Hypnotica Reviews

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Great film, but not for the faint of heart

[10/10 · 4 January 2015]

Adapted from the book, this film is brilliantly executed, as are the sequels.

The story follows the stories of Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander as their lives become intertwined around the investigation of the murder of a 16 year old girl 40 years earlier.

The character of Lisbeth, a young goth-punk hacker, is a fascinating one. A tiny woman with a lot of attitude who is looked down upon by everyone and taken seriously by almost no one and certainly not cared about by many. She is, however, incredibly intelligent, full of fire and distrustful of everyone. With good reason.

The casting of Noomi Rapace is both brilliant and inspired. A rather small woman with a surprisingly strong presence and immense talent to play the shockingly resilient and strong-willed Salander.

The murder mystery being investigated is full of twists and has a shocking conclusion. It kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time.

However, this film is extremely graphic. There is a lot of nudity, violence and material that may make some viewers very uncomfortable. This includes a brutal rape scene. And a scene where the rapist is very fittingly punished by his victim. Sexual abuse in general plays a prominent theme throughout the story. It can be difficult to watch at times. I don't think I need to say that this is not a movie for kids to be watching.

As a whole, though, I would highly recommend this film. Preferably the extended edition. Now, it is in Swedish, so it is subtitled. There is a dubbed version available, but we all know that the lines tend to lose something in translation.

Sharktopus (2010 TV Movie)

One word describes this film; Oy

[30 September 2010]

Well, I knew it was going to be bad just because of the name. But I've been pleasantly surprised before and, as I've said in previous reviews, I also have a tendency to enjoy lame sci-fi/horror movies, so I gave it a shot. And boy do I wish I hadn't.

This film walks the very fine line between laughably bad and just plain bad. There were a couple of enjoyable moments. Not nearly enough to make up for the rest of the movie, unfortunately. I suppose it could be really fun if you watch it with a few friends, the sound muted, and make up your own dialog.

The writers clearly put some effort into it. Just... not enough. The dialog and characters weren't too bad. If only casting had chosen people who can actually act.

Clearly, the standards for acting have gone way down in recent years. Expecting Oscar-worthy performances on a straight to TV movie is unreasonable, but I do expect at least *some* talent. I don't think I heard one single convincing scream during the entire movie. There was a lot of physical acting (mostly running) required, so the screams should have been a breeze. Apparently not for this cast. I'm thinking the majority of them were chosen more on the basis of looking good in bathing suits than anything else. At least, the male lead was. Washboard abs aside, I wasn't the least bit impressed. The female lead was just as unconvincing.

While watching this, my mom made a comment about whether or not Eric Roberts uses his sister's name to get parts. I find that highly unlikely, particularly in this case. If he was, he'd certainly have used it to get a much better gig than this one. Maybe that's why he put forth so very little effort for the role. He does, however, pull off the required creepy, cold-hearted and extremely unlikeable aspects of the character. Sadly, his was the best performance.

The creature... Well, the name itself is a big enough warning. I am willing to overlook the fact that it's so unrealistic looking because of the obvious absurdity of combining a great white shark and an octopus into one animal and the clearly low budget. I suppose it could have looked cool if they'd had the money for better special effects. I'm also willing to overlook the fact that the tentacles look more like those of a squid than an octopus to me. (A very disturbing bit of proof that I need to lay off the nature documentaries, let me tell, ya'.) However, I do take some issue with the ends of the tentacles being sharp enough to pierce flesh like a spear. Seriously? The twenty-foot reach, suckers and enough strength to crush people into jelly wasn't enough? This little extra was probably put in just to add more blood and gore.

By the way, someone needs to sit the director down and explain to him that this is not a 3-d film and having fake blood splatter the camera lens is not cool. It doesn't make it look or feel more realistic and certainly does not add to the experience. It added to my eye-rolling, but that's about it. He also needs to tell his actors when they're doing a crap job. But he did get some really nice scenery and aerial shots in, so he didn't do a *completely* terrible job.

Basically, you may get a few laughs. That's about the only redeeming aspect of the movie. Everything else is just eye-candy and drivel. In my opinion, not even worth one watch. But I have seen a lot worse. If you want to watch it, have very low expectations and you won't be disappointed.

Tin Man (2007)

Could use some work, but overall quite interesting and entertaining

[7/10 · 5 December 2007]

WARNING: There is no "may" about this review containing spoilers.

