - end of the world? Game over?

Leaving the decision to go over the mountains or through the Caves of Death(tm) to the most inexperienced person in the party? What the hell was Gandolf thinking?

If the ring makes everyone who wears it invisible, then why didn't Saron pull a disappearing act when he wore it?

What exactly does the ring do? If it falls into the bad guy's hands, he rules the land with a thousand years of darkness - that much I got. But what does it do? Does it channel the wrath of god allowing Saron to slay his enemies? Mind control? Is it plans to a Death Star?

Where did the Scary Black Horsemen go? The start out as an foe with no pity, no fear and no remorse that will not stop - ever - until the good guys are dead. Then they just kind of seem to fall of the map after the encounter in the ruins and that river. It's kind of like forgetting about Darth Vader half way through Star Wars.

The bottom line: I almost enjoyed myself, but it was definitely designed for fans of the book, not Joe Six-Pack. It was certainly no Lost in Space or Batman and Robin to be sure. But is it the best movie ever? Hardly - Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, and Star Wars still all trump the movie - but it was a adequate waste of three hours.

(But please, of please make the next one just a bit shorter. My ass was so sore after the massive marathon in the theater seat.)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Long and boring to the non-Tolken fan

[1/10 · 27 December 2001]

Very little character development at all - for ANY of the characters, aside from a brief mention of the deposed king (but even that isn't touched on). Illogical developments in plot and story run rampant though out - simple things like the horsemen that cant catch four midgets on foot. What did they give then a head start to keep things fair?

An even worse sin - no ending to the movie. Even the Empire Strikes Back and Back to the Future had self contained stories, despite ending on a cliffhanger. Here the movie just stops. Bang, full on dead stop. No resolution, no "to be continued", nothing.

And the movie was too damn long. Trim out the fat and give me a two hour version please.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Oh the humanity!

[10 June 2001]

First - I've been traumatized by every horror movie in the book. From Friday the 13th to Psycho, I've seen 'em all. That's why I was suckered into seeing this stinking pile of refuse laughingly called a movie. I was intrigued by the press the movie was getting, and it sounded like an interesting premise.

An hour and a half later, I was disgusted that I had paid 7 bucks for this train wreck. No - even worse, I had paid the highest price of them all: two hours of my life savagely ripped away from me that I will never get back.

Somewhere along the line, film goes have mistaken two hours of people on screen swearing at each other at the top of their lungs as character development, and running around in the woods non-stop as a plot. Half an hour of set up - and then an hour and a half of nothing - and then, the shock ending - where nothing happens. Have people's sensibilities been degraded by modern culture that they find this enjoyable?

No monster/witch at the end. No pay-off whatsoever, at all - zip, nada, zilch! Now, I by no means have to have a full blown million dollar CGI special effect to scare the ever-lovin crap out of me. In fact, less is more - the most scary movies I can think of are where they never show, they simply suggest. However, the viewer needs **SOMETHING** to hang their hats on - a fleeting shadow of a great white shark under the water, a dripping claw on the Nostromo, a long shot of a man in a black jumpsuit in Haddonfield - something. What does the Blair Witch do? Make scary noises in the woods at night. Ooooh - hold me! Oh - and don't forget about those scary sticks and piles of rocks? I find scarier things in my breakfast cereal.

Horror movies are frequently known for their plots - or lack of. Most of the time, this is true - a generic slasher flick often is a string of events loosely held together by a vague narrative. In the right mood, this can be even kind of fun, in a cheesy sort of way. However, the most cookie cutter Friday the 13th movie has more going for it in the coherent narrative department than this amateur attempt does. I was hoping for something more than "Kids go into the woods to make a movie, kids get lost, kids run around for several days, kids die." What the hell is that?!?

After seeing the film, the next day at work I was going off about it - and was instructed to go to blairwitch.com for the full back story. Surprise, surprise - guess what! There was indeed a full history on the legend, write ups on the characters, and more background information that I could hope for. If the creative (sic) team did all this work, then WHY THE HELL WAS NONE OF IT IN THE MOVIE?!?!? A viewer should not have to go do homework to get the complete story.

Illogical plot devices abound. They get lost in the wood because "I threw the f'ing map away, you stupid &!^@#^" - a plot crowbar if I've ever seen one. Or how about ignoring common sense - even I, a city boy to the core, would know that if you follow a river downstream, you will eventually wind up SOMEWHERE! Anywhere - a road, a farm, the freakin' ocean, for god sake! Yet this simple concept eludes the characters (and I use the term 'characters' very loosely.). Or - the best one yet: if I woke up in the middle of the night, with the forces of evil shaking my tent like Lucifer himself was outside, I sure as hell would **NOT** grab my camera and keep filming as I ran. I would haul ass as fast as my legs would go - buck naked if need be. Yet they have the presence of mind to keep the film rolling? And what about that survival book that the filmmakers take great pains to point out in the beginning of the movie - and yet never shows up again?

