doctor13 Reviews

We Got a Monkey's Paw (2018)

Excellent Comedy Horror Short

[9/10 · 29 September 2020]

WE GOT A MONKEY'S PAW is a funny, well-written comedy horror film that moves at a breathless, dizzying pace. The acting is wonderful, especially by Zach Ogle, who helps sell the situation and the comedy. Definitely worth checking out!

Crack Whore (2012)

About as Un-PC as you can get...but it's still Funny.

[6/10 · 26 August 2019]

A young woman hooked on crack becomes a prostitute to pay for her drugs, but when she's hired by a group of rednecks as a birthday present, she is gang-raped and toss out. Later, taken in by another young woman, the junkie decides to go back to the scene of the crime and get revenge.

First, the film is all over the place and never tells a real story. It's mostly a showcase for Christopher Raff, who plays the mentally-challenged, nasal birthday boy, who spouts the most hysterical, insane sexual things. Kudos must also go to George Troester as Cornfed, whose face continually shifts from expression to expression in a way Jim Carrey can only dream of.

Is it crude? Yes. Is it offensive? Yes. Does it look like it was shot on weekends for a dollar and a quarter? Absolutely. But the humor of the performances elevate this from some backyard project to something that's definitely not for the easily-offended or faint of heart, but for those people who like to get together at the silliest, dopiest things and just have fun.

Chupacabra Territory (2016)

This is what a found footage movie should be!!

[8/10 · 12 August 2019]

A group of people go into the woods looking for the legendary chupacabra and find terror. A very entertaining found footage film where the camerawork is actually decent and doesn't instill headaches, the acting is natural and there are actually developments in the story. Plus the amazing Sarah Nicklin never fails to impress!

I Am Your Father (2015)

There is another...

[4/10 · 22 June 2017]

Actor David Prowse played the body of Darth Vader in the original STAR WARS trilogy and was shocked when he learned that another actor's face was to be used during the famous unmasking scene in RETURN OF THE JEDI. Documentary director Marcos Cabata decides to rectify this mistake by re-filming his own version of the scene and surprising Prowse by having him play Anakin Skywalker. This is his intention, which he states at the film's beginning, then pretty much forgets about it until thirty minutes from the end. Between those two moments, we get an hour of Prowse's career history and him complaining about how George Lucas did him wrong.

This documentary fails for several reasons: 1. The underlying theme/story here should have been the recreation of the unmasking scene with Prowse, but Cabata doesn't even tell Prowse about the offer until near the end of the film, and Prowse's reaction is anti- climactic, to say the least; 2. Cabata seems to be promoting himself as much he is telling the story of Prowse, and it's noticeable and irritating; 3. Once Lucasfilm realized that Cabata was making them out to be the villains of the piece, they refused to have anything to do with the documentary, and didn't give their permission for Cabata to re-shoot the scene with Prowse, so, with this being the film's main drive, once the reshot scene is shown before an audience, WE DON'T GET TO SEE IT. Cabot doesn't even show the audience's reaction to it!! Absolutely ridiculous and a major fail on his part, making me question the intention of the documentary in the first place.

And finally, the main reason for Prowse's getting snubbed by Lucas, the doc ascertains, is because before EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was released, he revealed to a newspaper that Darth Vader was Luke's father. Prowse denies that he talked to any reporter or spilled any such information, and Lucas blocked him from future Star Wars events because of it. The film says that this is the only way the secret could have been spilled. However, I never read that article and I knew going in to the film on opening day, that Vader was Luke's father. How? Because the novelization of the movie was released BEFORE the film opened! Yet the documentary makes no mention of this as another way to exonerate Prowse. Only for the hardest of Star Wars fans.

In the Dark (II) (2004)

When you smell that smell

[4/10 · 10 September 2009]

I hate movies like this because the germ of a good idea is there and you can see some talent in front of and behind the camera, but the final product is so far off base that it makes me really irritated.

