Change Your Image
princebuster82
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie (2014)
Self-Indulgent And Unfunny
After watching this movie, I'm wondering why it was ever made. James Rolfe got internet famous a few years back when he posted a video review of Simon's Quest on Youtube. I thought it was pretty funny, as I had that game growing up and I voiced many of the same criticisms that he had.
And then he made another couple of videos using the same schtick. Play an old Nintendo game and make angry, vulgar rants. It was kind of funny the first few times but as the reviews became more elaborate, and by extension more forced, I lost interest. Rolfe is at his best when he is legitimately angry with a game that scarred him during his childhood. He's not very funny when he writes skits to accompany the video, as he's not a very good writer and he's definitely not an accomplished actor.
So when Rolfe's reviews got popular and he started doing in-store signings, I think he started letting it go to his head. I mean, who wants the signature of a guy who makes youtube video game reviews? Let alone drive to a store to get said signature? It was about this time that he started talking about making an AVGN movie. My question then is the same as it is now: why? I think the answer comes down to ego and an inflated sense of self-worth. This is apparent in the film where everyone asks him for his autograph and basically worship him as some sort of guru god. I thought at first it was just to establish the fact that the Nerd has a following, but after several minutes of such nonsense it becomes clear that James Rolfe actually believes that he is as famous as he portrays himself in the film.
The second biggest flaw in this film is the token black sidekick that was added for no apparent reason other than to have a person of color in the movie. This guy can't act, which is saying a lot for this film as nobody else puts in much of a performance either, but this guy is especially lousy. And he's in every scene! It was like they needed a black guy so badly for the film that they took the first person of color that they came across and ignored the fact that he couldn't act. In fact, I remember reading a post by Rolfe's wife who said the first draft of the screenplay was stupid because all of the characters were white males. So I'm guessing there's a little bit of a Yoko Ono thing going on here as I saw her name listed as Executive Producer.
I'm not going to go in to any of the controversy over the making of this film and how funds were raised, etc, because honestly I couldn't care less. All I can say is that if this movie really put the nearly $400,000 it took in on Kickstarter into the budget, it really doesn't show. Honestly, some of his reviews look better than this film.
I guess that overall the movie just plays out like a really long, unfunny video review skit and somehow manages to be even less humorous than the youtube material it's based on. The "jokes" aren't funny, the "effects" aren't very special, and the writing is juvenile. But not juvenile in that goofy "If I was seven years old I would really like this" way, but more of "Even if I was seven years old I wouldn't find this the least bit funny." James Rolfe, you were funny when you were making legitimate angry reviews. Then you decided to make this tangent of your personality a "character" and milk the joke for all it was worth. Well, that time is over. It stopped being funny a long time ago. The time for this movie would have been in 2009 when you were at your peak of popularity. As of now, it just seems like you're alienating the ever-shrinking fanbase you still possess. Go back to making strict reviews, stay away from the skits, and you'll probably be able to keep going for the next few years.
Lizard Man (2012)
This movie is actually painful to watch.
LizardMan: Terror of the Swamps is a modern classic of the science fiction genre brought to you by the cast and crew of such classics as Big Money Rustlas, Bikini Frankenstein, Dude, Where's My Dog?, Monster of the Nudist Colony, Interracial MILF Orgy #3, and various other achievements in SyFy Network TV movies and softcore/hardcore pornography.
I've seen movies with worse acting than this, but the titles escape me. Most of the movie takes place in a patch of woods off of a dirt road and the other parts take place in a warehouse, er, I mean a soundstage. The film looks like it was shot with a $60 Nikon camera and edited together with Windows Movie Maker.
The "special" effects are very... special. First off, you have the LizardMan himself, dressed in a Halloween novelty fishman costume that you'd see at Wal-Mart on November 3rd because nobody was stupid enough to buy it during Trick or Treat season. And then you have the "gore" effects which are done with CG blood designed in Microsoft Paint and superimposed onto moving victims. I should clarify that the actors are moving, but the CG bloodstains stay static. You can replicate the same effect by standing perfectly still, pouring ketchup into your eye, then moving your hand around in front of your face. Actually, don't do that, because it still looks more realistic than the CG blood they use in this movie. Couldn't they have bought a ten dollar bucket of fake blood from Hot Topic? Anyway, I think this film is attempting to be a homage to the Roger Corman era of low-budget horror and sci-fi films of the 50's and 60's, except that those movies are kind of fun to watch. I can think of about a thousand words to describe this movie, and "fun" isn't one of them.
