Change Your Image
maximumhong
Reviews
Jägarna (1996)
Great first half - Deflated second half
I wanted to love this movie. It initially had everything - from perfect pacing to an assortment of eccentric characters. Cinematically, it's crisp and beautiful, and I enjoyed the opportunity to see some nice Swedish countryside. I like that the protagonist is a regular, plump cop, not some uber-beefed-up Hollywood superstar. The plot itself is reminiscent of such classics as "Straw Dogs" and "Deliverance," yet much more down to earth with a great deal of character development especially between the protagonist and his country-bumpkin brother.
However, the last half of the film, especially the ending, left me frustrated. I literally booed at the end because of an unsatisfactory resolution. What could have been the best revenge flick of the '90s slowly becomes a dull, lifeless disappointment. Just when you think the protagonist is about to get down with the bad guys, poof. Nothing.
I understand the director's intent. He wanted to make a statement. It just didn't work for me.
Revengers Tragedy (2002)
Great Little Movie
Revenger's Tragedy is a great little movie directed by Alex Cox and starring Christopher Eccleston as the "Revenger." Probably not for young audiences (language, violence), but is timely and full of of quirky, chaotic fun.
"Let the man who seeks revenge remember to dig two graves." This is the message the film begins with. How apt, considering the nature of the film and the state of the world's affairs today.
Christopher Eccleston is a brilliant actor and can tackle any role with a unique and charming fervor. Here, he plays a tortured man on top of his game of seeking revenge for the murder of his bride. He's a 'bone-setter' by trade, and he even carries around his bride's skull and rants and raves with it.
Derek Jacobi plays the villainous, lecherous duke who is the target of revenge. With such a determined performance, one would not believe that the actor was paid little to nothing for his involvement.
Eddie Izzard plays a son of the Duke and the next in line, and a reluctant power junkie. I love the off-casting, because usually Eddie Izzard is the funny man but in this case he is the witty but ultimately corrupt fall guy.
If you've seen Repo Man, Sid and Nancy, and Straight to Hell, take that impression and combine it with a Jacobian revenge tragedy (language unchanged), add Eccleston and Eddie Izzard and Derek Jacobi, with little or no budget, and you have a memorable way to spend 2 hours of your life. This won't be a remembered or highly-sought after film, but then again, the truly unique ones never are.
Boogeyman (2005)
Probably BETTER Because of the Drive-In Setting
Boogeyman was fairly interesting, and it might have been better served by surround sound than by a mono FM transmission. But ultimately it failed to impress because of its sudden over-use of CGI when revealing the monster (a common crime with horror movies these days).
This has been my problem with so many horror and suspense films of the last decade. The entire movie can be amazingly non-cgi, with great washes of color and tone, but all of a sudden we are pummeled with out-of-this-world dazzling computer FX, and they don't blend at all with the rest of the movie. The first time I noticed this was in watching Sleepy Hollow, when the Headless Horseman finally gets his head back. It just doesn't match the tone of the rest of the movie. And the same can be said here. What might have been a good, creepy Saturday Night movie turns out to be a waste of time BECAUSE of CGI.
I don't despise the use of CGI, but I don't think it's always necessary when a greater effect could be achieved with real props. These filmmakers who are dishing out horror movies every weekend need to go back to the '70s and re-watch some of those low-budgeteers like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead. Then they will realize how much more effective realism, even cheap realism, can be. Some CGI, like in the case of Fellowship of the Ring (Balrog), is so brilliantly rendered that it works perfectly. But a number of lower-budget films simply can't compete with what Peter Jackson and Lucas are doing, and they would be better off not using it or at least using it in the background rather than in key effects.
All in all, great Drive-In fare, but I wouldn't bother watching it again.
Sin City (2005)
Want A Little Gross-Out With Your Male Power Trip? (mild spoilers)
Sin City was a unique little film. Perhaps it was a little too pointlessly violent and 'male power trip' for my tastes. However, the middle segment with Mickey Rourke as a superhuman, disfigured antihero is well worth the price of admission.
I'd have enjoyed the Yellow Bastard sequence, but I have too much respect for Nick Stahl (who plays Ben Hawkins in one my favorite TV series, Carnivale) to appreciate this singularly-minded cardboard baddie. And it's really just yucky, gross-out, pointlessly disturbing, and not in a Lynchian sort of way. The kiddies watching R movies in secret might get a kick out it, I suppose.
My general displeasure with Sin City - The Film is a bit disappointing to me, because I enjoy and respect Frank Miller's work. But this was just too single-minded, no real depth. Just raw, unadulterated violence and gross-out scenes to make the weak-kneed cringe. Great for teenage kicks, but I'm a little older now, and probably just a bit bored of stylized, pointless violence.
Oh well. Another dud for me, I'm afraid. But I did enjoy the middle bit, so I'm giving it 5 stars.