I think the actors were probably good, although it seems they were allowed to improvise too much. A stronger script would have been very beneficial here. As someone else noted, their characters were amazingly shallow. You could take any two of them and swap the actors portraying them and you wouldn't have been able to tell. And all they talk about is drugs. This reveals little about their characters and gets boring after a few minutes, but it just doesn't stop.

Other problems? It takes too long to get to the meat of the story, i.e., getting the kids inside the asylum. We get long, drawn out explanations by a detective and a nurse and the kids themselves filling in the exposition, only none of them can muster up enough enthusiasm to tell the tale without taking mini-breaks for smoking, typing or horseplay. If they don't care about the legend of Lizzie, why should we?

When the kids finally do realize that Lizzie is still in the asylum, they have moments of panic, then they revert back to their druggy horseplay, then another panic, then horseplay, then panic again. It seems to me that if I knew a psycho was running around loose trying to kill me, I would go to and remain on Red Alert and not calm back down like nothing had happened.

The editing was awful. There was no artistic buildup of suspense, the lack of sound in some security camera shots but admitted in others was jarring. I got confused several times about who was holding the camcorder and in fact, how many camcorders there actually were. For a film that claimed to be a real documentary, the use of scary music and hard rock was out of place. The movie didn't know if it was pretending to be a documentary or a real movie.

The good things: while I think the director tipped his hand by showing us LIzzie's scarred face near the beginning, her determined running style was truly frightening. Whenever she ran through a shot, I usually felt a chill. The shot of her face in the window being lit by the flashlight was a good one, too. But I would have given her a weapon. Strangling kids isn't that scary. I liked the idea of her sucking out Barry's eyeball, but if you'd included in the legend that Lizzie carried a sharped spoon for scooping out eyes, it would have strengthened her fear factor. The revelation by Drako (it's not really a twist) at the end was good, but didn't have the umph that it required. And could we have heard some screams as the fire spread and the door was held shut?

I applaud the production of indie films, but this one had such potential and just missed its target. Pity.

Gutterballs (2008)

Ick

[1/10 · 13 August 2009]

When I saw the cover for this movie, I thought that perhaps it might be a fun, gory horror- comedy in the vein of some recent Aussie films. I was wrong. Gory, yes. Fun, no.

GUTTERBALLS is a movie that tries to emulate those bad 80's straight-to-video slasher films, and does so with some success, but ultimately fails. Yes, I get that the director is trying to be "hardcore", balls out, take no prisoners, and probably Tarantino, with his use of graphic oral sex, male and female genitalia and gore, and if he'd just stuck to the gore, he might have succeeded.

Was it amateurishly shot and acted? Yes. But it's spoofing 80's horror flicks, so that wasn't a problem for me. I hated three specific things:

1. The rape scene. I've read other reviews here that mention its brutality, its length, but no one mentioned that it was shot in a titillating way, sexually exploiting the victim's nude body. This was a rape scene that is intended to be arousing, to make guys laugh and nudge each other instead of be horrified. Shame on the director.

2. The use of the F word. I'm no prude, but when every other word is the F word, then you know that either untalented actors are improvising their dialogue, or the writer is either untalented or lazy or both.

3. As a gay man, it made me sick to hear the other F word, "faggot" being screamed out so much. The movie is really homophobic as again, either improvising actors or a lazy, untalented writer or an insensitive director let this hate word be slung around with such frequency. And the tranny, after being murdered by a bowling pin forced down her throat (yuk yuk) has the ultimate indignity of having her male sex organ mutilated into the beginnings of a female sex organ. I felt like I was being gay-bashed on my couch watching this movie.

I love horror films, thoughtful or dopey, gory or dry, but there seemed to be little thought put into this, as though the director made a film for 12-year-old adults.