The Coven (2015)
I remember when this was called "The Craft" and actually had a budget.
I gave it a "2" because it simply isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's pretty lousy. I knew we were in for a stink-fest when the movie opened with a guy dressed up like Doctor Who teaching a class on Wicca and then a witch comes in and her eyes turn red and bulgy. It looked like something out of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The CG was pretty bad and the acting was subpar. The plot is almost nonexistent.
This is not the kind of movie I would watch unless someone made me. If someone makes you watch this film, then they probably hate you.
As has been stated elsewhere, this is basically a "found footage" film. (Why do they keep remaking Blair Witch Project? I understand that it's much cheaper to disguise poorly shot digital footage as "amateur video" but hasn't this run the course yet? Why was Paranormal Activity able to turn a profit and command a series of sequels? Why do people pay to watch mediocrity? Am I reading too deep into this?)
Anyway, I never found out what happened to the girls. I stopped caring long before.
The House That Cried Murder (1973)
Entertaining
The Bride- AKA "No Way Out" (British title), "The House That Cried Murder" and "The Last House on Massacre Street" (re-release titles), "Scream," "Wedding/Marriage of the Dead" and "Wedding Night Slaughter" (Euro titles) is a 1974 supernatural/psychological thriller about a young couple who decide to get married. On their wedding day, the Bride walks in to find the Groom cheating on her with his ex-girlfriend.
That's where the fun starts. The hysterical Bride attacks him with a pair of scissors and ends up running off, never to be seen again. But when mysterious phonecalls and vivid nightmares start plaguing the man and his girlfriend, could something sinister be afoot? The film was shot over a three-week period in June 1972, reportedly for less than thirty thousand dollars (which was very low even for that time). The film struggled to find distribution and and sat for almost two years before hitting the grindhouse and drive-in circuit, usually as the B-film in a double feature. (This helps to explain in part why the film had so many titles. It was often paired with other "House" movies of the time like "The House That Vanished" and "The Last House on Dead-end Street.") The film is a poverty row concoction yet makes up for it in stylized cinematography that betrays its meager roots. Unconventional lighting, odd shooting angles and good use of color really help sell this film during its few generally eerie scenes. It goes to show that you could churn out a decent horror film without resorting to schlocky special effects and cheap gorefests.
But other than that, the movie is kind of weak from a story standpoint. I've only ever seen the 71 minute cut and not the 85 minute version, so I don't know what else is lurking in the longer cut. But I can only imagine that the long version trods along at a sllooooowww pace, because the plot is so simple that the story is more than adequately told in the short version.
The canned soundtrack is very poor, even in comparison to other cheap horror films of the era. The "LA LA LA LA" love theme that pops up throughout the movie sounds like it was lifted from one of those softcore Italian "Emmanuelle" pictures from the mid-70's. Every now and then though the soundtrack is used to good effect when it jarringly blares out during some of the more creepy scenes.
The acting ranges from mediocre to downright horrible. Future sitcom and soap opera mainstay Robin Strasser is at times convincing in the title role and at other times takes "hysterical overacting" to a new level.
So in a nutshell, the movie plays out like an overlong "Night Gallery" segment but manages to conjure up some of the atmospheric nuances that Hammer and Amicus Studios were turning out at the time. Sadly the movie has fallen into the public domain and a lousy film-to VHS master seems to be the only thing floating around on the bootleg circuit. As of this writing the movie is available on youtube and on DVD as part of the "Blood Bath 2" 2-disc collection. (I am hesitant to purchase the set because I'm afraid that it's going to be the same transfer I already have, which is not very good.) I'd like to see this cleaned up (and maybe paired with another similar movie) for proper DVD release, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The World's Greatest Sinner (1962)
This film demands to be seen.
So much has been written about The World's Greatest Sinner that it is hard to separate it from its own mythical standing.
Timothy Carey portrays Clarence Hilliard, an insurance salesman who abruptly quits his job in a spectacular fashion. Sitting at home, contemplating his life, he wanders the town and comes across a Mexican rock and roll band. Intrigued by the spectacle and its effect on the gathered audience, he begins formulating his future. With help from his gardener, he puts on a fake goatee and carries a guitar with him as he stands on street corners, preaching his message of "every man is his own god" and soon finds himself with an ever-growing audience eager to hear more. He changes his name to "GOD" and begins his ascent into the world of politics.
