shaun98 Reviews

Blow Out (1981)

Great Travola performance, mediocre script

[6/10 · 5 November 2004]

Plot: John Travolta plays Jack, a motion picture soundman stuck in an unsatisfying career working on sleazy horror movies. While "capturing" sound on location, his career takes a bizarre turn when he unwittedly records what may be a political murder. His only ally is a dimwitted prostitute (Nancy Allen), his only clue with a shady private eye (Dennis Franz).

Critique: Brian DePalma's films are a mixed bag. Sometimes he's quite good, other times he's just mediocre. This variance in quality can be found within individual films. For example, his "Dressed to Kill" had some genuinely suspenseful moments, but dragged at times. Likewise, "Blow Out" is an uneven film. The first half effectively sets things up, promising a masterful thriller (the send-off of slasher movies is a hoot). However, the second half tends to lag. The director's trademark style is evident here. He uses split screen, slow motion, and deep focus photography to craft some truly striking bits. Full use is made of the Panavision frame, so this movie cannot be appreciated in pan-and-scan. Unfortunately the pacing is off, and "Blow Out" never quite gathers steam, despite its virtues. I finished it thinking that it was interesting, but still could have been better.

Travolta's magnetic performance anchors the film during its weaker moments--forget about his recent turkeys, this movie shows his true star power. His supporting players do not fare as well--Nancy Allen's character is too much of a ditz to generate much sympathy, and John Lithow, as the killer, just isn't interesting as a character (in part due to his limited dialouge). Dennis Franz is appropriately seedy, if one-dimensional, as the aforementioned private eye. In fact, the film tends to work best when focusing exclusively on Travola's character--it's always intriguing to see him use his skills to piece together the clues.

In the end, I'd recommend "Blow Out" to three main camps: DePalma fans, Travolta fans, and fans of cult movies in general. While stylish, it's too dated and uneven to appeal to most mainstream viewers.

Rating: 6/10 or (**1/2)

Released by Filmways Pictures

The Core (2003)

It is what it is

[5 November 2004]

Plot: The earth's core stops spinning, causing deadly electromagnetic phenomena throughout the globe. The end result will be the destruction of all life on the planet by way of deadly cosmic radiation. The only hope for mankind is for a team of scientists and engineers to singlehandedly jumpstart the core, burrowing to the depths of the planet with an experimental, high-tech vehicle.

Critique: If not taken the least bit seriously, "The Core" works as a mindless action movie. The science is plainly ridiculous (I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I don't think a few nukes would have any effect on the earth's core, and I'm not even going to ask how that ship was able to maintain contact with mission control). For the purposes of this film, however, it doesn't matter. In fact, I suspect that hacker subplot was deliberately put there as a signal that no one involved in this project took it seriously. The performances are earnest, though Alfre Woodward (whom I will always think of as Lily from "Star Trek: First Contact") is completely wasted and D.J. Qualls (the guy from "Road Trip," no less) simply doesn't belong here at all. Overall, I'd say that Hilary Swank and Stanley Tucci (as a brave astronaut and cocky scientist, respectively) come of best, or at least they made the biggest immediate impressions on me. On the other hand, leading man Aaron Eckhart didn't really impress me with his performance here, though he's game. I suspect he's more at home with character acting. Some of the special effects are obviously computer-generated, but overall this movie will adequately serve as summer escapism.

Rating: 6/10 or (**1/2)

Released by Paramount Pictures

Windtalkers (2002)

Serviceable war film

[6/10 · 5 November 2004]

Plot: During World War II, a Marine Sergeant (Nicholas Cage) is assigned to guard a Navajo Indian (Adam Beach), who's entrusted with a secret code never broken by the enemy.

Critique: A decent war film, certainly watchable, but it's pretty much like every other movie like it. The whole angle with the Navajo Indians is interesting, but it isn't explored enough. I think it was Roger Ebert who pointed out that it's more or less a gimmick for a standard war movie. Most of the characters are two-dimensional, and the only female supporting player is entirely forgotten by the last third (leaving me to suspect most of her scenes were excised altogether). These are my gripes, so what's good? If you're looking for pyrotechnics, there's plenty of that. The combat scenes are well done, with plenty of gunplay and explosions. It doesn't quite have the artistry of "Saving Private Ryan," but it's still an impressive spectacle--undoubtedly even more so on a big screen. I did appreciate some of the more subtle touches, such as the Navajo soldier playing the flute. The acting is decent enough, overall. I'd give it a qualified recommendation to fans of the genre.

Rating: 6/10 or (**1/2)

Released by MGM

Red Dragon (2002)

Adequate remake

[6/10 · 22 February 2004]

Plot -- Troubled FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Norton) catches the infamous Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Years later, he is brought out of early retirement to pursue another killer (Ralph Fiennes), who is courting his next victim, a blind woman (Emily Watson). But can Graham retain his sanity? This is the second attempt to film the Harris novel, the first being 1986's "Manhunter", directed by Michael Mann.

Critique -- Although "Red Dragon" isn't a bad film by any means, it's one of the most unnecessary major releases of the last decade. The same story was told in Mann's 1986 film, which was flawed but had more life and energy than this rework. As a stand-alone movie, it's adequate enough, but at this point the formula is getting stale. Brett Ratner ("Rush Hour") does a competent job behind the camera, but he is clearly the weakest director to helm a film featuring the good doctor. He does not generate quite enough tension or atmosphere to sustain a two hour movie. This must be Edward Norton's weakest performance by far; after he lit up the screen in "Fight Club" and "American History X", it's a shame to see him sleepwalk through a role. Anthony Hopkins is okay, but at this point he must be getting tired of playing this character. The supporting performances fare somewhat better, especially Philip Seymour Hoffman as a sleazy tabloid publisher.

The storyline is still intelligent and literate; there is a much-welcome opening scene showing exactly how Lector was caught (only referred to by dialouge in Mann's version), but it's clear that the whole project is just a commercial endeavor. Critics thrashed Ridley Scott's "Hannibal", but that film at least had a freshness that this one lacks. I can only pray that Michael Bay doesn't have anything to do with the next entry.

Rating: 6/10 or (**1/2)

Released by Universal Pictures

The Contender (2000)

Disappointing

[6/10 · 22 February 2004]

Plot -- After the U.S. vice-president dies, the president (Jeff Bridges) appoints a female senator (Joan Allen) to serve as his successor. However, a slimy congressman (Gary Oldman) plots her downfall by ensnaring her in a sex scandal. She refuses to respond to the allegations, but how long can she continue to brush it off?