Trailer Park of Terror (2008)

Depressing

[4/10 · 21 October 2008]

I agree with the other posters here that the film looks great, is cut wonderfully and the acting is stellar. Some of the humor is good, and there are several trailer park in-jokes that will probably offend anyone who actually LIVES in a trailer park.

My problem with the film is that evil gets the upper hand at the beginning and keeps it throughout the film. The kids and the minister have no chance once they have their accident. The evil characters are in control and once you realize that there is no way out, no way to kill the undead and no happy ending, all suspense is gone, all dramatic tension is gone and the film is simply about special effects and screaming. It tries to be a mix of Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE and DEVIL'S REJECTS, but fails at achieving either.

The Hamiltons (2006)

Good film, but where are the conclusions?

[5/10 · 18 April 2007]

As has been described elsewhere, THE HAMILTONS is sort of a mixture of LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE. A parent-less family of five, the Hamiltons kill and kidnap people, although we don't know exactly why until the end. The teenage boy, Francis, is the only one who seems to be having doubts about the family's exploits, which he documents with a camcorder.

There are several teen angst themes dealt with here: the lack of privacy, the frightening concept of one's place in the world, a first crush, longing for a better life, etc. The performances are all very good, too.

My biggest problem with the film, though is that a lot of the smaller sub-stories aren't tied up and left inconclusive. Oldest brother David is obviously struggling with his homosexuality. The twins begin challenging David's authority, even going so far as to hinting that they might kill him if he tries to restrain them. Wendell torments his brother Francis repeatedly. The twins kill with abandon and no care as to who the victims are and if their disappearances will start massive manhunts, and they don't! The main theme here seems to be that family blood is thicker than other people's blood, which is fine, but I wanted some conclusions to the story lines above, and I wasn't given any. This left me with an unsatisfied feeling of the film not being "finished", and as a result, prevented me from fully enjoying the movie as much as I might have.

The Uninvited Guest (2004)

Lurking out for number 1

[7/10 · 3 March 2007]

Okay, this is what I think happened (SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS!!): Felix and Vera have broken up, and he is lonely. His neighbor, Martin, who is constantly trying to find things to do to avoid his wife Claudia since the accident which has left her paralyzed, discovers the tunnel in his basement and tries to figure out where it goes. This leads him to Felix's house, where after scoping out its street location, Martin decides that the tunnel ends in his neighbor's basement, so he contrives a way to get inside. He pretends to need to make an urgent phone call, and once inside, Martin asks Felix if he has a basement and upon learning that he does, he returns to his own house, where his wife Claudia locks him in their basement.

Martin, realizing that he will die of insulin shock if he doesn't get out, uses a pickaxe on the wall of the tunnel hoping to escape into Felix's basement. Felix hears the pounding of the pickaxe on the wall and is being driven crazy by the noises, which Vera believes is a loose bedroom window shutter banging in the breeze. Felix and Vera make love, but Felix later finds her missing from their bed. He goes to the kitchen, where he hears the voice of Claudia talking to Martin about being discovered by Bruno echoing through the tunnel into his house, but he mistakenly thinks that it is Vera talking to the intruder. He enters the kitchan to find her alone. Vera, naturally, has not heard the voices and doesn't know what Felix is talking about, so she gets angry at his accusations and leaves.

Felix becomes more paranoid by the thought that the man is still in his house, so after the accidental death of Mrs. Meuller (the dog was just running upstairs and her fall WAS an accident), he acquires a gun and goes home where he sees the shadow of an intruder in his attic. He shoots them sight unseen, then in a fit of vengeance, locks up his house so the stranger will die inside and he'll be rid of him once and for all. Felix destroys his alarm system in the event that the intruder gets a door or window open but is too weak to escape, the police will not be summoned.