I will definitely praise the day when Frank Miller's Batman gets to play out on the big screen. 'Arkham Asylum' the movie would be a real treat. If that happens, I'll probably be scraping my jaw off the floor in stupefied bliss.
Thundercrack! (1975)
The Greatest Trash Porn Cinema Ever
After a grueling, chained-to-my-desk Monday at work, I was pleasantly surprised to see another Nicheflix envelope in my mailbox. My evening plans were immediately set; I would run out, grab some Taco Hell, then settle down behind the PC for a cinematic feast whilst relaxing the body and mind.
How much more wrong could a person be? Thundercrack! is an 'art porn' slash exploitation slash horror b-movie all rolled up into one unsettling, low low budget package. Marion Eaton, a strange, obscure but brilliant 'stage' actress, stars as a drunken, middle-aged widow living 'all alone' in a country cottage. She is charmingly insane, perverse, and her performance is over-the-top but exceedingly well done.
Back story: Her husband was eaten alive by a swarm of locusts years before. In her madness she pickled him and keeps his gristly remains in a couple of tall jars in the basement. Her son, a seeker of all things erotic, is kept in a locked closet because of his elephantitis of the scrotum, which enlarged his testicles to monstrous proportions. To her, 'he no longer exists,' and there is a little more than a hint at incest, though we never actually see her son (except for a brief flicker of his large testicles). Apparently he has a thing for enemas.
Add two groups of strangers looking for shelter from a horrible storm, a snack of peeled (used) cucumber ad nauseum, toss in a deranged, over-caffeinated carny in love with his big, mean gorilla mama (for real), throw in more than a few straight/bisexual explicit sex scenes, and the end result is over 2 hours of celluloid that would at once please and nauseate anyone from David Lynch to John Waters.
I won't go into a detailed review, because I'm saving that for the remastered, restored version that should be coming out sometime in the future (via the official site @ www.thundercrackthefilm.com. I will force myself again to sit through 150 minutes of restored Thundercrack! And I will live to tell about it.
Oh, did I mention that it was super cheap, and filmed entirely in black and white? I have never in my life sat through a film so stupefying and bizarre. This is a one-of-a-kind experience, I must say, and I recommend it wholeheartedly for any fan of the strange, the twisted, and the just plain f**ked up. Definitely not for the squeamish. No real gore, but there are a couple of gross-out scenes and several truly adult sex scenes (including some gay scenes).
I can't begin to describe the effect of this movie. It's like a love/hate relationship. Kind of like sitting through a painful tattoo, knowing that you will come out afterward a permanently changed person but having to undergo some rather intense pain in the process. Or wiggling a loose tooth for two hours. It was one part Eraserhead, two parts Manos: Hands of Fate, one part Pink Flamingos and two parts sleazy '70s 'shock' porn. Crazy crazy mess.
Sometime after I posted my original review of this film, I was contacted by one of the members of the cast who thanked me for the attention. Rest assured that I will give a more thorough review when the official DVD is released.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
Semi-Decent Homage But Lacking True 'Britishness' of Previous Attempts
On one hand, it would be nice to see the next book made into a movie (which is probably inevitable at this point). On the other hand, I really didn't enjoy this incarnation very much. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good. One could feel the spirit of Douglas Adams woven into the film, but the bottom sort of drops out about halfway through - and is only saved by Bill Nighy's much anticipated and too-brief appearance. DNA's witticisms are mostly 'dumbed down' for the Americans, and important scenarios are left dangling, unfinished. Lastly, Mos Def was dull. Cardboard dull.
The film was nothing new and added very little to they 'legacy.' I enjoyed the look of the Vogons, and the new Marvin costume, and the several nods to the fans (esp the Eagles song and the appearance of the original Marvin). But in the end, that's all I felt the movie was. Just a big wave to the fans and a watered down version of the story dragging behind all the fanwank.
Overall I prefer the low low budget television miniseries to this film. However, if there is a sequel, I'll have to see it. Much in the same way that I had to see all the Star Wars movies in the theater, regardless of how amazingly bad most of them were.
Superman Returns (2006)
Half as good as Batman Begins
Superman Returns, and it's a let down for me.
I'm not surprised. Regardless of the hype and 10-star reviews on IMDb, I still had little faith in Bryan Singer's ability to create substance and depth with his films. After the fantastic, gritty Batman Begins, I was expecting something a little meaty and poignant. What I witnessed Thursday night at the IMAX was a popcorn movie that I will forget in two or three days.
I loved Brandon Routh's performance, thought Lois Lane was cute but miscast, enjoyed Spacey as a somewhat darker Lex Luthor, loved Frank Langella as Perry. All the elements were there... expensive production, excellent SFX, good cast, decent acting all around. But somehow it just doesn't hold up very well - it's all over the place with no solid center, exactly my impression with other Bryan Singer films.