It wasn't love of The Oz stories that led me to watch this, despite having watching the Judy Garland version Lord and Lady know how many times as a child. It was curiosity. I wanted to see just how different this would be from the story I knew.

The answer: Different enough to astound me.

The first section of this mini-series is riddled with references to the original story and the musical so many of us grew up with. I was expecting that. But imagine my surprise at the presence of machine guns and chain saws in Oz. Oh, excuse me, it is now called the Outer Zone, or the O.Z. Then, of course, there are hologram projectors, machines that can project what is in a person's mind, and cyborgs.

After the first section, it grows even farther from the old story. There are still references, of course, but it's definitely not what we knew anymore.

Our heroine, DG, was born in the O.Z., but sent away as a child for her own protection. Unlike her somewhat whiny predecessor, this woman has a bit of attitude and brains. And some serious guts, as she demonstrates when she tries to help a family being attacked by Longcoats, the Sorceress Azkadelia's henchmen, armed with only a branch.

I'm sorry to say, though, that Zooey Deschanel didn't do a very good job on this portrayal. I've seen her in other films and know that she can act, so I'm not entirely sure what she was doing here. Half of it was fine, but the rest was just beneath her abilities. (Personally, I blame the director for letting her get away with that.)

Azkadelia is definitely a far cry from the ugly Wicked Witch of the West. She may be beautiful, but don't let that fool you. The old witch has nothing on this new version when it comes to evil and cruelty.

In place of the Scarecrow, we have Glitch. Once a genius and Royal Adviser to the Queen, he has been reduced to a sometimes annoying, but lovable ditz. This, of course, is because he only has half a brain left. Literally. The witch had it removed so that she could use his knowledge for her own purposes. He keeps what marbles he has left sealed in his head with a zipper.

Replacing the Lion is Raw, a strange, but gentle creature with psychic abilities. Despite his timid ways, Raw is very capable of being brave, especially when it comes to his friends' safety.

The Tin Man is Caine. Or, rather, former Tin Man. "Tin Man" is the term used for police in the O.Z. He lost everything when he was discovered to be fighting for The Resistance. Worse, he was imprisoned in a sealed tin suit for years, forced to watch a holographic image of his family being tortured and taken from him over and over again. All he has left is the idea of revenge and keeping DG safe, since she is the only one who might be able to defeat Azkadelia.

The Wizard is anything but wonderful. He might have been once, but has been reduced to a stoner dependent on Vapors, a magic equivalent of ecstasy. Still, in his sober moments he is a big help to the heroes.

The flying monkeys are still in. The old version, ugly though they were, still managed to have a slight cuteness about them. Not these. When they're not out doing her dirty work, they accompany Azkadelia everywhere in quite a surprising way.

Toto is also still in... sort of. The little dog is actually a shape-shifter who was once a teacher to both DG and Azkadelia. After 15 years of imprisonment, he is all too willing to help his former pupil. The question is, which one?

Overall, I was impressed. There are spots that could have been better and things that could have been more thoroughly explained, but the concepts and story are quite imaginative. It *is* really long, but definitely worth at least one watch. (I could have done without those weird turkey-looking people who I think were supposed to replace the munchkins, though. They came off more like Oompa Loompas gone terribly, terribly wrong. I'd also really like to know how Caine could have survived in that metal suit for so long, but I guess it makes about as much sense as how the original Tin Man came to be made of tin.)

However, I must confess, I'm a little confused as to why it is titled "Tin Man." That implies that Caine is the main focus of the story, which he is not, although he is given a much more significant role in this version. Oh, well. It was still good, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

Tomb of the Werewolf (2004 Video)

This film brings one very good question to mind...

[19 July 2007]

... and that question is... DOES *NO ONE* MAKE GOOD WEREWOLF MOVIES ANYMORE?! This movie features an incredibly untalented cast, very cheesy and outdated special effects and just plain bad writing.

First problem, too much sex and nudity. Now some, especially men, might argue with that opinion, but that fact is I wanted to see a movie about werewolves. If I'd wanted to see that many breasts exposed, I could have just rented a porno. Seriously, this was one step above a snuff film. (If you don't know what that is, I am *not* going to be the one to explain it.)

Now, the special effects. I get that this was very low budget production, and so was not expecting anything state-of-the-art. That would have been dumb. But I have literally seen better special effects made by teenagers on their home computers. It was sad.

Most of the actors, particularly the women, were more likely cast for their willingness to get naked and get it on with the other female cast members than any acting skills they might possess. (Which are very few.)