Felix drives to a spot in the neighborhood to wait while his captive dies, but 2 kids see his drawing of Martin and recognize the man. Felix goes to Martin's house and breaks in, returning the favor, but soon becomes obsessed with Claudia, who (possibly in Felix's mind) resembles Vera. Bruno, a friend of Martin's, is in unrequited love with Claudia, and when they realize someone is in the house, they chase Felix into the basement, where he discovers the tunnel. He follows it and finds Martin, dead, then escapes back into his own house through the hole Martin has started. Wounded in the back by Bruno, Felix has to know who he shot in the attic and he drags himself to the door where he sees through a hole she made trying to escape, Vera lying on the floor, wounded and bleeding to death. She had returned to his house, using her keys to get in, to look for his portrait of her. As Felix watches her, he is shocked to hear her talking to her unborn fetus, which is undoubtedly his child.

Does this sound cohesive? Did I miss anything?

Frankenstein vs. the Creature from Blood Cove (2005)

Frankenstein Meets the Penthouse Pets

[2/10 · 23 February 2007]

I have one positive thing to say about this film: the black-and-white cinematography was excellent! Too bad that's the only good thing I can say about the film. Dumb plot, wild over-acting, offensive gay character, rubbery monsters, and that's just the beginning. The movie doesn't know what it wants to be: horror film or camp comedy. It succeeds at neither and fails at both.

Which is unfortunate. The enthusiasm seems to be there, but while it is a slick-looking film, it's Grade-Z roots scream louder than the stereotypical gay character (why is he even there?).

Also, since it seems to be playing on the concept of the Universal monsters, this might lure small children into watching, and it is definitely an R-rated flick, with lots of topless women posing and touching themselves in the water, which seems to be the real reason for this film's existence. And the ending is just dumb. Why make the ghost of the doctor more powerful than the ghosts of the monsters? Is the director in love with that character? I'm a fan of the old Universal classics, and this is not an homage, it's an insult.

Totally Confused (1998)

What's Confusing...

[6/10 · 23 November 2004]

First of all, let me say that I admire anyone who can make an independent feature-length film. It takes a lot of hard work and determination. I admire that about TOTALLY CONFUSED. The idea isn't new, but the voice is...or WOULD be, if the story were told more from the point of view of the gay Wiley character, who has a "Woody Allen"-like voice. This would have made for a much more interesting movie than splitting the p.o.v. up between him and Johnny, whose character isn't as strong or interesting.

The film's faults are that it doesn't have a very strong idea of what it wants to be: angst-ridden comedy? relationship drama? sexy coming-of-age character study? The writer-director team should have made a more conscious decision as to what they wanted the film to be about instead of spreading it across the board.

Now we come to the biggest flaw of the film: the writer and the director playing the two leads. If this were strictly a comedy, Gary Rosen would have been fine in his role, but in the dramatic scenes, his efforts fall flat. Greg Pritikin as Johnny has some strong moments, but overall, he does not have the dramatic ability to be convincing or maintain a believable character. Perhaps they were pulling a John Sayles to save money. During the makeout scenes, I couldn't shake the knowledge that it was the director and the writer kissing and rolling around on the bed, and what was that like for them?

Which brings me to another big gripe, one which I've talked about before. MILD SPOILER

I don't know Mr. Pritikin's or Mr. Rosen's sexual orientation, but when you have a scene in a film where a longtime gay desire is about to be realized, the kiss must be PASSIONATE. We're supposed to believe that Wiley is about to kiss his "fantasy man", Johnny (who we're also led to believe is relieving HIS pent-up bisexual urges), and this climactic kiss is a peck on the lips? If you want people to believe your characters are turned on by each other, kiss like they are! And if you don't want to do it, hire good actors who will!

The storyline is left completely unresolved, leading me to believe that this was intended to be a character piece, and stronger actors (like Jackie Katzman as Annie) would have helped. I see that the director has gone on to bigger movies with the likes of Adrien Brody, Illeana Douglas and Ron Leibman, so perhaps he's learned his lesson.