Critique -- I found this political drama disappointing. After Roger Ebert awarded the film a four-star rating, I expected a more engaging movie than this. The plodding storyline rarely grabbed my attention, though it has its moments. Joan Allen's strong performance helps to make this at least watchable. She plays a believable, intelligent woman determined to do the right thing no matter what people think of her. Likewise, Gary Oldman is appropriately creepy as the dirty politician willing to completely disregard ethics to advance his personal agenda. I just wish they had better material to work with. The supporting performances are adequate, nothing more.

Still, there are some compelling scenes when Allen faces Oldman's accusations during hearings, as she braves the odds to stand up for her principles. This is one of the few times that the film is truly focused and energetic, hinting at what a much better movie `The Contender' should have been. It doesn't really take any chances, and I can't help but wonder what someone like Oliver Stone would have done with the same ideas. Heck, even Mike Nichols (`Primary Colors`) would have at least made a more engaging film.

Rating: (**1/2) out of four

Released by Dreamworks Pictures

8MM (1999)

Give it a chance

[7/10 · 22 February 2004]

Plot -- Private eye Tom Wells (Nicholas Cage) is hired to investigate what may be a snuff film, featuring a young girl who has been missing for the past seven years. As he descends into the darkest corners of the porn underworld--and the human psyche--his life and even his very soul are at stake.

Critique -- All the negative reviews this film got would lead one to think that it's unredeemably bad. On the contrary; this is an uneven but sometimes compelling thriller; the hostile critical reception is due largely to the subject matter. Make no mistake, "8MM" is not for everyone--certainly not for the squeamish. The film is admittedly a bit long, and drags a bit in spots. "Seven" screenwriter Walker was unhappy with rewrites forced on his original script, which may account for the flaws found in the finished film. Nonetheless it features some genuinely unsettling scenes as Wells realizes the depths of human depravity. Photographed in dark, dreary tones, the film certainly has the right look and feel, with a palatable sense of oppression. Content notwithstanding, it's indeed a well-made film.

Nicholas Cage does well as a man who is forced to cope with a side of life he's never dealt with. Peter Stormare is appropriately sleazy as a porno filmmaker, and Joaquin Phoenix offers adequate support as a wisecracking porn shop clerk. There are some graphic scenes that would have guaranteed the film an NC-17 rating had it not been backed by a major studio. Nonetheless, there are also some moving scenes as Wells struggles to find a moral center in the midst of the evil he finds himself mired in. This is a flawed motion picture, but nonetheless a better film than expected.

Rating: (***) out of four

Released by Columbia Pictures

Bad Boys (1995)

So-so

[5/10 · 22 February 2004]

(Possible spoiler here)

Plot -- Two vice cops (Martin Lawrence and Will Smith) must protect a young woman who is the only witness against a lethal drug lord. Also at stake is millions worth of heroin, stolen from a police evidence locker.

Critique -- "Bad Boys" is an appropriately mediocre feature film debut for director Michael Bay. Though clearly intended as an action-comedy, the film does not deliver enough laughs or thrills to be anything other than a passable time-waster. It's one of these movies you rent on a rainy Sunday afternoon, only to forget the next day. I'm shocked it was such a hit, but I guess the stars had a lot of fans (I do like Smith, but I don't run out to catch everything he appears in).

Lawrence and Smith both have strong screen presence, but they've done better in other movies. As the story unfolds, circumstances force them to exchange identities, in a plot development that is...contrived, to say the least. I could practically hear the plot-mechanisms creaking and groaning. Still, it's not a total loss. The final half hour is quite diverting, with two consecutive action scenes. The two stars, as well as Joe Pantoliano as an obnoxious but dedicated police captain, have an undeniable charisma. "Bad Boys" has a slick, glossy sheen throughout. But that isn't enough to recommend the film. It's most telling that according to the Internet Movie Database, even Bay himself disliked the script, and had the stars improvise certain lines. This movie goes on for much too long; its flaws would have been less apparent in a tighter film. In fact, I would have welcomed more explosions and a higher body count.

Rating: (**) out of four

Released by Columbia Pictures

Raw Deal (1986)

Skip it

[4/10 · 22 February 2004]

(There might be a little tiny spoiler here)

Plot -- Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a disgraced cop who finds a chance for redemption by taking on an assignment to infiltrate a Chicago mob. He finds himself in danger of getting in over his head with this role-playing, especially after getting involved with a woman.

Critique -- Not long after I popped this one in, I could see why "Raw Deal" is one of the star's least-regarded films. It's almost completely devoid of the wit and energy that we've come to expect of his best work. Although there's a fair amount of action, none if it is really exciting or memorable, certainly not on par with anything in the "Terminator" films (or even "Eraser", for that matter). In fact, it often seems more like something from the Cannon Films stable than a vehicle for one of the world's top superstars. The script is muddled and unfocused, with a subplot about the hero's alcoholic wife being introduced and dropped abruptly. Irvin's direction is flat and unenergetic, and even Arnold can't enliven the dreary proceedings (though he tries). Reportedly, he only accepted the role to fulfill a contractual obligation, which certainly explains his lack of care in choosing this particular project. In the end, it's safe to say that this is one film that would have been out of print for ages if not for the his presence. Unless you feel you have to watch everything he's done, just skip this dud and rent "Predator" or "Terminator 2."

Rating: (*1/2) out of four

Released by De Laurentiis Entertainment

Cobra (1986)

Mindless fun

[6/10 · 22 February 2004]

Plot -- Sylvester Stallone plays a rouge cop charged with protecting a young woman (Brigitte Nielsen) against a band of psycho killers. He must also contend with opposition from within the police force, as many of his colleagues find his tactics excessive. But in the end, his only concern is wiping out crime.

Critique -- Judging from the harsh reviews this actioner earned, you'd think it was unredeemably bad, but I admit I kind of enjoyed it. As long as you're not expecting too much, it delivers on a no-brainer level. In fact it's about as good as one can expect from anything Cannon Films did in the eighties. It moves at a good pace, looks slick (groovy lighting) and has a decent car chase. As expected, it's very right-wing, but as long as the occasional speechifying doesn't bother you too much, that kinda adds to its charm as an artifact of its decade. The star has strong screen presence and effectively fills the "badass supercop" role. Brian Thompson, as the psychotic killer, rants and raves as appropriate. Andrew Robinson, as the disapproving detective, is somewhat underused here. "Cobra" makes for a good double bill with "Rambo: First Blood Part II", another overblown Sly spectacle directed by George P. Cosamatos.