TWGS was made at a time when independent films made without the financing of a studio simply didn't exist. There were no kickstarter campaigns, film schools, underground distribution networks, etc. The film pre-dated the exploitation boom of the mid to late sixties and existed in a universe where so-called underground films were still called "art" films and screened alongside nudie pictures and European imports. Carey wrote the screenplay in 1956 and spent the next 5 years gathering funds and shooting haphazardly whenever he could afford to. Many of the people involved with the movie never received payment for their involvement (most notably a then-unknown Frank Zappa, who wrote and performed the title song and score, and later badmouthed the film on The Steve Allen show in 1963, calling it "the world's worst movie.") Tim Carey originally wanted another director along the lines of John Cassavetes or Stanley Kubrick to direct the movie, but realizing that he could not afford to hire anyone, took to directing it himself. He also cut and edited the movie and handled all of the post-production work. He was never satisfied with the movie and continued editing it up until his death in 1994.
Carey never found a proper distributor for the movie and it was only screened a handful of times in 1963. A later cut of the film is the one that most people have seen, having floated around as a bootleg on VHS and later shown on TMC in 2008. This version had a color title sequence and the hand-colored ending sequence that Carey felt was integral to the film. His son, Romeo Carey owns the rights to the film and has stated that he will one day release the original director cut of the movie, but it still remains unviewed since its original screening.
Critics panned the movie unanimously, which is probably what made it impossible to find a distributor. It was called "vile", "anarchic", anti-religious, amateurish and just plain "stupid." John Cassavetes loved the movie however, calling it one of his favorites.
Nowadays, many agree with Cassavetes, who stated that the movie was just too ahead of its time to be understood by audiences of the early 60's. He may have been right, but as Romeo Carey pointed out, the movie was not ahead of its time, it was in fact a time capsule that captured a unique look at an America that was stuck between the rise of Elvis and the birth of Beatlemania. The country was getting over the Korean War and had yet to experience the polarization of Vietnam. Beatniks were about to become hippies and the "I Like Ike" republican era was giving way to Kennedy's comparatively liberal generation. If anything, TWGS is a documentary of an America in flux.
Critics of the time also scoffed at the notion that a rock and roll-styled punk would ever garner a religious following or ascend into the political machine with such ease. It wasn't long before people like Charles Manson and Jim Jones were recognized as the type of "rock star guru" that could influence, and even brainwash, their followers. The slogan "man is his own god" would become pervasive in a few short years, and groups like the Church of Satan and The Nation of Islam would loudly proclaim that same message. The irony was not lost on Carey himself, who insisted that the film was just as relevant in 1993 as it was in 1963.
For all of its faults, including poor editing, shoddy audio and subpar performances from some of the supporting cast, it still feels like a sort of autobiographical documentary- not quite out of step with A Hard Day's Night or D.A. Pennebaker's Don't Look Back. And it goes without saying that Carey's performance in the title role is untouchable. Nobody but him could have pulled it off. It's like watching a train wreck slowly unfold; you're pretty sure how it's all going to end but you can't stop watching while it happens.
I'm not usually so pompous when describing movies, but TWGS is a movie that opened my eyes to something I can't quite put my finger on.
Guess What Happened to Count Dracula? (1971)
Gay Porn Film Turned PG-Rated Horror Comedy
While being one of the worst films ever made, it has the distinction of probably being the only gay porn film to be edited into a PG-rated horror comedy.
This film was first released in 1969 as "Does Count Dracula Really Suck?" and as "Dracula and the Boys." The XXX rated film follows a gay Count Dracula (aka "Count Adrian") around as he prances and frolics with fellow vampires and hangers-on, then has graphic sex with them. This hardcore cut played the gay grindhouse circuit in New York, LA and San Francisco. The movie also played under the titles "Lustful Dracula", "Dracula: Sexual Vampire," and "Orgy of the Vampire" among others.