Boys Life 4: Four Play (2003)

1-2-4-3

[10 December 2003]

...in that order, is my rating for these four short films, from best to worst. The stories have been told before, by other reviewers, so I'll just say that "l.t.r." is certainly the most entertaining, with wicked writing and another awesome performance by Weston Mueller (who was in "Crush" on BOYS TO MEN), who has "future star" written all over him. Someone give Phillip J. Bartell a feature! Next, for all it's bad criticisms, I enjoyed "O Beautiful". Easily the best-looking of the bunch, the cinematography made up for the occasional incredulous moment. The two leads were sincere in their approach, and their performances were quite good. The script is what failed them. The split screen technique worked most of the time, but not all. I think the director should have wielded it with a little more finesse, as there were moments when it was too distracting (inside the truck). Then take "This Car Up", which utilizes split-screen in a clever and interesting way with good performances. The biggest fizzle in the bunch was "Bumping Heads" starring Craig Chester, an actor I really like, but who is wasted here. The movie is limp all around with unsteady acting and a script that, well, could have been better.

My overall recommendation is that BOYS LIFE 4 is worth a look for "l.t.r." alone.

Horror (2003)

Fool me once, shame on you...

[3 December 2003]

Fool me twice, shame on me. I watched HORROR without associating the name Dante Tomaselli to that home movie horror film DESECRATION. So as I sat there, falling asleep and wondering if I had laundry to do, it dawned on me that I'd seen this mish-mash of confusing non-plot and "disturbing" imagery before somewhere, then I remembered. I almost turned the movie off right there, but I believe in giving every film I begin a chance to turn around and improve before it ends. No such luck.

Bad acting from C-grade horror celebs and amateurishly directed and edited. From the other posts I've read here, at least Mr. Tomaselli is entertaining his friends, family and colleagues.

Desecration (1999)

What about the story??

[3 December 2003]

DESECRATION, frankly, is a mess of a movie. Lots of imagery that was intended to be disturbing, but it falls far short of the mark. Badly acted with hamhanded lighting, clumsy cinematography and poor production design all add up to a very amateurish-looking film. For example, I saw surprised to see the Kodak film logo on the end credits, as I was convinced the movie was shot on video, then given the Film Look process.

Yes, the movie tries to weird you out by presenting "disturbing" images (none of which disturbed me), but since the story was lacking and what little bit there was, was confusing, there is no tension, no suspense, and without those, disturbing images won't cut it. You don't care about these people, and without empathy for your characters, all the disturbing imagery in the world isn't going to make a difference.

This, as with Dante Tomaselli's second film HORROR, would have made perfect 7-minute student films.

The Secret Cellar (2003 Video)

Okay, but lacks focus

[7 October 2003]

Just watched this on DVD last night. My comments are about the unrated version.

Basically it's a soft-core video like the kind you see on Skinamax, er, Cinemax. It does aim to be something higher than the typical fare, but it only marginally succeeds. Yes, it is darker and more stylishly lit than most of the other skin flicks. Yes, it has fight scenes and a couple of bloody throat slashings, but for a film trying to emulate the 60's psycho-killer genre or even more precisely, the giallo genre, it was missing something: the presence of the killer. The attacks come out of nowhere. Suddenly, a hand is there, the knife flashes, the blood dribbles. There is no presence, no set-up that the killer is nearby or stalking his victims, and without that, there can be no dramatic build-up, no suspense. And the identity of the killer is way too easy to guess. While most people watch these for the girls, I watch them for the guys, and while the guys here are attractive, muscular and occasionally flashing penii or buttocks (which is appreciated), they look way too similar to tell some of them apart.

A good effort. The director is on the right track, but has a ways yet to go. i hope the film is successful enough to give him the opportunity.

Route 666 (2001)

THIS is entertainment???