Rating: (**1/2) out of four

Released by Cannon Films (thru Warner)

Commando (1985)

Classic Arnold

[6/10 · 22 February 2004]

Plot -- Arnold Schwarzenegger plays John Matrix, a retired colonel who is forced to go back into action when his daughter is kidnapped by terrorists, led by a brutal exiled dictator.

Critique -- "Commando" is one of these movies that define the action genre in the eighties--big, loud and dumb, but at least it has the good sense not to take itself seriously. The storyline is absolutely absurd, especially the outcome. But Arnie is clearly aware of how silly the material is, so he just enjoys the ride and enlivens everything with his self-depreciating humor. Though he's a man of action who disposes of dozens of faceless goons, he wholeheartedly delivers his trademark one-liners (such as "I eat Green Berets for breakfast. And right now I'm very hungry"). The film officially reaches levels of high camp with the ultraviolent ending, as he raids the enemy stronghold and mows down baddies with his potent arsenal. It's goofy, but undeniably diverting. Unlike Stallone's "Rambo" films, there's no attempt at social comment; "Commando" never pretends to be anything other than a display of mindless violence, and that's all we need from Arnold. Running at a brisk ninety minutes, it moves along in an efficient, straightforward manner, without getting burdened with needless subplots. The supporting cast (Rae Dawn Chong as the female sidekick, Vernon Wells and Dan Hedaya as baddies) are adequate, but in the end, all that matters is that this is Arnie's show. As a vehicle for the star, this movie delivers.

Rating: (**1/2)

Released by Twentieth Century Fox

Swimming Pool (2003)

Wildly overpraised

[6/10 · 21 February 2004]

(There might be a little tiny spoiler here)

Plot -- Facing a creative dead end, a popular British mystery writer (Charlotte Rampling) goes on holiday in her publisher's summer home in France. Hoping to revitalize her creative juices, her literary quest is interrupted by the arrival of his sexy young daughter (Ludivine Sagnier). Their interaction is understandably strained, but later on, things take a drastic, potentially deadly turn.

Critique -- "Swimming Pool" gets my vote for the most overrated film of 2003. Watching it, I was honestly puzzled at all the positive reviews. I won't dismiss it outright--Rampling delivers a solid performance, and the relationship between the two main characters is entirely credible. As the foundation for a character drama, the premise certainly has merit, but the pace is turgid and the film wanders on forever. Then there's the much-discussed twist ending, which basically negates most of the story's details (which I won't get into here). When it was over, I found it hard to care much about the material at all. What's the point? I don't mind films that take their time to get someplace, as long as there's a worthwhile destination. In this case though, it seems like a whole lot of nothing. Still, Sagnier looks gorgeous in and out of costume, and I'm tempted to recommend the film to male viewers on this basis alone. Perhaps the filmmakers should have dropped all their "artistic" pretentious and just made a straightfoward, smutty erotic thriller.

In the end though, only Rampling truly keeps everything afloat. Sagnier is solid but unexceptional, and as the publisher, Charles Dance (a fine character actor) is underused. Oddly enough, some part of me really did want to like the film. Maybe it's just the female nudity, but I'll be a bit lenient with my rating.

Rating: (**1/2) out of four

Released by Focus Features

Death Wish (1974)

Highly compelling

[7/10 · 9 February 2003]

Over the course of a career that has spanned nearly fifty years, action star Charles Bronson has appeared in dozens of films. Among them, the one that he is best remembered for is "Death Wish," an urban drama that has practically defined his career. He plays Paul Kersey, a liberal, mild-mannered architect whose family falls victim to violent crime. One fateful afternoon, he is shocked to hear the dreadful news: his wife has been murdered, his daughter brutally raped. What's more, the police are unable to apprehend the perpetuators. Feeling stunned and helpless, Kersey decides to take the law into his own hands--and the subsequent publicity galvanizes New York City. It isn't long before the police are hot on his heels. The ultimate consequences promise to be drastic.

"Death Wish" was a highly controversial film when initially released. At the time, major cities were facing a deadly crime epidemic, and this film tapped into the fears and unspoken desires of many viewers, giving them a chance to live out their secret fantasies. Critics on the Left lambasted its politics on crime, and even some on the Right felt it went too far. One could find much to complain about from an ideological standpoint. One could point out that the film is manipulative and heavy-handed (the attack on Kersey's family comes right after his co-worker tells him he's a "bleeding-heart liberal"). Yet, it is undeniably compelling; one of these movies that makes you wonder, "what if this happened to me?" In light of the later, inferior sequels, it is fascinating to see how the character came to be, how he made the transition from law-abiding man to cold-blooded vigilante. It is not an easy transition to make by any means--after his first kill, he breaks down and vomits the moment he reaches home. Yet, as his kills (each is very suspensefully handled) occur with greater frequency, we get the sinking feeling that he has reached a point of no return. Indeed, he narrowly eludes capture on at least two occasions, and there is the certainty that it is only a matter of time before the law will catch up with him.

Bronson is highly effective here; while not one of the great actors, he has a very strong screen presence. The audience is on his side every step of the way, rooting for him even as he strays onto the wrong side of the law. Surely, he is entitled to justice, but at what point does his vengeance outweigh his grievances? Vincent Gardenia is effective as the police detective assigned to his case. He grudgingly admires Kersey's resolve, although he is sworn to put a stop to the killings. The manner in which this is resolved is creative, though its plausibility is less than certain. The film is also noticeable for an early appearance by Jeff Goldblum as a slimy thug. However, Steven Keats is somewhat ineffectual as Bronson's son-in-law (he just sorta got on my nerves). In the years to come, this film would be followed by an endless chain of sequels and rip-offs, many of them starring Bronson himself, reducing him to a stock character whose only attribute was blowing the bad guys away. A shame, considering he was once an internationally respected actor. "Death Wish" is nonetheless a well-crafted, tightly paced crime drama, despite some dated aspects. It still kept me interested throughout and made me more interested in viewing more of the star's other films--good or otherwise.

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Released by Paramount Pictures

Snake Eyes (1998)

Adequate, but unmemorable

[2 February 2003]

"Snake Eyes" is a stylistic triumph that is ultimately let down by a weak ending. Up to a point, it's a more than adequate thriller. A corrupt Atlantic City cop (Nicholas Cage) investigates the assassination of a respected politician at a boxing match. The more he looks, the more obvious it is that there was a conspiracy and cover-up. But who is behind it? And for what purpose? His only clue is a mysterious woman in white. His best friend is a naval officer (Gary Sinise) who is the only one he can trust (or can he?). The storyline is--quite frankly--pretty standard. There have been numerous other books and films dealing with government conspiracies and rouge members of the military and intelligence communities. Nothing special here. But the director's visual style makes it interesting--Brian DePalma doesn't let us down in this area. He employs some excellent camerawork to draw us into the story. The film begins with an unbroken, fifteen-minute shot that even its detractors have praised. The director made use of splitscreen in a memorable way when he did "Dressed to Kill," and he puts it to good use here; along with flashbacks, multiple perspectives are shown, and at least one of them is unreliable (but who?)