Now, if the script had at least been well written, some of the other stuff could have been forgiven. This was not the case. And the real hell of it is that they started out with a fairly good plot line. Bringing Elizabeth Bathory into the mix, for example, was a good idea and one that I have not often seen used. The reincarnation factor wasn't exactly original, but could have worked out quite well. There is also a tragic back story for the werewolf, in which he basically trades his humanity to Bathory in exchange for saving his beloved wife from the plague. Ironically, once his wife begins to heal, he ends up killing her while in werewolf form. The writer/director was, unfortunately, apparently just not talented enough to build on that plot very well. Maybe he was too distracted by all the pointless lesbian sex he just had to put in.

In all, this movie doesn't rank up in the category of "Worth at least one watch." Heck, it doesn't even rank high enough to be put in the "So bad, it's funny" category. This movie is part of the bottom dwelling "There ain't nothing funny about a movie *this* bad" category, where it is kept company by the likes of "El Chpacabra" and "Miner's Massacre." Now, I admit, no one made me watch this, er, film. (And I use the term "film" very loosely.) That's not to say that I'm not still a bit disgruntled by the fact that I shelled out about four bucks to rent this thing. But I admit that was my own folly. Having made that horrible mistake, I now warn any who might be reading this not to make the same mistake. To say that this... film is a waste of both time and money would be an understatement. If you're like me and want to see a good werewolf movie, go with a classic, like "The Wolfman" and the sequels starring Lon Chaney Jr. (At least they have the excuse of the time period for the special effects and they're well written enough.) If you want something a bit more modern, I'm sorry to say that you're limited to the 80's and early 90's. To my knowledge there have been no good werewolf movies made since then. Oh, there have been a few good ones that feature werewolves, but none exclusively about werewolves.

I still have hope that someday, someone out there in Hollywood will make a worthy werewolf film once more, but I'm not holding my breath.

Frankenstein (2004 TV Movie)

Who is truly the monster? The Creature, or the man who made him?

[10/10 · 28 February 2006]

We all know the basic story of Frankenstein. Mad scientist, obsessed with using science to cheat death who ends up creating something he cannot truly understand or control. A monster. This version poses the true question; Who is really the monster? Deucalion, the mass of body parts stitched together and brought to life? Or the man who dared to create and give life to such a being? In this case, it certainly seems as though Frankenstien's first creation has become more human than Frankenstein will ever be and the mad doctor the true monster.

Ducallion, known as "The Monster," has wandered the world for two centuries. He is the first of many creatures created by Dr. Frankenstein, who is now known to the world as Dr. Victor Helios. Deucalion, however, has a trait that Frankenstein never intended for him to have; immortality. Helios is bound and determined to create a perfect race. To improve humanity. Only his twisted ideas of perfection are costing many lives. And now, in modern day New Orleans, one of his creations has gone on a killing spree, risking the exposure of their kind and Helios' experiments to the world. And putting two very determined detectives on his trail, as well as Deucalion, who is determined to stop Helios' plan to replace humanity with his, as it turns out, not-so-perfect creations.

Vincent Perez is a great actor and gives a wonderful performance as Deucalion. He tends to underplay the part, projecting Deucalion's quiet intensity more than his physical strength, although the role does call for some physical acting. But... Frankenstein's monster ended up far better-looking than one would have expected him to, which I admit can be a little weird.

Some might say Parker Posey is miscast as Detective O'Connor, but she handles the role well, slipping between playing the tough detective and the sister trying hard to give her autistic little brother a good life and a safe world to live in.

Adam Goldberg is the sometimes squeamish Detective Sloane, O'Connor's partner and would-be love interest. As usual, he often provides the comic relief to an otherwise serious storyline.

Thomas Kretschmann is appropriately creepy, cold and calculating as the mad scientist who has been using his science and experiments on himself to stay alive for all this time.

It's a whole new twist on an old story, ladies and gentlemen. Despite being a fairly low budget production, it is an enjoyable movie. Except for the purposely unresolved ending, which leaves room wide open for a sequel. Now, in all honesty, the book was much better (as is the case 9 times out of 10) and gives much more information. Although, it is a trilogy, so if you plan to read the books, it's going to take a while.

The Crow: City of Angels (1996)

Highly Under-rated

[8/10 · 4 March 2005]

I admit, I didn't want to see this movie when it first came out. I just couldn't picture anyone else in Brandon Lee's role and was pretty mad that they would even make another Crow movie after what happened to him. I was pretty young at the time. Then, I got older and realized a few things.