[15 January 2003]

I eagerly sat down to watch ROUTE 666, as I thought the director's previous work, SCARECROWS, was amazing. What happened??? ROUTE 666 is without a doubt one of the dumbest pieces of work I've ever seen. Rude and offensive, I'm so sick of movies where the "good guys" act worse than the supposed bad guys. Lou Diamond Phillips seems to be making a career out of playing uber-tough cops (BORING!) who don't seem to care about breaking the laws they're supposed to enforce (see "24" and the god-awful FIRST POWER, in which Phillips breaks into a person's house with no search warrant--his partner says, "You can't do that!" and Phillips replies, "I can do anything I want!" Nice hero, huh?). I actually wanted the asphalt zombies to kill the federal marshalls. Too bad they didn't finish the job. And L.D. Phillip's character is outraged at the murder of four psychotic killers, but treats his prisoner (a Mafia witness whose only crime is that he's trying to save his life by not testifying) like crap?

And the strobing effect every time the zombies were on screen has got to be the most irritating visual horror effect since the rapid back-and-forth zooming in MAD DOCTOR OF BLOOD ISLAND. Oh, and shouldn't the jackhammer have made some noise? Those things are capable of blowing out eardrums, but this one sounded like a clicking pen.

Someone out there should apologize for this waste of celluloid.

The Real World Movie: The Lost Season (2002 TV Special)

A Real Yawn

[10 August 2002]

Okay, so MTV is trying to bring back "Fantasy Island". You remember, that show where strangers come to Mr. Rourke's island in search of one thing, but find another and learn about themselves in the process? Well, it was a yawner then, and it's a yawner now.

Boring, often frustrating in its stunted production and worst of all, TERRIBLY acted. Whoever decided to hire Bryan Kirkwood to play Roland should be forced to spend eternity with the TV-movie's screenwriters picking strawberries. I haven't seen this much pretentious overacting since Richard Hillman's disastrous "performance" as Neil in TEENAGE CAVEMAN. Hmmmm...there's a thought: Bryan Kirkwood and Richard Hillman with a copy of "Hamlet" in a steel cage. I think I'll get MTV on the phone...

My Sweet Killer (1999)

A Solid C

[3/10 · 30 November 2001]

It's always tough watching and judging low-budget, independent films. You can tell that the people behind the cameras had a lot of heart and energy going into this film. Unfortunately, it's not enough here. Nicely shot and competently directed, it's the script and the performance of the lead actor that causes the film's shortcomings; and since both come directly from Kirk Harris, it's ultimately with him my problems lie.

The script, detailing the psychological deterioration of an ex-mental patient, is full of cliches: the loner, sympathetic yet brooding with barely-hidden psychosis; the other loner, another outcast from society who's trying to make friends; the gang-bangers/drug dealers/street urchins who harass the lead character; the delusional character who only the lead character can see, who continually spurs him on to commit acts of violence, which he eventually does, and then...the list goes on.

Kirk Harris is best performing this character when he plays him shy and introverted, as he is at the beginning of the film. I can actually believe that he is Charlie, which is the goal of any good method actor. But it's in the moments when Charlie begins to lose control, when the little smile cracks across his face or he tosses his head in disbelief that Charlie disappears and you can see Kirk Harris "acting". And once you see that, the illusion is destroyed, Charlie disappears and Kirk cannot bring him back.

I applaud the efforts of everyone involved. I think, however, that time and future films will help hone their crafts, resulting in better productions.

Teenage Caveman (2002 TV Movie)

Head of Stone

[30 October 2001]

Wow. What a mess. I'm sure someone somewhere got a kick out of hiring the director of KIDS to direct the remake of TEENAGE CAVEMAN.

Awful, awful, awful. The original movie (which is ten times more entertaining than this) dealt with a teenage caveman who is dissatisfied with his life and yearns for more. We discover that instead of prehistoric times, he is actually a post-apocalyptic survivor. The remake reveals this right away, and the "story" begins from there. A group of teenagers living in a primitive tribe are led by Andrew Keegan (what was he thinking?) away from their home and toward the remains of a now-decimated big city where they are rescued by two young people who survived the apocalypse because they had been genetically enhanced by a virus which they want to infect the others with. Why? Because they are both over 100 years old and are bored with each other. They want new playmates. So they decide to spread the virus to them to genetically enhance them as well so they'll be eternal. This can only be done through sexual intercourse. Yawn.