Alas, after a while, it runs out of steam. I can determine with certainty that neither DePalma or screenwriter David Koepp could decide on an appropriate ending for the story. The climax is completely strained and contrived, leaving us unsatisfied with the film as a whole. Also, much of the moral ambiguity is defused. When the film opens, we see a protagonist who is corrupt and opportunistic, having accepted many bribes in the past. However, by the time the movie ends, what was once drawn in shades of gray is polarized between bright white and pitch black. It's still watchable, but it makes you think, "is that it?" After the setup, it is not unreasonable to expect more, especially from the talent involved.

Nicholas Cage is fun to watch, though he really overdoes it at first, threatening to turn his character into a cartoon. Later, though, he settles down and gets serious. Gary Sinise is adequate, but I never really found his character particularly interesting. The supporting performances are solid. John Heard plays an opportunistic reporter, Stan Shaw a prizefighter who has been manipulated by the conspirators. Likewise, Carla Gugino is good as the "mystery woman" whose motives (and loyalties) are not immediately revealed. Luis Guzmán has a bit part as a hood. In the end, "Snake Eyes" is just another generic thriller, a middle-of-the-road outing for the director and star, both of whom have done much better in the past, and will undoubtedly do so in the future.

**1/2 (out of ****)

Released by Paramount Pictures and Touchstone Pictures

Gummo (1997)

Falls flat

[4/10 · 2 February 2003]

**possible spoilers**

After penning the screenplay for Larry Clark's controversial "Kids," Harmony Korine attracted instant notoriety before he was even out of his teens. It wasn't long before he negotiated a deal with the same producer to finance his own film as director. That film, known as "Gummo," attracted equal controversy in its own way--and is arguably even more grotesque in content. There is next to no plot to speak of. It's a group of loose vignettes about white trash in a crumbling, forgotten Ohio town (though it was actually filmed in Nashville). The film is intent on offending the sensitive viewer from the start, with a boy in a bunny hat urinating on traffic from a bridge. Two other boys hunt down cats to sell to the local supermarket. A man prostitutes his wife to local teens. A retarded girl runs around and sings for no apparent reason. Korine himself appears as a gay man making drunken advances at a dwarf. At the very end, there is an utterly disgusting scene that seems to have been put there simply for shock value. There's no point to any of this, and the more I think about it the more I am convinced that the filmmakers had no idea where they were going with the material. They seem to have thrown in these unpleasant things just to distract us from that fact. The film wanders aimlessly (like the characters), then it's just over.

I wonder what the actors thought of performing these scenes. Surely they didn't intend to make a bad film. They must have trusted the director to make sense of it all, but that may be an impossible task. Most of the performers are nonactors, as Korine intended to give the film a documentary-like feel. No problem there, but often he just sticks them in front of the camera and makes them act stupid. The most curious bit of casting must be Jacob Reynolds, as a very odd-looking teen with a short body and a long, oversized head. I'm not praising his performance or anything; he just stands out because he looks so weird. According to an interview, Korine cast him due to his performance in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial. His co-star, Nick Sutton, was selected after an appearance on "Sally Jesse Raphael" when he announced his glue-sniffing habits on national television. Judging from the film, the production crew seems to have been inspired to take up this habit. The only performer I remotely liked was Chloë Sevigny as a bored young woman, but I suspect she only agreed to appear in this thing because she was dating the director.

Very little in "Gummo" works, though the cinematography does have some merit. This must also be one of the most pretentious films I've seen. Korine claims to have been devising a new and improved form of filmmaking art. Does he really believe that, or is he just posturing to hide his lack of any real creative talent? I hope he's just inexperienced. Roger Ebert's positive review of his next film, "Julien Donkey-Boy," does suggest this. I'd like to think he can refine his techniques over time. If that is the case, I am willing to give him another chance. In the meantime, I'd recommend another film, "Boys Don't Cry." It had similar settings and characters--including one played by Chloë Sevigny--but it was a much more compelling film that offered genuine insight into its ill-fated characters. In contrast, "Gummo" fails to enlighten or inspire. Its creator would have you regard it as an "art film." And so it is. A bad art film. At least it tries to be something different and unique though.

*1/2 (out of ****)

Released by Fine Line Features

The Thing (1982)

One of Carpenter's best thrillers

[7/10 · 2 February 2003]

**definite spoilers**

Next to "Halloween," "The Thing" is perhaps John Carpenter's best film. Although it was a critical and commercial flop when first released, it has since gained its own cult following--not as large as the former, but large enough to convince horror fans to reevaluate it. Set near the South Pole, the film concerns a deadly space creature that infiltrates a scientific outpost. This being can absorb any living organism and duplicate its characteristics with chilling precision. If left unchecked, it may wipe out the human race. After a good twenty years, it still holds up for the most part. It is a simply-plotted but well-crafted effort, generating an eerie, desolate atmosphere, not unlike that of Ridley Scott's influential "Alien." Filmed in Alaska, the bleak cinematography makes it seem like it really was filmed in Antarctica. There is an acute feeling of isolation, the sense that we are thousands of miles away from any other human being. It is just them...and it.

"The Thing" is a more explicitly violent film than "Halloween," but delivers just as much in terms of good, honest shocks. There are moments that still compel the viewer to jump, moments that are genuinely creepy. The special effects work used to bring the alien to life are still very good--nice and gooey, and the fact that the creature makes its presence known when we least expect it only adds to the terror. Inevitably, it attempts to infiltrate this unfortunate group of people. The screenplay cleverly second-guesses the audience's attempts to devise the identity of the creature. Just when we think we've guessed who it is, the film surprises us. The paranoia and claustrophobia is nearly unbearable at times. The creepy music adds more to the atmosphere.

In some ways, this is arguably a better film than "Halloween;" Carpenter's pacing is more assured, and the shocks more intense. Yet, the characterizations prove to be the film's major weakness. Aside from Kurt Russell, most of the characters tend to be fairly interchangeable, unfortunately hampering the effectiveness of the material to some degree. It's still a well-made thriller that is obligory viewing for genre fans. I will not compare it to the 1951 original, unseen by myself. The remake is good enough to stand on its own merits, and many have argued that it is actually a superior film. Whatever its flaws, it delivers.