Lex's evil plan is pretty dumb, though it does look impressive in 3D. I didn't enjoy the messianic overtones to Superman's character as insinuated into this film. It lends Superman an arrogance and self-importance that doesn't bring likability to the character. He's also portrayed as a bit of a peeping tom, which bothered me just a little.
Much like everything else I've seen directed by Bryan Singer, there is a lot of eye candy without a lot of character substance. It almost felt like a Michael Bay film, and for me it fails as an homage to the original Christopher Reeve version. While nowhere near as bad as Superman IV, it just doesn't fully capture the spirit of the original two films or the comic hero that I admire. I am leaving out Superman III because I don't really remember it all too well!
Superman's Return could have been much better in the hands of a creative and capable director. Unfortunately for me, because of the apparent success of this film at the box office, I will probably be witness to more of the same in the future, hoping that the next one gets it right.
Batman Begins (2005)
Effing Brilliant!
I'm one of those 'halfway' hardcore Batman fans. I started reading the comics around 1988. Once upon a time, Arkham Asylum was a NEW graphic novel awaiting my hungry eyes.
Years went by, and I lost my interest in comics. The story lines weakened, and the arrival of the Tim Burton Batman movies softened the tone of the ongoing arcs and resulted in an overabundance of utter garbage in the comic continuum. I respect the first two Batman movies for the artistry and timeliness. However, they got the Caped Crusader all wrong.
Finally, we have a portrayal of the Dark Knight I remember reading about. No more sappy, tongue-in-cheek silliness. No more style over substance. This is meaty, gritty Batman, and this amazing film embodies the heart and soul of what this comic was all about.
If you have been put off by comic book movies because of their overabundance of over-the-top cameos and half-baked plots, then I urge you to check out this latest installment of Batman. This is the benchmark for redefining a legacy. This is how it should have been done from the beginning.
My only criticism is for the cliché' lovey-dovey scene at the end, though I understand its usefulness (mainly because Batman really doesn't get an opportunity to talk to too many different people, and therefore it's somewhat difficult to actually tell an emotional tale without SOMEONE from his past to provide some commentary on his journey).
I only hope they finally turn Arkham Asylum into a film. Perhaps it would be too dark for the younger viewers, but it would make one of my biggest geekboy wet dreams come true.
Indigo (2003)
Tastes Like Sugar, Smells Like ... (mild spoilers)
Having no real previous exposure to the idea of "Indigo Children," I agreed to catch a screening of this movie written by two 'spiritual gurus' of our times, Neal Donald Walsh (Conversations with God) and James Twyman.
The screening was held at a local Unity church, which is an organization branched from the New Thought movement. I had never been to a Unity church, so this was also a new experience for me.
The basic plot centers around a little girl with special powers and her chemistry with her cynical grandfather. Through allegory, we are presented the recycled messianic ideology of "Indigo Children." Basically, these children have psi abilities, and they are able to heal with their hands. They communicate with each other via a psychic energy grid, they can see dead people, and they have 'indigo' auras. What I can piece together of the general theory behind IC is that Mother Nature has taken an extreme leap of evolution to create 'superkids' capable of saving us from ourselves. At least that is my impression via this film.
It all seems a bit airy-fairy to me, but first to the technical/artistic notes.
The film suffers from lack of artistic depth. Regardless of who is directing (Stephen Simon, who produced the brilliant and somewhat depressing film Somewhere in Time), it feels like a made-for-Lifetime-TV movie, but worse. The acting - by nearly everyone involved - is cardboard dry and occasionally eye-rollingly dorky. No character has any real conviction, though the little girl sure is cute (and for a child actress, fairly talented). Like a high-school play, everyone is simply going through the motions and playing out their lines. I wasn't expecting Werner Herzog or even Stephen Soderburg, but one expects more than basic home computer editing for a $10 price tag (and no Popcorn!). It also didn't help that it wasn't presented in the correct aspect ratio, so everybody was 'long' throughout the film (this was the Church's fault, not the film's, but it was still irritating).
I looked up "Indigo Children" and the protagonist plays the part well enough, with some miraculous 'psi' enhancements. It's a charming little attraction, this indigo meme. But I just don't buy it. The idea that certain children have special abilities that nobody else has makes for great comic book and pulp SF reading, but when it's used to peddle a corny, new age ideology, it wears a bit thin. Sure, I believe in the possibility of psi abilities, of spiritual evolution and unexplained phenomena, but I simply cannot believe that Mother Nature would speed up evolution to the degree that our children become our super-saviors. It sounds nice, but it's a cop out for not wanting to feel guilty or responsible ourselves.
Anyone's entitled to their beliefs, of course. While somewhat more convincing than the 'charged water' karma-busting computer treatments that were peddled via the New Thought circuit a few years ago (SANCTUARY), the candy-coated sweetness of this subtly fascist approach to spirituality makes it all the more important to stop this meme and get on to something with some real depth and intelligence.
zzzzzzzz.