Andrew Keegan (a few pounds heavier since BROKEN HEARTS CLUB) gives a bland heroic performance, and Richard Hillman as the waaaaaay over-the-top male villain should have his SAG card taken away and be slapped repeatedly with it.

It's part of Cinemax's "Creature Features" films (SHE-CREATURE, HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER and EARTH VS. THE SPIDER), so there is a monster at the end, but it's just a lumpy guy and by that time, we don't care anymore. The final scene of this movie will leave you scratching your head or laughing loudly. A slap in the face to the AIP classics.

Red Dirt (2000)

RED DIRT Awfully Muddy

[30 October 2001]

I was eagerly anticipating this movie after seeing clips and info on their web site, but once I watched it, I felt disappointed. This is a movie with no clear direction or vision. While the camerawork was gorgeous, the movie had little else to recommend it. It is slow-paced, which wouldn't be bad if the characters or what they were talking about was interesting.

Walt Goggins as Lee gives the best performance, bringing out the charisma of his character. It is easy to see why Griffith falls in love with him. His performance shifts very subtly as his emotions and motivations change. Well done. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the rest of the cast. Karen Black is dotty Aunt Summer, and she plays her as borderline eccentric/nuts. I know what you're saying, the perfect Karen Black role, but she plays it as a stereotype of herself, if you know what I mean.

The movie reflects the slow-as-molasses lifestyle of the decaying south. Unfortunately, so do most other aspects of the movie. The plots languishes around and goes nowhere. Griffith's love for Lee comes out of nowhere. You get no setup for it at all. He goes from having sex with his cousin to a puppy-dog infatuation with Lee with no explanation. It would have been better to foreshadow his homosexual yearnings beforehand, with Lee showing up to become the object of Griffith's pent-up desires, and perhaps put forth the idea that Griffith is having sex with his cousin either because she's an outlet for him or simply out of boredom.

And here's my biggest pet peeve: you can always tell when straight actors play gay characters...as the song says, "Its in his kiss." I'm supposed to believe that Griffith is finally getting to relieve his repressed homosexuality and desire and love and emotions by giving Lee a short, lips-pressed-together kiss (which is returned in the same manner)?! Where were the open mouths? Where was the climactic love scene? Where was the passion?

Disappointing.

Head On (1998)

HEAD ON is Thumbs Up!

[30 October 2001]

Not much I can add to the above review, except that Alex Dimitriades is amazing in this film! He gives a very honest, very brave performance. Angry about his family, angry about his life, angry about his helplessness, he throws himself into the things that get his mind off his situation: drugs and sex.

I highly recommend this movie, but beware if strong gay sex scenes upset you.

Great Performances: Jesus Christ Superstar (2000) Season 29, Episode 11

New Take on the Greatest Story

[5 June 2001]

I have also been a fan of Norman Jewison's version of JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR and was very curious to see the remake to see if the performances could match those of Ted Neeley, Carl Anderson and Yvonne Elliman. Well, they do and they don't.

I really enjoyed this interpretation, what with the militant attitudes of the apostles, the HELLRAISER-ish high priests and the Darth Vader-nazi romans. This version plays up Simon's desire for Jesus to be the leader of a revolution that will overturn the Roman occupation of Israel. The actions of the high priests are clearly not those of men who merely fear that the Romans will associate Christ's claim of being God with them and thus be punished along with him, but of men who desperately want to remain in power, at all cost.