*** (out of ****)

Released by Universal Pictures

Monster's Ball (2001)

Good, but somewhat overpraised

[26 January 2003]

*possible spoiler*

"Monster's Ball" is about two human beings--a man and a woman--thrown together by personal tragedy. They are drawn together out of pure desperation, by an aching need to feel some emotion through their numbing grief. She is a black woman whose husband has been executed for murder--sadly, this is not the first loss she is destined to suffer. He is a racist prison guard responsible for supervising said execution, having been in charge of death row, and is still dealing with his son's recent suicide. An unlikely match, to be sure, but they turn to each other not out of love, but because of circumstance. They are, of course, unaware of their connection, but it is inevitable that they will discover this fact. Who will be the first to know, and what will come of it? The screenplay refuses to settle the issue with easy, formulaic Hollywood solutions. It is a compelling drama intertwining the issues of racism, loss, and the relationships between generations.

The dependable Billy Bob Thornton turns in some solid, low-key work here. He plays a complex character, a man who has had racist attitudes forced upon him from day one. He is unexpectedly thrust into a situation where his old ways are obsolete--in the past, he did not hesitate to aim a gun at black children who ventured onto his property, but now he is in a sexual union with a black woman. This would have been absolutely unimaginable before, yet it has happened. Fate has dealt him an unexpected hand. This character could have been mishandled in any number of ways, but Thornton makes the transition believable. Of course, the best performance comes from Halle Berry as the ill-fated woman who has suffered more personal loss than she can be reasonably expected to cope with. She gives us moments that are genuinely painful and emotionally shattering. These are raw, honest scenes that she never had the opportunity to work with in her big-studio films. Surely, her future work will be anticipated. There is also an excellent supporting performance from Peter Boyle, as Thornton's ailing father. The character is a despicable, pathetic racist who will never have a chance to transcend his attitudes as his son did. This aspect of the film shows that racism is something we learn--and can only be unlearned with great difficulty. Unfortunately, Heath Ledger is underused as the son--one wonders how this guy's attitudes would have progressed under other circumstances.

"Monster's Ball" is a worthwhile film, but certain factors do prevent it from completely hitting the bull's-eye. Certain plot points seem rather contrived, though perhaps the filmmakers intended for coincidence to play a thematic role in the story. The direction may seem a bit stagy, but the actors are compelling enough to make this a relatively minor point. The film could also be accused of being somewhat overbaked and melodramatic at times. Nonetheless, the film's strong points shine through more often than not. Its emotional honesty, compelling social themes, and powerful performances make this a winner. There has been some criticism of Halle Berry winning an Oscar for her role, but I suspect that her detractors have not even seen this film. It is an award well-earned.

*** (out of ****)

Released by Lions Gate Films

Invaders from Mars (1986)

Okay effort from Hooper

[10 January 2003]

**possible spoilers**

In the mid-1980s, director Tobe Hooper signed a three-picture deal with the Cannon Group, offering him a rare opportunity at being a big-time filmmaker. Unfortunately, this endeavor was a failure in the long run, and his career has never recovered. Due to circumstances beyond his control, the films they did together were generally unsuccessful, critically and commercially. The only one to make any money was his unfairly condemned "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2", an uneven but often invigorating dark comedy that bore little resemblance to the original. "Lifeforce" was one of Cannon's most expensive projects, and possibly its biggest flop. A long, ungainly mess (especially the butchered U.S. version), the film did not win favor with the public, despite the presence of the frequently naked Mathilda May as a space vampiress. However, the film that suffered the most was "Invaders from Mars," a remake of the 1953 cult classic. Cannon repeatedly slashed the film's budget and severely compromised Hooper's creative vision. Furthermore, it was recut during postproduction. The result is not a complete disaster, but it does fall short of its aims. Despite a solid first half, it runs out of inspiration later on, becoming just another generic alien invasion movie.

One night, a young boy sees a Martin spaceship land near his home turf. Needless to say, no one believes him--but everyone is starting to act strange--especially his teacher. These early scenes have an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" vibe there; while not highly original, the first part of the film is solid enough, generating some suspense as the boy realizes that the aliens are taking over. His only friend is the school nurse, but who will save them? From this point on, the material could have gone in any direction, but it ends up running out of ideas and becoming another predictable exercise. Eventually, the Marine Corps find that something is amiss and fight the Martins, but this portion of the film is simply not as exciting as it should be--the surprises have run out. The film still benefits from solid production values; the interiors of the Martin ship are good at times, with some colorful lighting effects, but the weak script still hurts the film.

As the little boy, Hunter Carson does a reasonably good job; though acting scared once in a while wouldn't have hurt, at least he's not annoying. Karen Black is okay but not exceptional. The best performance goes to Louise Fletcher as a possessed schoolteacher--her condition only seems to enhance her more unpleasant tendencies. Timothy Bottoms and Laraine Newman are adequate as the ill-fated parents, as is James Karen, playing the Marine general. "Invaders from Mars" needed more to keep things interesting. Some more plot twists could have made this a winner, but instead it is content to stay on the worn path, playing the same note over and over again. It's a passable effort, but not one worth going out of your way to check out. Tobe Hooper has made better films...but not lately.

** (out of ****)

Released by Cannon Films

April Fool's Day (1986)

Bottom-of-the-barrel bore

[10 January 2003]

**possible spoiler**

I think that "April Fool's Day" is one of the very first slasher films to openly make fun of its own subgenre, beating "Scream" by a full decade. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near as entertaining, although some horror fans would readily contest this statement. I would have liked to give the film a somewhat more positive review than this, but the fact of that matter is that it bored me. I didn't expect a whole lot, just an amusing hour and a half. What I got was--in my opinion--nearly devoid of thrills or surprises. It just felt dead in the water. The screenwriter, Danilo Bach, penned "Beverly Hills Cop," so you'd expect something much wittier than this--what's the deal here? It doesn't help that Fred Walton's direction is flat and completely uninspired, in TV-movie style (indeed, much of his career was spent on television projects, which one hopes fared better than this). Then again, he had little to work with. Whoever deserves the blame for this, the film is badly paced, wandering aimlessly in search of something with entertainment value. The only good part was the famed twist ending, which I will not reveal here. As I see it, this is the only part of the movie that really has any life in it (apart from a somewhat amusing videotaped sequence early on).