(Note to the creative (sic) team - next time, don't just make the movie up as you go. Take some time and formulate a dialogue and a story - maybe even write a script. I know it's a bold concept in this modern day and age, but your viewers will thank you for it.)

For those of you who seem to have forgotten what a *truly* frightening and/or movie is, let me bring you up to speed on required viewing: Exorcist (the creepiest movie ever), Jaws (a film that traumatizes an ENTIRE generation of people, keeping them off the beach for years, has something going for it), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shining, Halloween, Night of the Living Dead, Ring (a classic Japanese horror film proving that terror is not exclusive to North America), Alien, and of course the granddaddy of them all - Psycho. Of course, all the sad people who have bought into the hype of the movie will call me closed minded and an idiot for not falling to my knees and worshipping this movie. Fine - whatever. I'll just be over here watching

Bottom line - do not be suckered in by this movie. Go rent a good horror flick instead - you'll thank me for it.

Godzilla 2000 (1999)

Oh no! There goes Tokyo!

[3 January 2001]

I don't believe all these people and their bad reviews. For example - "The Godzilla should be reborn in more fresh and creative ideas. … 1. Volcano erupts or islands are blasted to show that the Godzilla backs once again. 2. Troops and weapons are just helpless. 3. Rampaging a city (most likely Tokyo). 4. People get panicky and look on the rampaging and fighting."

What the hell do you want from a Godzilla movie! That's like going to a Jackie Chan flick and expecting intelligent storytelling instead of a framework for the stunts. That's what you get here. The barest of plots, aliens with no back-story and motivation other than to show up and put the beatdown on G, and **BIG** **ASS** **FIGHT** **SCENES**. You want Shakespeare, go watch that Mel Gibson flick or something. Leave my Kaiju out of it!

"As for a alien creature from outer space? what the hell was the writer thinking??" - Duh, like Godzilla is normal.

"Any movie with a Troma stamp on it is great." - Troma used to produce good schlock, until they started making fun of themselves. 'look', they say - 'we're making <wink, wink> a Bad Movie. <nudge, nudge>. This movie is superior to the Troma studios because Toho takes the movie seriously. It may be camp, and everyone may KNOW that it's a big block of cheese, but that doesn't mean that they don't make a sincere effort. They do put their heart into it - and it shows. Surprise, the writer and director managed to treat G (and the audience) with respect, passion and of responsibility due the series. - far more than the 1998 over-hyped, overblown US version did. The US version is just a cheap action flick with, unable to stand out amongst the crowd of Hollywood schlock that the industry churns out every year.

Is it an example of good film-making? No - this is not the level of Casablanca or Citizen Kane. To expect otherwise is foolish. Is this a good G film? Hell yeah! Compared to the other G films in the series, this one is a clear winner!

The King of the Monsters is back, baby.

Giant Robo the Animation: The Day the Earth Stood Still (1992–1998)

Stunning, brilliant, jaw-dropping - wow.

[10/10 · 15 August 2000]

Witness now the dawning of our tomorrow. Shining brighter than the daybreak of light is the brilliance of the Shizuma Drive. Our only reliable future of energy, which includes dependability in every home and the Earth's only answer to the waste of atomic and oil energy.

But beware, for our shining future has also cast a dark shadow of revenge - BIG FIRE, an underworld organization, who's only goal is absolute world domination!

Do not panic, for we are protected by the international police organization formed by the Experts of Justice, keeping our world safe from the evils of Big Fire. Amongst their ranks is the bravery of one boy who commands the mightiest robot of all - a young boy called Daisaku Kusama. ..

The set up and intro may sound cheesy, but it's far from it. I am shocked - nay, stunned that it took me this long to get around to watching this series. Everyone should immediately drop whatever they are doing at this moment and watch Giant Robo. It's that cool.

The more observant of the crowd might notice that GR looks a LOT like a series called Johnny Socko and his Flying Robot. Or one might dismiss it out of hand as just another "Giant Mecha fighting" series. Giant Robo is neither. It is very loosely based on that Johhny Socko - but very, very loosely, and it is SO much more than just Big Robots beating the hell out of each other.

The plot revolves around the last sample of the prototype Shizuma drive, Big Fire's efforts to obtain the sample, and the Experts of Justice's attempts to keep it out of their hands. Along the way, villains turn out to be not quite what they appear to be, good guys die, the golden egg that is the Shizuma drive isnt quite the blessing that everyone expected - basically the plot undergoes so many twists and turns, that the view ends up is nowhere near where they started. It's like Babylon 5, but animated - and better.

The animation is a cool retro look, like the animated Batman series. The music is a grand symphonic score, worthy of John Williams, the story - I cant get enough of it. It's a bit confusing when characters get introduced in waves - you cant tell 'em apart sometimes without a score card. But stick it out - this series is WELL worth the trouble.

It's a nearly all ages film - no sex or nudity, plenty of violence - but it's all cartoon-ish, and way over the top (like a Jackie Chan movie). Some swearing, but not excessively so.