But most importantly, the relationship between Judas and Jesus (and Mary Magdalene) is really intensified. In the film version, Judas betrays Jesus because he really feels that the Christian movement is out of control, and that Jesus and the apostles have forgotten that this was supposed to be about helping the helpless and bringing people together. Judas feels that Christ is setting himself up as a king and must be stopped. In this new version, that motivation is still there, but takes a backseat to another. As portrayed by the actors, it seems that Judas has a homosexual love for Christ. The relationship between Judas, Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a love triangle. Watch any scene where the three of them are together. Judas and Mary obviously hate each other, but in a "he's my boyfriend", "no--he's mine" sort of way. One almost expects them to break out in a catfight. Jesus acts toward Judas in a "I love you, but not in that way", er, way, and their scenes together are more intense because of Judas's need to love Christ and be loved by him, and Jesus's inability to give Judas the kind of relationship he desires. This subtext takes the whole Jesus-Judas angle to a new level and a very exciting one, at that.

Is it perfect? No. Jerome Praden is the best here with wonderful facial expressions, hitting his emotions on target every time. He acts his heart out as Judas and has a great voice, but hits a few off-key notes. Renee Castle's Mary Magdalene is wonderful to listen to, but she seems ineffectual as a character. Finally, Glenn Carter's Jesus wavers between a pissy messiah and an unsure leader. While his voice is quite good, he sometimes

emphasizes words that put odd meanings to them. For example, when he sings, "There will be poor always/pathetically struggling/look at the good things you've got," he accentuates the word "pathetic", which comes across as derogatory.

Fortunately, it's different enough from the film version and strong enough in its own right that one can enjoy both successes again and again.

The Specials (2000)

Not so Special

[4 May 2001]

THE SPECIALS is one of those films that, if you're a creative person, inspires you...the way mediocrity inspires creativity. The idea of a bunch of lesser-powered superheroes on their downtime is a good one, and one can see that writer James Gunn is a comic book reader, but the movie just doesn't pull off the concept.

The script just isn't funny. James Gunn tries, but fails. The characters are vague and unfocused. It bothers me that he wrote the script for the upcoming SCOOBY-DOO movie. I can see Scooby shouting, "Rhere's ry rucking rooby rack?!" now. The direction is bland and uninteresting. The picture shows it's small budget. The heroes don't use their powers, and this, to me, is the biggest failing. Okay, this isn't an action picture, and it isn't supposed to be. However, if you have superpowers, you are going to use them. If you can't use them against a foe, you're going to use them to change light bulbs or clean the house or have sex. Painting Jamie Kennedy blue isn't enough. I guess they were saving their budget for the final shots of the movie, but unfortunately, too little, too late.

The St. Francisville Experiment (2000)

Blair Witch Meets MTV's Fear

[9 December 2000]

I watched this movie last night on DVD. It's another one of the BLAIR WITCH PROJECT rip-offs with the MTV show "Fear" mixed in. Four attractive actors (no nudity--strike one) pretending to be real people explore a haunted house, each armed with a flashlight and a Sony VX-1000 camcorder.

The history of the house is presented in interviews with no sense of timing, and the "paranormal researchers" have no knowledge of the house's past...although one of them makes several references to these events.

The movie is at its best when little things happen that you aren't sure are ghostly events or not, and everyone gets excited and interacts. But then, the cliches come rolling in (using a leaping, screeching cat to get a jump--strike two) and you just laugh and wonder how anyone is supposed to take this seriously.

The actors don't do a bad job of improvising, since they're basically playing themselves and not characters, with one exception: Madison the "psychic" keeps trying to steal the show. It's as if she has created a storyline where she's the star and keeps trying to make herself the center of attention whenever something happens in the house. As a psychic, she's hopelessly in over her head, spouting wiccan-babble, claiming to know all about ghostly phenomenon, but whenever something happens, she screams then later claims, "I was unprepared to deal with that."

Like BLAIR WITCH, it has the germ of a good idea, even if it is a stolen one, but unlike BLAIR WITCH, there is no suspense, no sympathetic characters, just cliched shocks and jumps with an ending that rips off THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. Three strikes and it's out.