The cast does what they can under the circumstances. Amy Steel makes a likable heroine who isn't let in on the big secret till the very end. As in "Friday the 13th, Part 2," she is a genuinely believable character--a girl in a slasher movie who isn't a dumb bimbo. That's not to say there isn't one in this movie--Deborah Goodrich plays the slut who doesn't even have the good sense to display more skin, a clear violation of the subgenre's rules. Ken Olandt is adequate as Steel's boyfriend. Deborah Foreman is pretty good actually--she helps the film mislead the viewer, making us jump to obvious conclusions. Thomas F. Wilson (best known as Biff in the "Back to the Future" series) has fun as a hormone-driven young man, though Jay Baker is annoying as the obligory jerk.

I feel a little bad treating the movie in such a negative manner, but I'd feel even worse if I lied and said I enjoyed myself. Certainly it would be unreasonable to expect high art, but couldn't it be as least as fun as "Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives?" That film, released later that year by the same studio, rarely deviated from formula, but it always kept my attention and was never boring. Its creators had some fun with slasher conventions while also delivering some real thrills (I jumped at least once), overall being an entertaining junk movie. Some people may have felt the same way about "April Fool's Day," but I just didn't get anything out of it. The lack of gore or explicit nudity doesn't bother me that much, but the dull script did. Where is Wes Craven when you need him? The guy could have at least given it a little zest.

* (out of ****)

Released by Paramount Pictures

Braindead (1992)

The most violent movie ever made...and it's damn funny too

[4 January 2003]

I have seen and reviewed numerous films, and "Dead Alive" is one of the few that defy any conventional analysis. It is so gleefully offensive, so unabashedly over-the-top, that most will find it difficult to objectively evaluate. Some viewers will consider it a tour de force, a masterpiece among spatterfests. Others will denounce it as the most violent, disgusting thing ever made. Depending on your tastes, they could both be right. It is certainly the most gruesome film I've seen. A young man's widowed mother is bitten by some sort of "rat monkey," eventually transforming her into a zombie who bites others and spreads her infliction among others. The unspeakable ensues. Certainly, if director Peter Jackson had tried to take the material seriously, the film would be an utter disaster, or at least not be as watchable. He wisely refuses to play it straight at any time, making sure everything is appropriately cartoony and surreal, with swooping camera movements and utterly absurd situations. Its critics were missing the mark when they said it was so unrealistic--that was the point! The film benefits from an energy and wit that is usually lacking in most gore flicks.

The actors do a good job, considering the admittedly difficult task they were faced with--how to play the material. It is fortunate that all concerned came to the realization that the best way to act in a comedy is to pretend you're in a serious movie. This approach paid off; Timothy Balme and Diana Peñalver are very effective as a young couple inexplicitly faced with the powers of darkness. They have real chemistry together, and elicit genuine sympathy from the audience. An important aspect of making a successful horror film is to give us characters to care about, and "Dead Alive" is an unqualified success in this area. Without them, it would merely be an exercise, but with them, there is a center of morality that kept me connected to the story on an emotional level. Elizabeth Moody adds good support as the hero's domineering mother, who never fails to get on the nerves whether as a human or zombie. Ian Watkin plays a troublesome uncle who only cares about himself, and whose comeuppance is most welcome. Stuart Devenie plays a man-of-action priest who gets the film's most memorable line while fighting the zombie onslaught.

I cannot blame anyone who lacks the stomach to sit through "Dead Alive." Indeed, at times even I found it to be a bit much. Yet, I cannot help but admire its sheer all-or-nothing approach--Jackson certainly had guts to film this, and persistence to secure financing. The subplot about the baby zombie is utterly tasteless, yet undeniably hilarious. As a matter of fact, even "From Dusk Till Dawn" (as good as it was) never went as far as this movie did. One is rendered speechless, unable to immediately process what he's seen. It is not easy to award this film a star or numerical rating. Some would argue that ratings do not apply for the movie. I am judging it by what it set out to do--provide a roller coaster ride of splattery thrills. On that basis, it succeeds, although some would make a similar observation in a much more negative light.

*** (out of ****)

Released by Trimark Pictures

Alien 3 (1992)

The critics need to take another look

[7/10 · 4 January 2003]

*minor spoilers*

"Alien 3" has proven to be the most hotly debated entry in the legendary science fiction series. When it was first released, the response from both critics and the public was hostile--the film killed off the remaining survivors from the previous film ("Aliens"), leaving Ripley, the series' female protagonist, on her own again. After its action-packed predecessor, viewers were also disappointed to find that this new film went back to the basics; instead of an action movie it was a gothic, existentialist drama. To boot, it was a dark, gloomy film where absolutely nothing went right for any of the characters. It's somber and sober throughout, with barely a ray of hope to be seen. Creatively, the film had a troubled production history, with various writers and directors being attached to the project, but quitting. Finally, music video director David Fincher (known for his work with Madonna) was hired, but his efforts were hampered by studio interference; the frequent rewrites and subsequent postproduction edits made for an uneven film. Yet, looking back on it after a good decade, I find that most people were much too hard on it. It has numerous flaws, but its dramatic and artistic qualities still deserve to be acknowledged.

As Ripley, Sigourney Weaver has proven to be the true backbone of the Alien trilogy. Here, she accepts her fate and even looks forward to her inevitable end. Her eventual demise is absolutely logical in the context of the series; cloning her in the next film was nothing more than an act of shameless commercialism in a movie that will never have the durability of its predecessors. Here, she allows her character to express the emotional toll the aliens have inflicted on her for what seems like an eternity. She loses everyone she has ever cared about, and her grief is so genuine it scarcely feels like acting. She shines in one powerful, brutal scene where Newt (see the previous film) is dead and autopsied--it is so painful some viewers will wish to turn away.

While many of the supporting characters are not very well-defined, there are still some standouts. As the leader of the prisoners, Charles S. Dutton is the most complex supporting character, one who has discovered his faith and become a new person, even after the terrible crimes he's committed in the past. I liked Charles Dance as the out-of-luck doctor who befriends Ripley, though is character is killed off a bit too early--their chemistry could have helped the film a bit more. Brian Glover does well as the bitter warden who refuses to believe what is happening around him, until he discovers the truth all too late. Ralph Brown is sympathetic as the slow-headed but well-meaning administrative assistant, one of the few characters who don't immediately emote hostility towards Ripley. There is not a single bad performance, despite the characterization problems.