It's not as good as the first one. But what sequel is? And, let's face it, the title will always make us think of Brandon Lee.

The biggest complaint about the movie seems to be, "Vincent Perez can not replace Brandon Lee." It's true. He can't. No one can. The thing you absolutely have to keep in mind is, he is not *supposed* to replace him. He plays a completely different character in a very different storyline. There are similarities, of course, but the story is different.

*MILD SPOILERS AHEAD*

Vincent Perez, in his American debut, plays Ashe Corven, a man who, along with his young son, is in exactly the wrong place at exactly the wrong time, witnessing a brutal murder. As the only witnesses, they are silenced by the killers, with Ashe begging them to spare his son the entire time.

Sarah, the young girl from the first movie, played by Mia Kirshner, is now an adult living in Los Angeles. She recalls vividly what happened years ago in Detroit and doesn't think it will ever happen again. That is, until a crow shows up at her apartment to lead her to Ashe, who has arisen and will need her help.

The two form a bond and she tells him why he was brought back; to avenge the deaths of himself and his son, Danny, along with all the others that have been killed by the gang who killed them.

Things get complicated, however, when an attraction begins to form. Once Ashe's mission is complete, he will be sent back to the land of the dead. And he will never rest, or be reunited with Danny, until it has been done.

It gets even more complicated when Sarah is targeted by the same gang for helping Ashe.

Despite the bad reviews, the cast gives a worthy performance. Perez brings Ashe's emotions to life in a way that many could not. He also did most of his own stunts, which give the scenes a more realistic look. It makes one wonder why, exactly, he has not become a popular actor in the U.S.A.

Mia Kirshner plays a believable version of Sarah. Not the same as her predecessor, obviously, as the character has changed with the years.

All in all, if you can remember that Ashe Croven and Eric Draven are two different characters, you can enjoy this movie very much. If not, well, then you will probably be among those who are not overly fond of the movie.

El Chupacabra (2003 Video)

Lame script + Horrible acting + Bad creature effects = El Chupacabra

[1/10 · 9 January 2005]

This movie is a complete and utter waste of time, one of the worst films I've ever seen. And coming from me, that is definitely saying something. In fact, I wish I could have given it negative stars instead of just rating it as a pathetic one-star awful.

When I rented this movie, I had an open mind. I find the legend of the chupacabra interesting and I have a fondness for cheesy horror flicks. But I draw the line at this one.

The acting sucked. The lead male gives one of the worst performances ever, looking and sounding unnatural as he delivers his poorly written lines. The lead female gives a slightly more palatable performance, but that really doesn't take much.

The chupacabra... well, considering how low budget this movie must have been, the creature was tolerable. It does, however, look exactly like someone in a mask and body suit. The mask is fairly detailed and might look cool in person, but not so on screen.

Speaking of on screen, you'd think they could have at least used a better camera. It looks like it was shot with a camcorder for crying out loud. Not a very good one, either.

I don't know what whoever wrote this abomination was thinking. The dialog sucks and just... I can't describe what I feel about it. At least not without getting in trouble with the site.

My advice? Avoid this at all costs. It's just not worth it. If it comes on TV and you have nothing else to do or watch, then *find* something else to do or watch. Read a book, listen to music, *anything.* Just don't subject yourself to this. If you do, you cannot say you weren't warned. And for Lord and Lady's sake, don't rent this sucker. It is not worth it, even if you get the chance to rent it for fifty cents. Trust me, I know.

Queen of the Damned (2002)

I guess it depends on your point of view, but I think it's good

[10/10 · 24 November 2004]

I'm notorious among my loved ones for my love of movies that most people wouldn't like. I'm blessed with a gift to appreciate them, I guess. And I'm also blessed with the ability to take movies as totally separate from their book counterparts. Die hard Ann Rice fans might not like this movie because it slams two books (The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned) into one to make a relatively short film. So, obviously, a lot of the story was changed or left out. Which makes it understandable why some were upset. I mean, come on, Interview With the Vampire was over two hours long, and it was the movie version of just one book.

However, taken as it's own story, the movie is actually very good. Well, in my opinion. Stuart Townsend's portrayal of Lestat is wonderful. And it doesn't hurt that he takes off his shirt quite a bit (he has a really nice, defined, if lean, body) and wears leather pants quite a bit. He also has the rock star quality that is often missing when most actors play musicians. You can see how into the music he is. He also is able to project Lestat's arrogance and loneliness very well.