Then the producers hit upon a fine idea to make more money- cut out all the sex and release it under its original title! Re-released in 1971 as "Guess What Happened to Count Dracula?", the film left many people wondering exactly that. Aside from taking place in modern times with an over-acting camp style Count, what was the life-changing (death-changing?) "happening" that the film's title alluded to? The mystery remained unresolved until Something Weird found an uncut print of the original hardcore version in the 1980's. Dracula was acting effeminate and quirky because... he was a quirky, effeminate gay vampire! Ahh... it all makes sense now.
The movie even made it onto the cover of "Famous Monsters" in the June '71 issue. This was where I first heard of it and I then happened to see it one night on a UHF broadcast in the late '80s. I thought that it was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen, and though I haven't rewatched it since, I still remember how stupid it was. It made quite an impression on me.
The movie is available on a double-feature DVD from Something Weird Video where it is paired with another X-rated Dracula title that was later cut down into a GP rating, "Dracula The Dirty Old Man."
Road Movie (1973)
Unforgettable
On the surface there's not much to "Road Movie". Two loser truck drivers pick up a lot lizard and that's where the fun begins. The girl has gangster ties and ends up getting the boys into a lot of trouble...
But the intense mood of this gritty film marks it as different from the rest of the pack. I still think it's one of the most realistic films ever made. There's very few light-hearted scenes and the movie borders on claustrophobic; though the scenery is ever-changing you're drawn into the world inside the truck- everything else is just an obstacle in the way of making a dollar.
As a Class A driver I recommend this film as almost required viewing for anyone planning on getting into the world of trucking. For anyone that thinks life on the road is more like "Smokey and the Bandit" then watch this film. Though some minor things have changed since then a great majority of what still goes on is exactly like it's depicted in the film.
This is one of those films that you watch every five or ten years. Any more then that would probably make you hate it (the sheer bleakness of the picture leaves you little alternative). But once you do see it, you'll never forget it.
Rockin' in the Rockies (1945)
Stooge fan curio only
I gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.
Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.
If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.
When a Stranger Calls (2006)
The reason this film was made? Simple: $$$$$$$$$$
This could have been a TV movie.
There just isn't anything original coming out of Hollywood anymore. So by dusting off old movies and contemporizing them it's pretty much accepted that all the ideas coming down the pipeline for the next few years are going to be rehashes. Why are they being made? Well, people are seeing them. Studios are more than happy to turn something out that they know people will flock to for the name alone. They don't have to come up with an original script, just xerox the old one. It's sad.
On to this though. Someone had the bright idea of turning the first ten minutes of the original film into a 90 minute cliché fest. I guess they figured todays audience can't be challenged by things like a fleshed out plot that spans years and cities.
This is a really moronic film that is respected by teenage girls and people with sub-average intelligence only. A dead dog all the way around.
Bone (1972)
nothing special here
This movie didn't have much to offer in the way of well, anything.
Everything's kind of played for laughs and made in the semi-surreal documentary style of filming that was sort of in vogue at the time.
The acting was OK by everyone except Yaphett Kotto who never has learned how to not overact. You can argue that he's supposed to be playing a maniac, yet he acts the same in every movie he's been in.
I had high hopes for this movie, Larry Cohen's directorial debut, Yapphet Kotto playing a racist homicidal rapist, etc. But Kotto seems about as harmless as a parakeet and the story is just very flat. Just mediocre all the way around.
Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus (2003)
more heavy handed sentimentality about "the south"
This is another in a long stream of movie industry attempts to dramatize the south in a "it's so pretty, let's show close ups of trees and swamps and have people pick banjo's" etc etc.
This is no more an accurate portrayal of the south then say "Forrest Gump". Scenes like inside the barber shop where the guy and the woman are singing some type of murder ballad are pretty much indicative of the tone of the entire movie. If you notice the scene is obviously scripted (like a lot of the film is) and check out the very real discomfort and embarrassment of the locals sitting there waiting for a haircut.
"People in the south won't talk to you if you're driving a new Land Rover or something." Then all through the movie you see "every day people" driving by in mostly newer SUV's and sedans, and the filmmakers are the only ones driving a beat-up 1970 Chevy.
This whole film is mainly a riff on the idea of the south that most outsiders have, a view that is mainly perpetuated by Hollywood.
It's time for the motion picture establishment to make a real southern movie, documentary or not. It's a shame that people who saw this on the BBC believe this to be the way things really are in the southern US. What's even more unsettling is the people in our own country believe it as well.