I admit I have been inconsistent in my own views of "Alien 3." The first time I watched it, I felt let down, but upon subsequent viewings, its merits have become more clear to me. Visually, the film is nothing less than stunning at times. Set on a nearly abandoned prison colony, the film creates an atmosphere of despair and decay. The dominant color scheme consists of rust browns and oranges. The cinematography is stylish; the most immediately apparent visual trick is the alien POV shots. There is a brilliantly directed funeral scene, intercut with the newly gestated alien. The effect is simultaneously melancholy, disturbing and moving. David Fincher's direction helps sustain the film despite its formulaic structure, creating memorable images and shot compositions. The set designers have spared no expense at making the film look as authentic as possible; so convincing is their work that one finds it difficult to believe that it was filmed right here on earth. In fact, this may point out one of the biggest problems people had with the film: it could never truly qualify as escapism. This is not a film to be watched casually--it is genuinely depressing at times, enough to generate a pang of sorrow in the heart. As a science fiction film, this is as close to realistic plausibility as the genre ever comes. Like Ridley Scott's original, "Alien 3" takes place in the actual universe we inhabit. In the coming years, it will hopefully earn the respect it deserves, despite its flaws.

*** (out of ****)

Released by Twentieth Century Fox

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)

Big disappointment from Carpenter

[3/10 · 31 December 2002]

Despite his loyal cult following, John Carpenter's filmmaking resume remains a most uneven one. His career began on a high note with the legendary "Halloween" (still regarded as his best work), and other slightly less-known but still notable thrillers such as "The Thing," "Escape From New York," and "Dark Star." However, in the past decade or so, even his fans have admitted that his recent work has been mediocre, sometimes just plain bad. His latest film, "Ghosts of Mars," has served as another nail in his coffin. For many of his fans, "In the Mouth of Madness" was his only recent film to live up to his past success. As much as I would like to agree with that assessment, my commitment to writing honest reviews compels me to state my opinion that it is not. I truly envy those who enjoyed it--perhaps this is one of these movies that one must be on a certain wavelength in order to like. From my perspective, it was just plain boring. I was looking forwards to this one, regarded in many circles as one of the director's best films. Watching it, I had the sinking suspicion that Carpenter is simply overrated. I hope completing his filmography will give me a more balanced assessment of his work, but even with my incomplete knowledge, it is not difficult to see his creative limitations. I can't help but feel a bit cheated.

The plot concerns an insurance investigator trying to locate a missing horror novelist, whose books are so popular they have begun to inspire violent behavior in his fans--a crisis that is reaching epidemic proportions. He happens upon a small town that seems to have been based directly on the author's books. It is not long before the powers of darkness make their presence known--they have been using literature as a means of carrying out their sadistic plan against mankind. While not officially adapted from any particular book, "Mouth" owes more than a bit to Stephen King. Making a central character a writer has been used numerous times by the real-life author (see "Misery" and "The Dark Half"). I recall one reviewer saying that the town bears some resemblance to the setting of "Needful Things."

Of course, all this is much more ambitious than the average horror movie, with some potentially interesting ideas, but the filmmakers fail to give the audience any reason why we should care about the protagonist. Sam Neill does his best, but the pace is tedious and the material is treated in a manner that is completely uninspired--it just lacks that "spark of energy." As an editor from the publisher, Julie Carmen is simply dreadful; her wooden performance could serve as a cure for insomnia. Charlton Heston plays the publisher, but he fares no better. As the ill-fated novelist, Jurgen Prochnow does what he can, but is nonetheless overshadowed by the boring movie he's trapped in. Finally, the ending is actually fairly interesting, but by then it's too late. The film is slickly photographed, but there are next to no chills. Perhaps "Halloween" was a bit drawn-out at times, yet it still displayed a life and strong directorial presence lacking in much of Carpenter's work. Even "Prince of Darkness," while uneven, nonetheless had some genuinely creepy moments. "In the Mouth of Madness" is simply a turkey that disappointed me in every respect.

*1/2 (out of ****)

Released by New Line Cinema

Shocker (1989)

Wes Craven's new franchise?

[6/10 · 25 December 2002]

**some spoilers**

Horace Pinker is a serial killer infamous for the slaughter of several families. Through a link he shares with a young man, he is eventually caught and sentenced to die in the electric chair. However, the operation goes horribly wrong due to his use of occult forces, and his spirit lives on to continue his work by possessing the living. Wes Craven's "Shocker" was an attempt for the cult writer-director to replicate the success of his smash hit, "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Having sold the sequel rights, he decided to start a whole new franchise, using many of the same elements, especially the idea of having the ghost of a dead mass murderer haunt the living. Alas, the film did not strike a chord with the public as he had hoped, and as of this date there has yet to be a sequel of any kind. "Shocker" isn't a bad film if you don't take it too seriously, but despite its technical merits it lacks that special "something" that made "Nightmare" a cult classic to this day. Still, it's kind of fun if not watched with inflated expectations.

The film is pretty silly, but Craven makes it slick-looking and keeps things moving at a reasonably good pace. The material downright goofy at times, but it's rarely boring or eventless. There are plenty of nasty deaths and disfigurements to keep the gorehounds watching, not the least of which is having Pinker bite off a prison guard's finger. There is a ghastly aftermath of one particular murder that is mean-spirited, even for a horror movie. The climatic special effects sequence, depicting Peter Berg's protagonist pursuing the killer through TV-land, is very well-done. Craven's talent at using ordinary settings to create his close-to-home brand of horror is apparent, as is his satiric jabs at popular culture (brought to fruition seven years later in "Scream"). There is even a cameo by the infamous Timothy Leary as a televangelist.

As the psycho killer, Mitch Pileggi carries much of the film on his shoulders. He seems to be less of a human being than a savage, destructive beast, and his efforts do bring a sense of urgency to this admittedly flawed effort. In contrast, Peter Berg (sad to say) does not play a very convincing lead. I am sure that he gave it his best, but at this point he still had a lot to learn as an actor (though I am told that time and practice has improved his work). Michael Murphy is adequate as the foster father/cop, but he doesn't really have the screen presence necessary for the material. This is an over-the-top movie where a more energetic approach would have been appropriate. Likewise, Camille Cooper (as the dead girlfriend) does not embarrass herself, but she still isn't my first choice for the role.

At this point, there is no use in pondering what would have become of the film had it been successful enough for any sequels to be greenlit. It may not have found favor with audiences, but looking back on it after thirteen years, "Shocker" is still reasonably diverting as a junk movie. The video cover makes it clear that the film is not for those who dislike trashpics, so you have been warned. This movie isn't nearly as bad as most critics made it out to be. I can admire it on a craft level, though it would be indefensible by any artistic standard. It's a lot of fun at times, and a must for fans of B-grade horror.