Vincent Perez, who plays Marius, also does a wonderful job. Though quite popular in Europe, he is sadly under-appreciated in the U.S. I can't honestly say that his portrayal was dead on (so to speak) because I haven't read any of the books the character appears in, but I thought he was quite good. (Another one that is good-looking, ladies.)

Akasha, unfortunately, displays very few emotions, so Aaliyah didn't get a chance to really showcase her acting talents in her final performance, but she did play the evil vampire convincingly. Since she was said to be quite pleasant in real life, I'd say her performance was excellent.

Most of the remaining cast were also enjoyable, if not impressive in their performances.

There are also interesting special effects.

I loved this movie.

If nothing else, you should at least check out the soundtrack. The songs are well penned and preformed by a number of talented musicians. My advice? At least give this movie a chance. Despite the bad reviews, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised.

Red Water (2003 TV Movie)

Not exactly a classic, but a worthy effort

[8/10 · 19 August 2003]

Okay, shark movies are cliched. I admit it, though I love them. At least this one isn't a great white or a genitically altered freak. (For once.) This movie is at least worth a shot.

(Caution! Spoilers ahead!)

The story is about a man eating shark loose in a river and/or lake in Louisiana. Sounds silly right? Sharks are salt-water fish. Well, the shark in question happens to be a bull shark, the only shark that can not only survive, but thrive in fresh water. It's also the number one killer of humans among sharks, despite popular beliefs. The shark goes on a killing spree when it's natural food source (catfish) is destroyed by over-fishing and an oil rig drilling in the area.

Lou Diamond Phillips plays John Sanders, a fisherman who is in danger of losing his boat/home. In order to pay off his loan from the bank, he takes a job offered by his biologist ex-wife, Kelli (Kristy Swanson), that involves going to the oil rig where the shark resides. Also there is a group of thugs looking for a box of cash that one of them dumped there several years earlier.

Alright, so from there it gets kind of predictable. But it can still be enjoyed. And it's not without it's humorous and/or ironic moments.

And ladies, there are cute guys in this movie. Three of them. Well, in my opinion. Lou Diamond Phillips, of course. Then there's newcomer Garth Collins, who plays Lacombe, the shark-lover and also the bad guy that you kinda like. (You'll see why if you watch it.) And finally Rob Boltin, who plays Emery, the Cajun fisherman friend and hired hand of Sanders who has a rather interesting secret, considering he's been a fisherman all his life.

My advice: this movie is at least worth one watching. If you don't like it, oh, well. If you do, good for you. If anything, you can marvel at the shark, which is a completely remote controlled machine rather than the standard CGI (though there's a bit of that too). It's quite real looking. It's the first time anyone has a shark that's not attached to a track under the water or being dragged along behind a boat off camera I believe. If anything, that's worth a few minutes to look at.

Arachnid (2001)

Not really bad, but not really good either.

[18 May 2003]

I was watching a cheesy horror flick (can't remember which one) at my grandparents house one day, and this movie happened to be showing right after it. I figured, 'What the hell? I'll give it a shot.' It didn't make my top ten list of cheesy horror flicks. I liked it. But I'm warning you right now, this one gets really gross. As in bugs crawling under your skin, literally, gross. Definitely not for the faint of heart. And leaves you with a not so happily ever after ending. If you like gore, you'll like this. If you're arachnaphobic, you'll hate it. For those of you who say all of these movies are alike, you'll be happy to know that this one is a little different. The title is more accurate than I thought. Though the story does concentrate mainly on the creature that the word 'arachnid' brings to mind, the spider, it is not limited to it. It includes other species of arachnids. And as an added bonus, there is a cute guy in it, who takes his shirt off for us. And for the guys, there is a girl in a bra. There is some comedy relief in small doses. I would recommend at least giving this movie a shot. There are worse movies out there that actually made it to the big screen.

Spiders (2000)

What can I say? I like cheesy horror flicks.

[8/10 · 11 May 2003]

I've seen better, I admit it. But, then again, I've definitely seen a lot worse. It is an interesting concept. Okay, so the animal spliced with alien DNA has been done to death. But this spider mutates and grows larger with every generation. And it reproduces itself, which you don't see in most movies. And at least the writer(s) put some effort into the script. The characters have some depth. Like Marcy, who is determined to find the truth, and Agent Murphey, who goes against his superior for what he believes is the right thing to do. All in all, if you're into cheesy sci-fi, like me, or enjoy the old black and white giant bug films, you'll probably find this entertaining.