**1/2 (out of ****)

Released by Universal Pictures

House II: The Second Story (1987)

Fun sequel, ignore the crabby reviews

[6/10 · 17 December 2002]

*spoilers*

I don't understand why horror fans continue to give "House II" such a bad rap. Yes, it has nothing to do with the storyline of the original, but I think it would be hard to make a sequel to such a self-contained movie. With that in mind, the filmmakers were wise to take on an entirely new storyline with a fresh batch of characters and odd creatures. If you're willing to accept it as a stand-alone film, then it's certainly worth renting at least once. The film is just as amusing and entertaining as the Steve Miner original, and does not deserve all the negative comments given to it over the years (remember the scathing reference in "Scream 2?"). Like its predecessor, it's not really a straight horror movie, but more of a comic fantasy, as the hero deals with a crystal skull, Aztecs, a baby pterodactyl, and dead gunslingers. It's slick and fast-paced, with no pretensions as to its real nature; just a goofy campfest.

The strongest aspect of the film is a genuinely touching performance from the late Royal Dano, as the protagonist's resurrected ancestor. When we first see him, it appears as if he is going to be the villain of the film, but it turns out that he is just a harmless undead guy. The character generates sympathy as he realizes that his youth is long gone, never to return despite his most fervent wishes. This is a deliberate reversal of the traditional use of the undead as a destructive force in movies; this time we actually see one on the "good side." The most amusing bit of casting is a pre-"Politically Incorrect" Bill Maher as a sardonic record exec; I was sure surprised to see him listed in the opening credits. Also of note is "Plan 9 From Outer Space's" Gregory Walcott in a small role as the sheriff towards the end.

Note that this is a PG-13 film, as opposed to the original's very mild R-rating. Unlike most eighties horror, "House II" actually has a happy ending, as the hero rides off into the sunset with his woman and friends. It's good, clean, silly fun. It may not be the most coherent, logical film in the world--indeed, it's all over the place and threatens to become a bit too much--but it's more entertaining than the reviews would have you expect. The special effects are decent for its time and budget. I wish I had seen this movie when I was ten; I'm sure I would have really enjoyed it.

**1/2 (out of ****)

Released by New World Pictures

House (1985)

Enjoyable horror comedy

[6/10 · 17 December 2002]

**some spoilers**

Sean S. Cunningham will be forever remembered as the man who brought "Friday the 13th" to life. Although a financial success, the film did hurt his career by bottling him up into the horror genre. As most of the films he produced or directed flopped, his chances of breaking into the mainstream grew ever dimmer. Wes Craven has had a similar problem; although his films did considerably better, rarely does he have a chance to dabble into non-horror. Cunningham should not be completely dismissed, though; he also gave us the slight but amusing horror comedy "House," and the equally enjoyable "House II." The original was helmed by Steve Miner, director of two of the "Friday the 13th" films (parts 2 and 3, to be precise). Based on these movies, one wouldn't think he was capable of crafting a more lighthearted approach to the genre. But there it is; a horror film that goes for the jokes and not the gore. A tormented Vietnam vet moves into his late aunt's old house, hoping to complete his latest novel. There, he must battle various demons, not only of the supernatural type, but his own self torment and the loss of his missing son.

William Katt is not a particularly accomplished actor, but he is nonetheless likable and generates a great deal of sympathy for his plight. He realizes that the key to making a good comedy is to pretend the material is serious, making everything seem more "real." There are several ghoulishly silly incidents; the best gag involves a possessed severed hand, which probably inspired "Evil Dead II," released the following year. The scene involving the ugly fat creature is also effective. Miner gives the film a slick look and delivers humor and suspense in equal doses. This is not the best the subgenre has to offer (that honor may go to "Ghostbusters"), but it is a worthy effort that makes a more than adequate serving as a party movie on Halloween night. However, it still doesn't quite have the inspiration to go a step further.

The ending is interesting enough, as Katt finds a doorway into the netherworld to rescue his son--and finds opposition by an old combat partner from beyond the grave. I admit incorporating the Vietnam elements could have been distasteful, especially in light of Oliver Stone's concurrent "Platoon," but it's simply impossible to take this movie too seriously for any significant length of time. This is a "filmmaker's movie," and a movie for horror fans--this is probably a good way to introduce your children into the genre. The special effects are competently done, given its limited budget. George Wendt gives a good supporting performance as the nosy next-door neighbor. "House" is good, cheesy eighties horror, the cinematic equivalent of visiting a haunted house.

**1/2 (out of ****)

Released by New World Pictures

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre-lite

[5/10 · 17 December 2002]

**definite spoilers**

After breaking into horror films with the notorious "Last House on the Left," director Wes Craven made another attempt to corner the market with "The Hills Have Eyes." The film was an attempt to cash in on the success of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" by imitating the formula; a family is trapped in the desert wilderness on a cross-country trip, only to be stalked by another family--of cannibals. Who will survive and who will be someone's next lunch? The film has an eerie, desolate atmosphere, its low budget giving it a feel of gritty authenticity. It refuses to gloss over the violence, making everything feel nasty and queasy. However, it doesn't really work, despite its best efforts. Tobe Hooper's landmark film still holds up today, retaining its scares and creepiness. Craven's film has its moments, but doesn't have the same impact today. It often feels more like a pale copy than a genuine original.

The cannibal family is often annoying, unlike the disturbing weirdoes in TCM. There are times when they arouse our irritation instead of fear or terror, which is not a good thing in a horror film. Leatherface could easily dispatch them in short time, period. However, the bald guy is kinda creepy (not to mention ugly) and is more worthy of being a horror movie killer. There are a couple of gory scenes that are genuinely cringe-inducing. One scene has an implied rape that makes one's skin crawl. I did like the way the family dog is incorporated into the film, actively fighting against the cannibals; he is truly angered at the death of the other dog and seeks revenge. Interesting plot device, though that has to be one smart dog. The performances are generally adequate.

This film has gained a small cult following, but to me it isn't really worth checking out unless you're a horror fan. Its unoriginality and uneven pacing, among other things, have ensured that it has not aged very well, for the most part. Hooper never felt obligated to include an explosion in his film, but Craven apparently did, since he was willing to stretch out an already limited budget on a bit of pyrotechnics. There are isolated moments in this this minor thriller that hint at what could have been a more effective film. The stark location cinematography is an definite asset. All what they really needed was a little imagination and a bit of creative daring and we could really have had a winner here.

** (out of ****)

Released by Vanguard